WIGGINS, BUTTON, ELS AND AMLA MAKE SPORTING HEADLINES.

Yesterday threw up several sports stories, some expected and some surprising.

On the expected front, Bradley Wiggins finally won the Tour de France cycle race some 10 days after the British media had first started celebrating. That they'd already written and spoken so much about what might happen had an inevitable effect on the reporting of his eventual victory, which became something of an anti-climax. In fact, the media seems to have switched its focus to what Wiggins and his colleagues may do in the Olympic cycling events, already hanging an assortment of medals around their necks.

Less expected was the second place achieved by Jensen Button in the German Formula 1 Grand Prix at Hockenheim. The race was won by current championship leader Fernando Alonso, who led from start to finish, but Button finally found some performance in his car and moved up from 6th at the start to challenge Alonso for the lead, before falling back somewhat in the last few laps. Nonetheless, his improved placing was a welcome improvement from recent performances.

Definitely unexpected was the victory of Ernie Els in the Open Golf Championship. After the first 2 rounds and American, Brandt Snedeker, had a 4 shot lead over the field and most commentators rather assumed that Tiger Woods was the man who would be his main challenger. With the British and Irish contingent finding little inspiration, although Graham MacDowell and Luke Donald ended up in the top 10, it was initially Australian Adam Scott who challenged and then passed Snedeker as the American suffered a series of disasters. Scott actually gained a lead of up to 5 shots and was still 4 ahead with only 4 holes of the final round left, when his own form deserted him and he bogeyed all 4. At the same time, Ernie Els, a man who most thought passed his best, had birdied the last and was left to watch as Scott missed a shortish putt on the last hole to hand him the title. This was a populr win for the big South African who has always demonstrated a quiet and polite demeanour, win or lose. This contrasts with the scowling of Tiger Woods who, though finishing joint 3rd, never really threatened the leaders after the end of round 2.

Unexpected by the media but perhaps not really unexpected by cricket watchers was the catastrophic performance by England's team at the Oval. After the home side had struggled to a reasonable 1st innings score of 385, the South Africans simply overwhelmed England's bowlers. A not out triple century from the bearded Hashim Amla, the first by a South African in Tests, and other big centuries from Graeme Smith and Jacques Kallis helped the visitors to amass a massive 637-2, before then reducing England to the brink of defeat at 102-4 by the close of this 4th day's play. England's position at the top of the world rankings and their putative title of the world's best side now hang by a thread as the South Africans close in for the kill today.

AN OPEN 'OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP'.

With the start of the 141st Open Championship at Royal Lytham, 'home player' mania is under way again. However, unlike tennis, in golf the home nations do have real hope of success, with many of the world's top players hailing from these islands.

Not that many years ago golf was a sport utterly dominated by the Americans with truly great names such as Nicklaus and Watson being the men to beat in every 'Major'. More recently, Woods and Mickelson have been serious powers in the games, but with an assortment of others, such as Els and Goosen, as challengers. Along the way we had the genius of Ballasteros but British and Irish winners were generally notable for their absence after Tony Jacklin's exploits of 1969 and 1970; only Nick Faldo made real inroads into golfing history although Ian Woosnam and Sandy Lyle did have their moments. 

Remarkably, as American superiority has faded, the British and Irish have come to the fore once more. For many years, Colin Montgomery promised more than he delivered and in 1998 it looked as though a new star had been born in the shape of the then amateur, Justin Rose, who finished 4th in the Open at the age of 17, but major success has so far eluded him; the following year had Paul Lawrie handed the Open by the insane actions of Jean van der Velde, but this also proved to be a flash in the pan. Finally, in 2007, Padraig Harrington, a southern Irishman but one who is easily adopted by all inhabitants of the British Isles, won the Open and followed it up by retaining his prize in 2008 and adding the US PGA for good measure. Since then Graeme McDowell, Rory McIlry and Darren Clarke have all won Majors, while the prestige of being World Number 1 ahs been a battle fought out mostly between Luke Donald, Lee Westwood and McIlroy. Added to this list of top players, we've now got Justin Rose and Paul Lawrie reappearing as contenders, Paul Casy, Ian Poulter, and one or two more who all have realistic chances of challenging for Major honours.

Who will win this year's Open Championship is, of course, anyone's guess and the tournament does have a habit of throwing up a surprise champion. Nonetheless, several home players have a genuine chance although they will all have to be wary of the egregious Tiger Woods.

KING ROGER IS MURRAY'S NIGHTMARE.

After all the media frenzy surrounding Andy Murray's historic appearance in the Wimbledon Mens' Singles' Final, reality was restored yesterday when Roger Federer put the upstart Scot in his place. Britain's wait for a Wimbledon singles' winner goes on.

To be fair, Murray played well and provided more of a test for Federer than I'd expected. The first set began with a Murray break of serve, quickly neutralized by Federer, but it was Murray who surprisingly broke again to win the set, even though he'd struggled mightily to hold his own serve on more than occasion. The second set was more of the same, with both experiencing difficulty holding serve at times, though perhaps Murray had a slight advantage; this time, however, it was Federer who finally broke, surprisingly, to take the set and square the match. From there on the 6-time champion began to exert greater influence and Murray visibly started to wilt under the extreme pressure, not just of the match but of thwarted ambitions.

In the end, Federer took the third and fourth sets with a single break in each and showed just why he is such a great champion. Murray, for the first time in my experience, actually showed character and personality in the post-match torture inflicted by Sue Barker of the BBC. Clearly devastated by his loss, he fought back the tears and made a brief speech full of emotion and even with a little humour; for once, he came across as a real person. Strangely, Federer's after-match comments were relatively low-key though, as always perfectly structured; he was, perhaps, also overcome by the emotions of the day.

Murray played well, very well at times and, as Federer said at the end, he surely will win a Grand Slam before long. He was closer this time than in any of his previous final appearances, he has the weapons and needs only to truly believe.

Federer is, without doubt, the greatest male tennis player in the history of the game. His achievement in beating back the years and winning a seventh Wimbledon crown at the age of 30 is astonishing; his career record of winning 17 Grand Slam events and reaching 24 finals is unparalleled. Following his victory, Federer also returns to the number 1 position in the World rankings, overtaking the 2 men who seemed to have eclipsed him over the last 2 or 3 years, Nadal and Djokovic; he has now spent more time at the top of the rankings than anyone else, overtaking the record of the great Pete Sampras. There seems little more for this genius of the game to achieve and yet his appetite for further success remains undimmed.

Roll on the US Open !

MURRAY TO WIN 5TH WIMBLEDON TITLE IN 2016 !

It really is no surprise that British sportsmen and sportswomen often have such poor records of success when one sees and hears today's news. Far from being full of actual news, the media is obsessed with stories about what might happen at Wimbledon this afternoon.

On Friday, Andy Murray won his semi-final match and became the first Briton to reach the mens' singles final since 1938. In true nationalistic style, I've heard Alex Salmond refer to him being the first Scot for 116 years to be in this position, which really puts this idiot's attitude in perspective. Nonetheless, Murray's achievement on Friday was 'news' and was duly reported in Saturday's newspapers and other media.

So far today, there is no news about this story. Having cameras following Murray around and listening to anyone and everyone talking about whether or not Murray 'can' win or 'will' win is not news; it is a pointless exercise in space-filling. It is also adding to the already considerable pressure and weight of expectation on Murray's shoulders and must make success less, rather than more, likely.

Murray is far from being alone is receiving this ridiculous level of attention from the media. Our golfers are routinely built up prior to the major championships and we will no doubt be told very soon what a great chance there is that Rory McIlroy, Lee Westwood, Luke Donald and the rest will win the Open at Lytham later this month. Our football, rugby and cricket teams always have unrealistic expectations placed upon them and I fear for all of those Britons who are taking part in this year's Olympic Games; listening to the media, we will head the medals table, Mo Farah will win double gold, Jess Ennis will be the darling of the Games, our cyclists will sweep the board as will our rowers and sailers, etc., etc.

Why can't the media wait until medals and other prizes have actually been won, before counting our successes ? The additional pressure placed on our competitors is bound to be a hindrance rather than a help and the constant round of interviews full of banal and inane questions about how they are feeling and what they think of their chances must surely be an appalling annoyance and a potential embarrassment.

If Andy Murray wins at Wimbledon today, that will be news. If Roger Federer wins, that will also be news. While neither has yet walked onto court, let alone played a point, there is no news.

IT'S FEDERER OR MURRAY !

Well, well, well !!!!

For the first time in 74 years there will be a British man in the final of the Wimbledon Mens' Singles Championship. Somehow, Andy Murray has made it through, beating Jo-Wilfred Tsonga in the second of today's semi-finals.

In truth, Tsonga seemed to be all at sea in the first 2 sets and Murray gained a 2 set lead in little more than an hour; it was only then that the Frenchman woke up and the match became a more equal affair. Murray actually had a poor spell at the start of the third set which Tsonga won, and the fourth set was tightly fought until Tsonga lost his serve at the death and Murray was into the final. This was not the best of matches but then it was a semi-final, which must have caused plenty of nerves for both players. 

Despite his historic achievement, Murray's after match interview was every bit as dull and boring as usual. He claimed to be excited while speaking in his normal monotone and showing no actual emotion at all; his comments were his usual inanities, though to be fair the questions were the usual inane ones too, while he continues with his annoying habit of repeatedly stroking his hand over his hair and round his neck - anyone would think that the boy had fleas. While his tennis achievements can't be denigrated, I really do wish this young man would gain a personality.

In the final, Murray will meet the rather unexpected winner of the other semi-final. Most people probably thought that the defending champion, Novak Djokovic, would win this one but, in the end, it was 6-time champion Roger Federer who proved the stronger of these two titans. The Swiss superstar started like a train and raced to the first set with barely a false stroke; the second set was a virtual mirror image, with Djokovic gaining an early break to eventually level the match. The third set saw the best and most closely fought tennis of the match, with Federer finally prevailing after some superb play, and Djokovic then seemed to lose some of his zip as the match moved towards its end. The Serb conceded a break early in the fourth set and was never able to get back on terms, in fact he looked more in danger of losing his service again. Federer's ultimate victory, which sees him get a place in a record eighth Wimbledon mens' final, was thoroughly well deserved and his post-match interview was a total contrast to that of Murray. Federer actually smiled and talked with some animation; the man is genuinely excited about being in another final and it showed.

Federer versus Murray; which way will it go ? Federer has been, quite possibly, the greatest man ever to wield a tennis racket, but he is now a year or 3 passed his best. Murray is a fighter who wears his heart on his sleeve; he is undoubtedly a very good player, but he is not a great one. If both play as they have done so far in this tournament, Federer will win. If Federer is not quite at his best, Murray may squeak through. 

Ya' pays ya' money and makes ya' choice. 

MURRAY STILL ON COURSE.

So, Andy Murray has scraped into the semi-final of Wimbledon.

How he actually made it through is a bit of a mystery as his general demeanour for most of the match was downbeat and his style of play seemed to almost hand points to his opponent, the 'duracell-bunnie' that is otherwise known as David Ferrer. For a set and a half, Murray was outplayed, standing far too deep and surrendering too much of the court and most of the attacking options to his opponent. Nonetheless, the first set only went to Ferrer on a tie break, as did the second, only with the opposite outcome. From this point on, Murray slowly began to take a greater share of the play and was eventually a worthy, if laboured, winner. It still took a fourth set tie-break, though.

Murray's semi-final opponent will be the hard-hitting Frenchman Jo-Wilfred Tsonga, who will be a very different proposition from Ferrer. Whatever the result, Tsonga will certainly get a better reception from the Wimbledon crowd than did Murray from the spectators at Roland Garros when he was beating Tsonga'a French compatriot, Richard Gasquet; Wimbledon crowds don't 'Boo !' anyone for simply playing well.

Will Murray be the first Briton to reach the men's singles' final since 1938 when Bunny Austin was one of the 4 Grand Slam victims for Donald Budge that year ? Or will he even go one better and become our first men's champion since Fred Perry won the last of his three successive titles in 1936 ?

Jo-Wilfred Tsonga, and then either Novak Djokovic or Roger Federer stand between Murray and tennis history. Might we have a Diamond Jubilee winner ?

SPAIN REALLY ARE THE BEST

I am no football expert or even afficionado. My interest primarily centres on the performances of the team my family has supported for more than 70 years, Tottenham, and England when they play in major championships.

The European championships, just completed, have confirmed that England are a poor side with very little to offer on a European, let alone a world, stage. Their players lack basic technical skills and demonstrate very little in the way of team awareness. In contrast, Spain have it all; their utter destruction of Italy in tonight's final match was astonishing. The brilliance of some of the Spanish play could only be marvelled at and the final scoreline - 4-0 - was a true representation of the difference between the 2 teams.

Compared with Spain, England really are no where.

WIMBLEDON : THE REAL WORK BEGINS NOW.

The first week is over and it is, indeed, a usual British Wimbledon. Although it was in some respects marginally more successful than most years, only one British player, Andy Murray, will be appearing in the singles competitions in the second week.

Of our other male competitors, Jamie Ward gave a decent account of himself before going down to defeat at the hands of the tenth seed, Mardy Fish, but none of the others made it passed the first round. Our women fared slightly better with Anne Keothavong, and Elena Baltacha getting into the second round and Heather Watson becoming the first Britsh woman to reach the third round for a decade. Sadly, all 3 were eventually dumped out unceremoniously and with no regard for their 'home team' credentials. Baltacha was no match for number 4 seed and current champion, Petra Kvitova, Keothavong went out to French Open finalist Sara Errani, and Watson was blown away by the third seed, Agnieszka Radwanska.

Baltacha and Keothavong are now both nearer to the ends of their careers than the beginnings; both will be 29 later this year and seem unlikely to improve further. Watson, on the other hand, is a mere 20 and seems to have the makings of a decent player. Despite her thumping by Radwanska, her showings in the first 2 rounds provided real hope that she will progress further in subsequent years and, together with 18 year old Laura Robson, might even get in amongst the world's better players in a year or 2.

For the rest, the men's tournament now looks like a straight fight between Djokovic and Federer in the top half of the draw, all the other top-16 seeds in this half having been eliminated. In the bottom half life has been made more complicated by the dramatic defeat of Rafael Nadal and any of several could yet come through. While Murray is the home favourite, he will first have to deal with Marin Cilic, followed by either David Ferrer or Juan Martin Del Potro, either of whom could easily prove a step to far. If he does make it passed this formidable array, his probable semi-final opponent will be Jo-Wilfred Tsonga, though Mardy Fish could still get in his way. It's perm any 1 from 6 here.

In the women's event, it's hard to see passed Sharapova and Radwanska in the top half of the draw, while the bottom half seems to be heading for a Serena or Kvitova versus Azarenka semi-final. Who will eventually lift the title is anyone's guess.

WIMBLEDON JOBSWORTHS DEVALUE MURRAY VICTORY

I don't expect many people, if any, to agree with me but last night's events at Wimbledon have left me appalled.

Beginning their match at around 7:45 in the evening, Andy Murray and Marcos Baghdatis would have expected a late finish courtesy of the now famous 'Wimbledon roof'. Murray always looked out of sorts but had somehow managed to keep the match all-square when the time came to call a temporary halt for the roof-closing ceremony. When the players emerged for a second time, it was passed half past nine and the match was at 1 set all - at least 2 more full sets needed, quite possibly 3.

At this point, some Wimbledon 'jobsworth' let it be known that, whatever the state of the match, play would not continue beyond 11:00 pm. 'Why ?' was never satisfactorily explained, although the commentators frequently made reference to that bane of our lives 'Health and safety'. How there could have been 'health and safety' issues involved in determining this cut-off time remains a mystery.

The third set, clearly a very important one for both players, lasted almost an hour until Murray finally claimed it, but by now it was 10:35 and even fitting in one more set in the time allowed looked problematic. Neither player wanted to have to return on Monday to finish the match as this would, apparently, have led to a knock-on effect with later matches.

While Murray began to race around like a demented chicken, Baghdatis clearly came to the conclusion that a quick and decisive fourth set was to everyones' advantage; his demeanour changed and he clearly felt under pressure to rush through the set as well. The result was an unseemly race to get games finished, with Baghdatis completely losing his way as the clock ticked towards the 11:00pm deadline. In the end, the umpire allowed one game to be played after this time, a game that Murray won in seconds as his opponent made nothing more than token efforts to provide any challenge.

At the end, the crowd cheered wildly; their man had won and they seemed oblivious to the way in which the victory had ben achieved. The last set took little more than 25 minutes, with Baghdatis clearly disadvantaged by the manic haste with which it was played. For myself, I felt that the ludicrous action of the Wimbledon authorities ruined the match and seriously devalued Murray's triumph.

Having spent many millions on the roof in the first place, why on earth should they introduce this arbitrary deadline on playing time ? They had the ability to allow last night's match to be played to a proper finish, which may well have resulted in a victory for Baghdatis, but they chose not to do so. The ridiculous notion that there would have been health and saftey concerns if play had been allowed to continue simply makes no sense. No one had forced the crowd to be there and they were perfectly able to work out, for themselves, how they would all get home. Pubs, clubs and theatres have no such worries, so why does Wimbledon ? Snooker and boxing regularly go on well after this time; what is so different about tennis ?

Yet again, this country has been made to look ridiculous by the imposition of pointless and arbitrary rules. This time, a tennis match was ruined; what will it be next time ?