PHIL MICKELSON - CHAMPION GOLFER !

And so it was not to be Westwood's year.

 

After going into the final round of the Open Championship with a 2 shot lead, which was extended to 3 at one point, Lee Westwood's bid for immortality eventually faded away with a string of wayward blows. Tiger Woods challenge never materialised though Ian Poulter made a determined bid from several strokes back, though he also faltered towards the end. Others came and went at the front, including my own choice for the title, Adam Scott, who looked a near certainty before either the course or his nerves, or both, produced several dropped shots in quick succession.

 

At the death it was the American Phil Mickelson who burst out of the pack with a magnificent round of 66 and claimed a title he's always coveted. Mickelson's eventual winning margin of 3 shots was a true reflection of his dominance on a day when few others made a real challenge and most of the round 3 leaders simply fell away. It was his 5th major triumph and he also became the first golfer to win the Scottish Open and The Open in successive weeks. Westwood finished third, alongside Ian Poulter and Adam Scott, 4 shots behind, while the runner-up was the hardly-mentioned Henrik Stenson.

 

Mickelson is one of those sportsmen about whom it's very hard to find anything bad to say. He is always courteous and polite, he smiles a lot with no effort and he truly loves his sport. He also loves his family and is effusive in his thanks to and praise for others; in short Phil Mickelson is a truly great sportsman. If he has one slight drawback, it's that he's American and not British, but he's also such a great gentleman I'm even prepared to forgive him that and cheer him on.

 

Well done, Phil Mickelson, "Winner of the Gold Medal and Champion Golfer for the Year" !

WESTWOOD FLIES THE FLAG AS ROSE, McILROY AND DONALD DISAPPOINT.

As usual, the media built up British expectations to fever pitch prior to the start of the Open Golf Championship, this year being played at the Muirfield course in North Berwick.

 

Would McIlroy regain his form ? Could Rose add 'The Open' to his US Open title ? Might it be time for Donald to win his first major ? In the event, none of these three vaunted players has even survived to play the last 2 rounds, having failed to make the half-way cut. Yet again, the great British media built them up only to see them fall flat.

 

Muirfield has proved to be a very hard test, even though the weather has been beautiful. Warm and sunny, no rain and just a bit of wind, and yet the world's finest golfers have struggled to break par. With 2 rounds completed, Spain's 'old man', Miguel Angel Jimenez, has the lead at three under par, but he's hotly pursued by another 9 players within 3 strokes, including the ominously placed Tiger Woods. Jimenez's immediate pursuers are a mixed bunch, though, including 4 from the US, another Spaniard, a Swede, an Argentinian, a Scot and an Englishman.

 

The Englishman who's emerged as the current leading contender is Lee Westwood, now getting a bit long in the tooth but playing some lovely golf before losing his way a bit over the last 6 holes of round 2. Martin Laird of Scotland is there and looking good while the 2011 winner, Darren Clarke from Northern Ireland, and England's Ian Poulter are only another shot behind. Also close at hand is my tip for the title, Adam Scott, the Australian who missed out narrowly last year and is on one over par.

 

Who will win ?

DRUG CHEATS CAUGHT BY THE DOZEN.

Tyson Gay, Asafa Powell, Sherone Simpson and 3 other Jamaican athletes have been caught using banned substances. A few weeks ago, another Jamaican, Olympic champion Veronica Campbell-Brown, was caught.

 

As usual, there will be protestations of innocence or ignorance; there will be suggestions that "it weren't me, guv, I was let down". As usual, the athletes will be banned for a period of time, probably 2 years, and the ones who are young enough will be back in competition in time for the next Olympic games.

 

How many athletes have to be caught cheating in this way before there is some real action ? Marion Jones, one of the greatest of all female athletes, was a cheat as was her onetime husband, C J Hunter; so were 1988 Olympic 100 metre winner Ben Johnson, our own Dwain Chambers, the 2012 women's shot putt winner, Ostapchuk, our shot putter Carl Myerscough, and dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands, of others. Of course, athletics is not alone and competitors in other sports have been found cheating, notably cycling which has produced the most appalling cheat in sporting history, Lance Armstrong. The testing conducted in football, cricket, rugby, tennis and so on seems to be limited or even non-existent, so how many of the 'great' players in these and other sports are also cheats is unknown; the odds must be that many are.

 

Ever since sport became big business, with competitors being able to accrue vast fortunes from their participation, cheating has prospered. Those who pay stupid amounts of money to watch sporting events are regularly let down by their idols, but they never get their money back; instead, the cheats receive a slap on the wrist and a brief ban from competition before returning to carry on where they left off.

 

Gay, Powell and the others who've been caught recently have disgraced themselves and brought their sport into disrepute. Ban them for good, strip them of all of their medals and awards and erase their performances from the record books; that's the only way to deal with them.

STUART BROAD DID NOTHING WRONG, THOUGH IT STINKS.

The controversy over whether or not Stuart Broad should have 'walked' yesterday really is an argument between old morals and new. In days gone by, cricket was a game played for pleasure and entertainment with money playing little part. Indeed, until the early 1960s, English cricket maintained a distinction between amateurs and professionals, those who played for fun and those who played for cash.

 

No amateur would have been likely to have stood his ground waiting for the umpire's decision, as Broad did; if he had so obviously hit the ball and been caught, he would have 'walked'. Professionals, on the other hand, may not have been quite so quick to surrender their wickets, a move which could well have affected their earnings. There is no doubt that the great W G Grace, who was nominally an amateur but also made substantial money from cricket, probably never volunteered his wicket and, if I remember correctly, Sir Donald Bradman always left it to the umpire to decide his fate. More recently, Geoffrey Boycott was very clear that he would abide by the umpire's decisions, good or bad and was not in the habit of helping them out in times of doubt.

 

In an age when the main sport of this country, football, is riddled with cheating of every possible sort, it is hypocritical to criticise Broad for his actions. 'Yes', he clearly edged the ball and 'yes' it was caught, but the umpire made a mistake and said 'not out'; Broad was wholly within his rights to stand his ground and if anyone is to be criticised, it is the umpire.

 

I don't like this scenario but it is the one we have to accept; the world in which gentlemen played sports in an honourable way and within the 'spirit of the game' is long gone, at least in football and cricket. There is so much money involved in these sports that honour can no longer exist. Given this state of affairs, I'm at a loss to understand why cricket umpires are not empowered, as are the officials in rugby union, to call for a televisual review whenever there is doubt about a decision, rather than being restrained by the system of allowing a small number of 'reviews' to each side. Rugby officials are not reduced in power by their system, in fact their positions are substantially enhanced; why does not cricket do the same ?

 

Stuart Broad's action leaves a bit of a sour taste but he did nothing wrong, given the ways of today. If cricket authorities or supporters don't like it, then they must look to change the rules and introduce more help for umpires; until they do, things are as they are.

BRILLIANT LIONS ROAR - WALLABIES ARE EATEN ALIVE !

The third and deciding test of the Lions' series against Australia was so different from the first two as to be almost unrecognizable as part of the same series.

 

In the earlier encounters, the Lions had been unable to exert any real dominance and it was the Wallabies who proved to be the stronger side in both, though still managing to lose the first match most narrowly. Tries were at a premium and these 2 games were closely fought but not full of free-flowing rugby.

 

The third test, on the other hand, was more open and showed the Lions to be a side of much greater ability. The early exchanges saw a try for Corbisiero, almost before the game had started, and a few kicks for Halfpenny which allowed the visitors to build up an impressive 16-3 lead while the Wallabies seemed to be at a loss as to how to deal with a rampaging Lions' scrum. The Lions then stumbled and let the home side back in to the extent that the gap was reduced to 19-16; for a few minutes, things were in the balance.

 

Halfpenny, again, came to the rescue with another penalty kick, and then it was over to the backs. Suddenly, Sexton was over for a try, then North and finally Roberts, and it was 41-16 as the Lions broke free and ran riot. The Wallabies simply had no answer and, although they never gave up, this final match of the series was a revelation; the Lions' victory was not only comprehensive, it was the result of an all-round dominance that was not even thought possible after the first 2 games. Man of the Match, Series and everything else was the irrepressible Leigh Halfpenny, who seemed to be everywhere all of the time and contributed just over half of the Lions' points with his almost faultless kicking while also making Sexton's try for him.

 

Despite controversy over his selection for the match, coach Warren Gatland came up with the goods and the first Lions' series victory since 1997. He's already said that he'd consider leading the next tour, to New Zealand, in 2017; if it was up to me, I'd have him signed up already !

ANDY MURRAY - WIMBLEDON CHAMPION !!

This may not have been the best Wimbledon final ever, but it was surely the most brutal. It may not have been the most dramatic, but it certainly was the most historic. After 77 years, Andy Murray won a title last won by a Briton in 1936 and in sensational style.

 

Seeded to meet in the final, Novak Djokovic and Murray duly obliged. Djokovic, the world number 1 and generally acknowledged to be the best male player around today, was probably a very narrow favourite but, when it comes to such occasions, being the bookies favourite often counts for nothing.

 

Experts seemed unanimous in their view that the match would go the distance and a point here and there would decide it. In the end, the match lasted only 3 sets but almost 3¼ hours as these two titans of tennis slugged it out. Sometimes the tennis reached previously unexplored heights and sometimes it was almost down to earth; sometimes the momentum swung one way and sometimes it swung the other. Even when Murray had 3 match points on his final service game, Djokovic refused to surrender, brought the score back to deuce and threatened to spoil the party by getting close to breaking serve. In the end, the gracious and noble Serb simply couldn't withstand Murray and the tidal wave of support behind him.

 

No one thought this would end with such an apparently comfortable score, but 6-4, 7-5, 6-4 simply doesn't tell the story. For once, the British summer arrived at the right time and temperatures on court soared into the 80s and beyond. The expectation on Murray was immense and must have added enormously to the pressure, but Djokovic had to cope with a hugely partisan crowd, so perhaps these factors cancelled out. The result was a gruelling match of long points and long games, won by the man who turned out to be the best on the day and who had the inspirational assistance of Ivan Lendl behind him.

 

Andy Murray, Wimbledon Champion !!

 

ROBSON OUT; MURRAY CAN STILL WIN TITLE.

As Wimbledon draws to its dramatic conclusion, British interest in the main events has been reduced to just the one hope - Andy Murray - again.

 

On Monday, Laura Robson tried hard but really wasn't at her best against a good and much more experienced opponent, Kaia Kanepi. Kanepi is a superstar in her homeland, Estonia, and was good value for the win, which brought her up against a much tougher nut in Sabine Lisicki who'd achieved the unthinkable in knocking the champion, No 1 seed and hot favourite out. If anyone had suggested that Serena Williams wouldn't be in the final, they'd have been laughed off court, but Lisicki just got on with her job and won the day. Against Kanepi, it was an easier story as the hard hitting German had little trouble in setting up a semi-final meeting with  last year's beaten finalist Agnieska Radwanska. Radwanska came through a gruelling match against China's Na Li and the semi will be a fascinating match between players of wholly contrasting styles.

 

In the other half of the draw, Marion Bartoli came through relatively comfortably against the young American, Sloane Stephens, and will now play the real surprise package of the Ladies' tournament, Kirsten Flipkens of Belgium. Flipkens, after losing the first set against the 2011 champion, Petra Kvitova, won the next 2 in dramatic style to reach her first Grand Slam semi-final at the age of 27. Not only is Flipkens tiny compared with most of the other leading players, but she also suffered life threatening illness last year and wasn't even ranked highly enough to enter the qualifying tournament for Wimbledon in 2012. For what it's worth, my money would be on a Lisicki-Flipkens final, but I'm not exactly confident !

 

In the men's event, the 4th round and quarter final results were much as expected. The top half of the draw has boiled down to Djokovic against Del Potro, the latter having defeated both injury and David Ferrer to get there. Although Ferrer was the higher ranked player, Del Potro's size, power and greater  suitability to a grass court must have made him favourite in this match anyway. In the other half most of the seeds had already gone and it was left to Murray to overcome Mikhail Youzhny, while Jerzy Janowicz had no seeds left to defeat but did take 5 sets to beat Jurgen Melzer.

 

Yesterday's quarter finals were between Murray and Fernando Verdasco, and an all-Polish match between Janowicz and Lukas Kubot. While Janowicz despatched his compatriot in straight sets, Murray had an almighty struggle, going 2 sets down before clawing his way back to win in 5. Rather like Flipkens, Verdasco has had a bad time over the last year or so, but he was once a top-10 ranked player, and it showed; Murray may have been a bit 'out-of-sorts' but Verdasco was well worth his 2 set lead and, in the end, it probably came down to a matter of nerve as Murray served out for the match at 7-5 in the 5th set.

 

As in the Ladies' tournament, the semi-finals will be fascinating. World no. 1 Djokovic against the huge Argentinian Del Potro - Djokovic has to be favourite but Del Potro did win when they met in the Olympics and on the same court. Murray should beat Janowicz but he had a very hard match yesterday. A Murray-Djokovic final has to be favourite, but who knows ?