Bigger than Federer, Bolt, Phelps, Nadal? GET REAL!

The BCCI (Board Of Cricket Control In India) has finally embarrassed and humiliated the nation as a whole. Being a sports lover and enthusiast, it disgusts me at the way the BCCI is handling the WADA(World Anti Doping Agency)issue. To date 571 organisations from 191 countries have signed up for the code. Add to this list are representatives of every Test playing nation and also the federation of internation cricketers. So who do the BCCI think they are? powerful because the have money to flaunt. Apart from India and a few other cricket playing nations( I think I can count them on my fingertips) who knows who Indian cricketers are? The BCCI and the Indian cricketers have shown their ignorance and uneducated background by declining to sign the code and also raised issues.Indian cricketers are worried about the 'whereabout clause' due to security concerns. Are they GODS to the world? "Superstars" like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps have signed the code. FIFA, though they have some concerns, have signed the code. So who are these minuscule sportspersons known otherwise as 'demi-gods' in Indian cricket to stand firm and show their arrogance and ignorance? Do they think they're bigger than Bolt, Federer, Phelps? Id rather not answer that, the way they are acting and commenting on the issue, to face further embarrassment. Indian sport stars such as Bhupathi, Mirza and Bindra have also signed the code and have urged the cricketers to sign. Seems like just because the BCCI and the players haven't played cricket for a while, they are missing the media attention they are so usually showered with.
Cricketers from around the world have been recently trying to get the game to the Olympics but one of the pre requisites is the signing of the code.India boasts of a paltry 17 olympic medals in 88 years of competition which shows why they are not familiar with anti doping rules. The Board who is suppose to be educating the players seem to be more ignorant and have taken a stand behind the players.Indian cricket stars have to realise they are a MINORITY in the world of sport and can easily be banned from international competition if they fail to sign the code within the stipulated deadline. I'll just end with a comment from so called Indian star Harbhajan Singh and his comment to the where about clause "If I go somewhere like buying vegetable and at that time WADA needs my sample then it will become my fault and repetition of the same for more than three times will make me a defaulter," he wondered.Ignorance or a global sports superstar.

T20 Tests!!!!! You've Got To Be Kidding

When I first came across the thought of T20 Tests,I really couldn't believe it, let alone getting down to understanding the reason behind it.As the ICC debates on ways to save test cricket from the new T20 format, this new idea of T20 tests is slowly taking shape. One of the reasons given is that top players who fail in the T20 will be given another chance in the second innings. What nonsense is that! If one fails, one fails too bad and you wait for the next game. That is the beauty of T20 cricket. Spare a thought for the bowlers as well who take a tremendous beating in the T20 format.They work hard to get a wicket only to realise that they have to do it all over again.
If it does come into existence, what would be the difference between an ODI (50 overs a side) and a T20( 40 overs a side). The reason why T20 has attracted the crowds is largely because of the short time involved in watching the game. Crowds are more at T20 games rather than ODI games. The income generated from a test match over a period of five days would surely be equivalent to that of an ODI.
On the recently concluded first test of the Ashes series in Cardiff, can anyone really say that Test Cricket is boring!!!!!!!How many people watching it, regardless of where they were, had any nails left to bite? Or does one need to be reminded of the 2005 Ashes series? Its not only the Ashes but so many tests in between that have left crowds excited and amused.
Test Cricket is the true format which brings out a players abilities. Fitness, Endurance, Game sense, Strategy, Technique and to somewhat innovation. 'TEST' the term says it all. Almost any Tom, Dick and Harry can play the T20 format of the game, but of course only the best excel at it. One must be out of their minds to replace test cricket with T20 Tests. Cricket would lose its charm altogether and would also lose its status as a 'true sport' which is enhanced by a players ability to play test cricket. So many cricketers play ODI'S and T20's but very few (the best of the best) get a TEST call up. Becoming a test call up indicates that one has reached a certain level of cricket and can be called a 'cricketer'. Take Yuvraj Singh and Shahid Afridi, for example.Both have already become legends at the T20 format but have had little success on the big stage. Big stage does not mean where one draws entertainment and dancers but in the true format of cricket,which is Test cricket.
Cricket is called the gentlemans game' which also involves an intense test of the mind. So let us stick to it and keep Test cricket and not let it be taken over by semi clad dancers and the corporate world (IPL). If one really needs to introduce T20 tests, do it at the cost of ODIS. For in my mind I see no difference between a T20 test and an ODI. Similar scores will be posted and the time taken would also be the sane.LET TEST CRICKET BE.

Stop Clowning Around City

Manchester City need to start realizing that money is not the only thing that snares the top players in the world. With a decent squad last year that included the likes of Bellamy, Robinho, Ireland, Wright Phillips, Richards, Bridge, Elano, De jong etc, they should have at least qualified for Europe to at least make some sort of mark for the transfer market.When you think about of the top players and what they look for in their careers, it comes down to playing the highest level of football, which translates to European championships. Champions League first and then the UEFA CUP. Manchester City could not even qualify for the UEFA cup last season, finishing 10th in the league, behind the likes of Fulham and Tottenham(who seemed to have a dreadful season).So why would top players move to a club like that.They only seem to demure the status of the club by having so many transfer bids rejected which indirectly reflects badly on the club as no one would like to go there.When you think of their transfer targets they have this season (Terry, Eto'o, Kaka, Trezeguet, etc), do you think they would actually miss playing in the Champions League. What City need to do is target the next level of players who I'm sure would certainly sign for them and aim for a Champions League or UEFA cup spot.Gareth Barry and Santa Cruz though priced slightly higher than expected are such players who could take them there. Tevez,if he does indeed sign would be a bonus for them.Once they reach the status of European Soccer, they will then be able to bid for the big players. I'm sure manager Mark Hughes has no say in this transfer madness and is merely a puppet in the City game who will be on his way out soon, once they fail to deliver. The management has been obsessed by the amount of money they have and are not thinking practically according to what they the team really needs. Its about time someone told them that they are merely clowns of the transfer market and also the laughing stock by the big top players who wouldn't like missing out on Champions League and also move according to the status of the club. City does not cut it. Money does not build the status of a club, trophies and level of soccer do, and Manchester City is nothing but a rich club.They need to wake up and think with their heads rather than with their pockets.

1947 Worrell was 'Cheered'-2009 West Indies are 'jeered'

Being an avid and keen follower and supporter of West Indian cricket, it has been extremely disheartening to see the state of West Indian cricket and the team selected to play the first test in the current series against Bangladesh. Many have jeered and blamed the West Indian players for boycotting the test due to unresolved contract issues with the WICB. Some say, they are the nations pride and have no right to go against their country and let them down by not playing. After all there is a great deal of pride involved in wearing the country's colours.However, all said and done, and I do agree to a certain that they are ambassadors of their country and need to behave in a dignified and respectable manner, but one must not forget that THIS IS THEIR LIVELIHOOD. Many cricketers don't have anything to fall back on if things somehow go wrong.This is their job and in a time of recession everyone feels the pinch. They are not even asking for a raise in wages but are merely asking to be paid for previously played series. In 1947, when Sir Frank Worrell boycotted the series against England demanding higher wages he was given a good reception for the cause and cheered and supported on. That was for higher wages.
Which brings me to the debate on right and wrong and also the battle between the WICB and the WIPA(West Indies Players Association) which is led by Dinanath Ramnarine. Firstly one needs to look at what exactly are contracts and how they work. As cricketers are getting more enlightened on the amounts of money 'they' are earning for their boards, most teams moved to the contract system, which stipulates the players would get a certain amount of income a year regardless of injury or a drop in form.I personally feel this is absolutely fair because why should the board members reap all the sponsorship benefits when its the players sweating it out.India, Kenya, Zimbabwe have also faced contract related issues (not strange when u think of the rate of corruption in these countries).
Coming back to the issue, the West Indian players have played five series without contracts. The issue dates as far back as 2004, when the WIPA asked its players not to sign letters from the board for the Australian tour-citing that the board was exploiting players for commercial purposes. A battle between Digicel and Cable&Wireless ensued. Digicel then signed a $20 million contract to become the official sponsor of the test and ODI teams. Two months prior to that C&W became an official sponsor for the 2007 World Cup bring on boards Brian Lara, added Ramnaresh Sarwan, Chris Gayle, Dwayne Bravo, Omari Banks, Fidel Edwards, Ravi Rampaul and Dwayne Smith as individual endorsements. In March 2005,a 22 man squad was announced for a test series against SA and Pakistan but the 7 players associated with C&W were left out. In June the board invited 13 players to sign contracts and make themselves available for the tour to Sri Lanka, while it battled with the WIPA over the contentious Clause 5 - that covered players' individual endorsements and central team sponsorships. Only three of those 13 signed the contracts. The following month WICB picked a second-string squad just a day after it seemed it would reach a temporary agreement with the WIPA.
Many issues have arisen since then and threatens of boycotts have always been thwarted at the last instant with the board promising to look into the matter seriously and pay them their dues, but the moment a series is over, its all back to square one. Its hight time the players took a solid stand and went head strong against an ineffective and inefficient board. Panel and court rulings have favoured the players in the past, yet the Board always seems to find a way out. West Indian cricket has always been an exciting prospect with hard hitters and fast bowlers and seem to be enjoyed by the world, but given the current situation one mite not see them excel, let alone see them on the field. It is high time Corruption and Bureaucracy is removed from the game and the 'Gentleman's' game be played as it should be. Id just like to end by asking you, how would you feel if you played five series worth millions in sponsorships, and you get nothing but people sitting on their backsides share the loot?

The Trouble With Real Madrid Is.......

.....that ever since they have gone into buying players of superstar status since 2000-01, the extension of the trophy cabinet has been minimised on a large scale.The last time Real Madrid won the Champions League title was way back in 2001-02 season, with then recently acquired superstars, Luis Figo(2001-37 mil pounds) (and the then)(2000-44 mil pounds),most expensive transfer, Zidane. Previously, they had won the Champions League in 1999-00 and also the 1997-98 title. They seemed unstoppable, but then came the mistake of buying everyone they thought was Big in the game of soccer and never won again.Spending exorbitant sums of money-Ronaldo(29 Mil. Pounds 2002), David Beckham(25 Mil. Pounds 2003).They also raked in other superstars from all over the globe, being the 'galacticos' that they are. Nistelrooy, Samuel, Robben, Heinze, Cannavaro all found their way into the Madrid squad. The thing, I personally feel, is that they bought all these players after they had reached their peaks.They were all signed based on their performances over the previous year which was safe to say that was when they actually peaked in their soccer careers. Brazilian, Ronaldo, reached his superstar status during his stint at Inter Milan and was unable to produce those scintillating runs, due to injury and personal issues once at Real Madrid. Nistelrooy, too had reached his peak at Old Trafford before a so called bust-up with Fergie, sent him to Real Madrid. Cannavaro was signed after having won the World cup with Italy. So all these players had already played the best they could and I feel, Madrid only signed them (hoping to win more titles) but for their status and crowd magnetism. This is what is going to happen to Madrid again, with the entry of mega superstars Kaka and C.Ronaldo(forget about the insanity spent on them). Kaka has done so much at AC Milan already and I doubt Ronaldo will be able to repeat his 42 goal season again. Haven't they already achieved all that they could in their careers. Madrid buys for the sake of keep the 'galacticos' status alive. I hope I am proved wrong but despite all the stars Real have bought since their last Champions League triumph,they have failed to even reach the Final of the event. Isn't that a hint-that something is going wrong in buying such big players. Here's to an era of Kaka and C.Ronaldo at Madrid, hoping to bring joy and a C.League title back to the Bernabeu, and not just another average season.Time will tell.

Play More Tournaments and you're No.1? (WTA)

At the conclusion of the recent Wimbledon Championship, one couldn't help but notice the mockery of women's tennis in regard to the way or the method they use to rank the players.The current world number 1, Dinara Safina has about a 1500 point lead over second ranked Serena Williams. What's worse is that Safina hasn't won a slam in her career, whereas Serena has won 11,(3 out of the last 4). Unfortunately for Safina, she now holds the worst defeat by a no.1 (her 6-1 6-0 loss to Venus in Wimbledon). Safina has played 19 WTA tournaments and has won only TWO (Madrid and Rome)!!!! Serena and Venus on the other hand have played 17 and 16 tournaments respectively.Serena and Venus have also won two tournaments each but Serena's has come at the Australian Open and the Wimbledon, which surely should account for greater weightage as compared to Safina's two wins, yet Safina has such a commanding lead over Serena. Youngster Victoria Azarenka has played 17 tournaments and won 3, whereas Russians Dementieva, Zvonareva and Kuznetsova have won two each as well. Kuznetsova's wins include the French Open.As Serena said after winning her third Wimbledon "I'd rather be no.2 and win Slams rather than being no.1 and win none.". An indirect taunt directed towards MAYBE Safina or even the WTA management. Rankings are done on the basis of a players performance throughout the year and the slams apart from Wimbledon base their seedings according to the players rankings which I personally feel is a bit unfair and should base it on the players performance at the venue. However, Wimbledon this year also surprised me. They usually base their seeds on the performance of the players grass achievements, yet Safina was seeded one and also on the men's side, injured Nadal was seeded one. If Wimbledon based their seeding according to the players grass performance over the years, where was Venus (5 titles, 2 back to back) and Roger Federer (5 consecuitive titles). Surely the formula or method used to make these rankings need to be looked into if tennis needs to keep its professionalism up. Otherwise if I may say, the Williams Sisters(and others) will continue to make a mockery out of Womens tennis, by playing fewer tournaments and walking away with the Slams (tournaments that are actually noticed and remembered)

The Undisputed King-Case Closed!

For those who still don't believe that he is the greatest tennis player of all time and feel the absence of Nadal causes that doubt need to look at certain facts and records that no player has even come close to reaching let alone breaking them.
NOW, For those who still want to stake a claim on Nadal, lets talk about fitness. Federer hasn't missed a single Slam in God knows how long, and has never withdrawn from any tournament due to injury despite being a lot older than Nadal. Its called consistency which Nadal does not seem to have. Yet, Federer has never let his game deteriorate despite never missing a slam. And Federer as one can see has kept his promise of reaching the final on almost every occasion, it is Nadal who has been unable to keep his appointment (FRENCH AND WIMBLEDON '09).Nadal is still young and we will have to wait and see the way he progresses, ie. if he can handle his injuries and not just fade away having tried to do to much in his early and young career. To be considered a great sportsman one has to look at the endurance factor in regard to performance and Nadal seems to be faltering already. ANYWAYS-as of now FEDERER is the undisputed KING of tennis and nothing or I doubt any sporting brain would go against it at least for the moment.
Lets just take a glimpse of what the great Roger Federer has really achieved in his career so far.Roger Federer, the man himself-
1. 15 Grand Slam titles (the most. breaking Sampras's 14)
2. 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles (level with Borg)
3. 5 consecutive US Open titles (Previous best was 3 held by Lendl and McEnroe, Sampras and Connors have won a total of 5)
4. Only player in tennis history to win at least five consecutive titles at two different Grand Slam tournaments (2003-07 Wimbledon, 2004-08 US Open).[5] He is also the only player in tennis history to win the same two Grand Slam tournaments back to back for four consecutive years (2004-07)
5. By winning the 2007 Australian Open, Federer became the only male tennis player to win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least three times each (3 Australian Opens, 4 Wimbledons, and 3 US Opens)
6. Federer is the only male player in tennis history to win three Grand Slam tournaments in a calendar year three different times in his career (2004, 2006, 2007)
7. Federer is the only male player in tennis history to win 6 Grand Slam titles in two years (2006-07), 8 in three years (2004-06, 2005-07), 11 in four years (2004-07), 12 in five years (2003-07, 2004-08), 13 in six years (2003-08) and 15 in seven years (2003-09). 11 Grand Slam titles in four years is an all-time record, male or female.
8. Federer has defeated eleven different opponents in Grand Slam finals, an all-time male record.
9. Federer is the sixth man to win all four Grand Slams
10. Federer (2009) is the fourth player to win French Open and Wimbledon in the same calender
11. As of 2009 Wimbledon, Federer has appeared in a record 20 Grand Slam singles finals, breaking the previous record of 19
12. Federer is the only male player in tennis history to reach the final of all four Grand Slam tournaments in back to back calendar years (2006-07) and only the second in the open era to reach all four finals in a single year after Rod Laver in 1969. Federer and Laver (1962, 1969) are the only two male players in tennis history to reach all four Grand Slam finals in the same year at least twice in their careers.
13. Federer reached an all-time male record ten consecutive Grand Slam finals (2005 Wimbledon - 2007 US Open), breaking the previous male record of seven. (He won 8)
14. Federer (2003-09) is the only man in history to reach seven consecutive Wimbledon finals.
15. In tennis history, Federer is the only male player to reach the final of all four Grand Slam singles tournament at least four times.
16. In tennis history, Federer (2006-09), and Borg (1978-81) are the only male players to reach the finals of the French Open and Wimbledon back to back for at least four consecutive years.
17. Federer is undefeated in his five US Open final appearances.
18. Federer has reached an all-time male record 21 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals (2004 Wimbledon - present) breaking the previous male record of 10 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals shared by Ivan Lendl and Rod Laver. (This is heralded as one of the greatest records taking all sports into consideration).
19. In 2001, Federer ended Pete Sampras's 31-match winning streak at Wimbledon in the fourth round.
20. Federer is the first male player to be seeded first at 18 consecutive Grand Slam tournaments.
21. Federer prevented Rafael Nadal from winning all three clay court ATP Masters Series tournaments in the same year two times in his career.
22. Federer won 24 straight finals from the tournament in Vienna in October 2003 through the tournament in Bangkok in September 2005. This streak was a new open era record, breaking the previous record of twelve straight final wins shared by John McEnroe and Borg.
These are just a FEW of his achievements, this list is almost never ending, and I'll say this WHO DO YOU WANT TO COMPARE HIM TO? Take a look at some of the awards he has won and see if you can find a loop hole-
AWARDS-
2003
1) ATP European Player of the Year.
2) Swiss Sportsman of the Year
3) Swiss of the Year.
4) Michael-Westphal Award.
2004
1) ATP European Player of the Year.
2) ITF World Champion.
3) Sports Illustrated Tennis Player of the Year.
4) Swiss Sportsman of the Year
5) Swiss of the Year.
6) Reuters International Sportsman of the Year.
7) BBC Overseas Sports Personality of the Year.
8) International Tennis Writers Association (ITWA) Player of the Year.
9) Golden Bagel Award.
10) European Sportsman of the Year (aka UEPS [Federation of European sports journalists] Sportsman of the Year.). [43]
2005
1) Ambassador of United Nations' Year of Sport and Physical Education.
2) Goldene Kamera Award.
3) ATP Player of the Year (for the year 2004).
4) Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award.
5) ATPTennis.com Fan's Favourite.
6) Laureus World Sportsman of the Year (for the year 2004).
7) Michael-Westphal Award.
8) International Tennis Writers Association (ITWA) Player of the Year.
9) International Tennis Writers Ambassador for Tennis.
10) Most Outstanding Athlete by the United States Sports Academy.
11) Freedom Air People's Choice Sports Awards International Sportsperson of the Year.
12) ITF World Champion.
13) ESPY Best Male Tennis Player.
14) European Sportsman of the Year (aka UEPS [Federation of European sports journalists] Sportsman of the Year.). [43]
2006
1) L'Equipe Magazine's Champion of Champions (for the year 2005).
2) ATP Player of the Year (for the year 2005).
3) Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award.
4) ATPTennis.com Fan's Favourite.
5) Laureus World Sportsman of the Year (for the year 2005).
6) ESPY Best Male Tennis Player.
7) International Tennis Writers Association (ITWA) Player of the Year.
8) International Tennis Writers Ambassador for Tennis.
9) ITF World Champion.
10) BBC Overseas Sports Personality of the Year.
11) Swiss Sportsman of the Year
12) EFE's Sportsman of the Year.
13) Golden Bagel Award.
14) Most Outstanding Athlete of the Year by The United States Sports Academy.
15) European Sportsman of the Year (aka UEPS [Federation of European sports journalists] Sportsman of the Year.). [43]
2007
1) L'Equipe Magazine's Champion of Champions (for the year 2006).
2) ATP Player of the Year (for the year 2006).
3) Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award.
4) ATPTennis.com Fan's Favourite.
5) Arthur Ashe Humanitarian of the Year.
6) Laureus World Sportsman of the Year (for the year 2006).
7) ESPY Best Male Tennis Player.
8) ESPY Best Male International Athlete.
9) ITF World Champion.
10) BBC Overseas Sports Personality of the Year.
11) Tennis magazine's 2007 player of the year
12) Swiss Sportsman of the Year
2008
1) L'Equipe Magazine's Champion of Champions (for the year 2007).
2) European Sportsman of the Year (for the year 2007) (aka UEPS [Federation of European sports journalists] Sportsman of the Year.). [43]
3) Laureus World Sportsman of the Year (for the year 2007) -- First ever winner of four Laureus World Sports Awards [44].
4) ATP Player of the Year (for the year 2007).
5) Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award.
6) ATPTennis.com Fan's Favourite.
7) ESPY Best Male Tennis Player
8) Swiss Team of the Year (with Stanislas Wawrinka as "golden team FedRinka")
2009
1) Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award.
2) ATPWorldtour.com (formerly ATPTennis.com) Fan's Favourite.

Roddick Refuses To Let The Eggs Hatch

Personally I couldn't have had it any other way.Those who saw the build up to the Men's Semi Final at Wimbledon between Britain's No 1, Andy Murray and American Andy Roddick will know exactly what this article means. Call it the commentator's curse or in this case the public's curse but Andy Murray was done in by all the build up and the way they expected him to breeze past Roddick. Almost every sports commentator or presenter were not even giving Roddick a chance to beat Murray, including Lleyton Hewitt who had been dispatched by Roddick in 5 sets in the quarter Final just two days ago. As I watched the preview of the match, I was amazed at the way people were talking. After the way Roger Federer clinically dispatched Tommy Haas in the first semi, it was all about how he would feel about playing Murray in the final. Every one was talking about how Murray would have to play in order to beat Roger in that kind of form. Murray can't be blamed for they way people portrayed him as some demi God who would walk all over Roddick in the match. The Brits I guess were so tired of waiting for someone from their own nation to be in the final(73 years) that they took it for granted that it would be like taking candy from a child to get into the final, not withstanding the fact that Roddick wasn't in the best of form till that match. Guess he saved the best for when he needed it. One forgets that Roddick has a great record on grass and has reached the Final of Wimbledon twice before, only to lose to Roger. So give experience some recognition!!!!!! Murray has only broken through in the past one year or so and has no doubt played some great tennis but he has reached only one slam final so far where as Roddick is a past Slam winner.Grass is a surface where experience and also gameplay counts a great deal and it is well suited for Roddicks game. So in the end I would like to think that the world tennis fraternity (for those who wouldn't even give him a chance) are eating their words. And as the saying goes- DON'T COUNT YOUR CHICKENS BEFORE THEY ARE HATCHED!!!!!!!

Indian Sport- A Playing Field For Politicians And Bureaucrats

Ever wondered why India, with a population of over a billion people never produce any world class athletes? The answer is simple, and its definitely not due to the lack of funds, but due to the politicians and bureaucrats nexus that have a stranglehold on Indian sport. No Indian sports body is free from the influence of such people. Recent match fixing scandals and bribery in Indian Cricket and Hockey have only strengthened this belief.For such people sports in India is about Power, Pelf and of course Free Publicity. The costs required to run a sports federation in India has led to the need of a politician to head one.Free travel, free stay abroad and easy money for doing nothing are something they all seem to thrive on.
The Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI), the largest body in India and by far the richest board in the world has a certain Mr Sharad Pawar in charge, who is a leading politician of the country. It is believed to get things done in India, one needs to have political power or backing, but once such people have tasted the fruits of such bodies, it is impossible to remove them from their positions. An example of such a case is the All India Football Federation (AIFF). It is being run by a politician by the name of Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi, who can easily be said to be the least popular head, not only by the public but also by his own football fraternity. Yet he has remained in power despite the combined efforts of industrial heavyweights Vijay Mallaya, Mahindra and Sameer Thapar.
Even a professional run federation such as the All India Tennis Association (AITA) has not been spared. They feel it necessary to have a powerful person at the helm in order to get things done. C. Subramaniam, Brahmanand Reddy, Fakkuruddin Ali Ahmed, Natwar Singh, Satish Sharma, Union Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha are some of the political heavyweights to run this association. The Indian Olympic Association (IOA), the Amateur Athletic Federation of India, and the Asian Athletic Federation all have one man as president, Mr Suresh Kalmadi.
K.P.S Deo is president of the Rowing Federation of India, and the entry of the Chautala brothers signified an era of total politicisation in the Sports Federations of India. Abhay Singh and Ajay Singh, held head posts for the Indian Amateur Boxing Federation and the Table Tennis Federation of India respectively and had also set their eyes on other sporting bodies. What is more, one of their own men was at the head of the Wrestling Federation of India.
Some time ago when Mr. Vajpayee was Prime Minister he had to intervene a heated battle between, then Union Minister for Youth Affairs and Sports Uma Bharti and IOA president Suresh Kalmadi just so that work could get underway for the inaugural Afro Asian games. Bureaucrats also make it impossible for sports administrators to function smoothly and prosperously. This is evident in the case of India's sprint queen P.T Usha. The ‘Usha School of Athletics’ at her home town in Payyoli in Kerala faced massive delays due to bureaucratic red tape. Surely had it been a politician in charge it would have been easily achieved. Most sporting federations are able to generate large amount of funds due tot he fact that they have a politician or bureaucratic at the head. Super cop K.P.S Gill(hockey), Director-general of Haryana Police M. S. Malik, president of the IABF have had an ample supply of funds.
Tennis, hockey, football, table tennis, shooting, rowing, archery et al are headed by leading politicians. That is why it is amazing to see, with total awe and respect,the greatness of a certain Randhir Singh, who in my eyes is one of the greatest sportspersons and sports administrators India has had,to hold his seat. A few of his achievements- First Indian shooter to win a gold medal in Asian games,
Won four Gold Medals at the Pesta Sukan Shooting Championship in 1969.(these are just a few). As an administrator- Secretary General of Indian Olympic Association since 1987 and the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA) in the same position since 1991,Afro- Asian Games Council since 1998.He was also the Secretary-General of the South Asia Sports Promotion for two terms, 1987 and 1994.In Moscow, 2001, he was elected to be a member of International Olympic Committee(IOC). After all this,(apart from the fact of him being a great human being), I'm sure still has to look over his shoulder in order to keep the hounding politicians away from his sporting seats. His removal, would most certainly be the death of Indian Sport in every aspect, more like a national suicide mission if anyone were to play dirty games with a person of his stature. What Indian sports need in order to thrive is more people like him and I hope politicians and Bureaucrats can see what it takes to be a real sports administrator. India, apart from cricket, does not feature in any top half of the rankings in any sport. Its time the country woke up and also the political-bureaucratic nexus was brought to a halt.

Favouritism- Stunting India's Progress In Sport?

All Sports lovers in the world know the most prestigious tennis tournament is currently under way at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (aka Wimbledon). India somehow, after Vijay Amritraj has been unable to produce and mens singles players who have managed to even get past the opening around that is if they even qualify. Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi have been the stalwarts for the Indians at Wimbledon at least in the doubles section of the draw. Sania Mirza has constantly kept the Indian flag flying on the women's side of the singles draw even if it is just for a few rounds. Vijay Amritraj has become a name associated with Wimbledon now as a commentator for almost two decades, which brings me to the point of this article. I was angry and appalled at the sight of watching the live telecast of his son Prakash Amritraj playing a doubles match when interesting, and exciting last16 round of matches were being played on centre court and other courts. One could point out that he is an Indian and they are trying to promote Indian tennis, but my rebuttal would be why don't they show the doubles matches when Bhupathi and Paes are playing. Okay, Prakash Amritraj and partner Pakistan Qureshi were up against Bhupathi and Knowles for that match. Here again, I would say fair enough, but then when a historical match was being played later that day which featured three Indians(the three stalwarts-Paes, Bhupathi and Mirza) in the mixed doubles event, where was the telecast. So Vijay only wanted to promote his son and not really Indian tennis? Hasn't this always been a primary reason as to why Indians never succeed in sport on the global level. FAVOURITISM to people who don't really deserve it when there are more deserving people waiting in the ranks.It happens even when it comes to selection of teams, A person who has influential power will be taken in regardless of his talent. And people, we are talking about WIMBLEDON here not just any tennis tournament. What has Prakash done apart from being Vijay's son. As far as I know and correct me if Im wrong he doesn't even or never has even lived in India.Anyways I hope these situations do change in the future just for benefit of Indian sport and nothing else.

Law Of Averages Catches Up with Sri Lanka?

Many were left in shock, some wondered in disbelief but cricket played its own game yesterday. Pakistan clinched the Twenty20 World Cup in England much to the dismay of many. I personally wasn't too surprised though. They were finalists at the previous tournament so why weren't they considered a good team or a favourite? Was it because they weren't getting a chance to play any cricket due to the turmoil in their country? They have brilliant batsman, and Afridi who must have smiled from ear to ear when this format of the game was introduced. Cricket, however, seems to be a game where the 'law of averages' comes in to play. No one can be consistently good and there has to be a point where one fails. Sri Lanka were having a brilliant run with their top batsmen( Dilshan and Jayasuriya, Jayawardene) getting runs in previous games. They had to fail at some point of time and it was their misfortune that it had to be in the final. Pakistan lost early in the tournament and that seemed to be their wake up call and a boost to their efforts on the field. No batsman can carry on scoring a large amount of runs match after match. Afridi saved his best for the last and let others get them to the final. Sri Lanka were on a high having remained unbeaten through out the tournament, right until the final. They were lucky that Sangakkara found form and took them to a respectable and defendable total. Another thought that arises is the captains decision in the 18th over as he handed the ball to little known Udana. Was he saving his best (Mendis, Malinga) for the last? He didnt even get there. When Udana came onto bowl, the match was tightly poised and I feel Sri Lanka had the upper hand with Pakistan needing almost 9 an over to win. Had Mendis or Malinga bowled, I'm surely positive they wouldn't have given more than 8-10 runs and that would have doubled the pressure on the Pakistanis who would have had to go hell for leather in the last over. Now, The captain, will have a long time to think, 'what if'. No one can say what would have happened had one of the other two bowled but then he also had an experienced veteran like Jayasuriya who he could have tossed the ball to. All said and done Sri Lanka will still be licking their wounds after a playing a fabulous tournament and Pakistan will be jubilant having suffered defeat in the last final and also to boost cricket in their country.

Are These The Answers to The Indian Team's Failures?

As people in India are still hurting from their surprise elimination from the T20 world cup, they have more reason to be angry after looking at the team selection for the upcoming West Indian tour.As coach Gary Kirsten is busy pointing fingers towards the reason for their loss, the selectors seem to be making the same mistakes again. The team going the Caribbean seems incomprehensible especially if they are trying to make up for their immature and brainless mistakes at the T20 World cup.Despite winning the One Day series in New Zealand 3-1. the team sees fives changes. Nehra, R.P Singh and Badrinath make their way back and A. Nayar and M. Vijay make their débuts. Suresh Raina and V. Sehwag have been dropped due to injuries and, batting maestro Tendulkar and paceman Z. Khan have been rested due to a hectic schedule? Hectic schedule???????I wonder how? Irfan Pathan and Munaf Patel were dropped on the basis of their poor performance. Didn't I Pathan do well in the T20's also??? Nehra and RP Singh are only making their way back due to their performance in the IPL. FAIR ENOUGH! but then justify the inclusion of Badrinath and Vijay. Vijay made 60 runs in 4 matches and Badrinath played 14 matches for an average of 19!!!!!!!!!!AND WHO HAVE THEY LEFT OUT FOR THESE TWO???????? an extremely talented youngster-Virat Kohli who has played 5 matches for India with a healthy average if over 30!! and if u want to base it on the IPL performance, Kohli had a better average then these two scoring 246 runs batting lower down the order. So my question is what are the selectors upto???Reviving Indian cricket or sendning it deeper into the ground? Prime example- they dropped Pragyan Ojha( leading wicket taker for India in the T20 with an econ of just over 6.0) for Ishant Sharma( matches -7, wickets-2,average -93.5. Strike Rate-64 and Econ Rate-8.06).NEED I SAY MORE!!!!!!!!!