Last week, France beat the Republic of Ireland to make it to the FIFA world cup in South Africa next year, consequently preventing the Irish from qualifying. However, France’s victory was highly controversial given that their winning goal was made possible by Thierry Henry’s hands. Henry prevented the ball from going past the goal line with his hand and then kicked the ball to Gallas who scored. Watch the video below.

After the match, everybody and his dog had something to say about the controversy and so here I am doing my bit. Well, Henry said he’s honest, he’s never cheated and admitted it was handball and even went to the extent of saying that a rematch would be the fairest solution.

However, Henry’s integrity has been blotched and everybody won’t buy into his views after the match. Henry said the handball was instinctive and not deliberate. Ok, well, I’ll buy that.

However, if Henry is as honest and innocent as he claims, why did he celebrate after that goal, fully aware that the Irish players were protesting against his handball? Why did he not go to the referee then and there and admit it was a handball, thereby allowing the referee to make the correct decision?

Henry’s admission of handball and his consequent comments to pacify the Irish were too little too late. He knew it was a handball when the goal was scored. So, why admit it only after the match? It means he simply wanted to deceive the referee. Henry is one of the greatest footballers around today and he knows he has more than a million fans and so he should be even more careful with such incidents. All fans (like me) who respected Thierry Henry both as a footballer and an individual will feel a bit let down by his dishonesty. Henry must be going through tough times as he will be contemplating on losing an opportunity for cementing his name as a sporting legend as now it will be convenient for people to associate Henry with the handball and brand him “cheat”. Well, although Henry’s handball has disappointed me, I will surely never forget the amazing football he’s given us.

I just watched LIVE, the 12-round demolition of Miguel Cotto by Manny Pacquiao earning Manny the WBO welterweight title. Manny created history by winning a seventh world title in an unprecedented seventh weight division.

Manny was simply superb – very lively, darting in and out, punched with lightning speed and accuracy and although he stepped up in weight, it did not show one bit. Cotto landed a few good punches, but Manny seemed unperturbed by them. Manny had Cotto down a couple of times before the referee stopped the fight in the last round. Manny dominated the fight and proved that welterweight power ain’t a problem for him and his iron chin, by demolishing a great welterweight champion.

Now, the fight every boxing fan will want to see is Manny Pacquiao Vs Floyd Mayweather Jr. Both these boxers are the top two contenders for the planet’s best pound-for-pound boxers and exhibit excellent boxing skills and speed. A fight between them is a mouth-watering prospect!

I watched the David Haye Vs Nikolai Valuev WBA Heavyweight title fight a couple of hours ago. There was a lot of hype before the fight billed as “David Vs Goliath”, given the whopping 7 stone weight difference and significant height difference between the two boxers. Before the fight, David promised that he would be the first man to knock out the “beast from the east” and did some thrash talking about the huge Russian.

Well, the fight was far from a spectacle, it was twelve rounds of a cat-and-mouse game, not many punches exchanged and there was no knock out. David Haye won by a majority decision on points and is now the WBA Heavyweight Champion of the world. David was slipping and sliding more than punching. His negative tactics were understandable since he was facing a giant with a massive height and weight advantage, but he could have thrown more punches in the earlier rounds as he in fact rocked Nikolai a bit in the last round with a combination (after the match, David said that he hurt his right hand in the early rounds and so didn’t use it much).

Although no boxing fan would want to see a title being won in such a boring match (and some may even argue that David did not do much in the fight to win the title) , David’s victory is a breath of fresh air for the boxing Heavyweight division. David Haye has the skill, speed, power, aggression and charisma for a world champion (though he can do without a bit of the thrash talking pre-fight), whereas Nikolai is just a boring giant who relies more on his size than skill. Lot of big bucks await David Haye and I wish him well. It will be interesting to watch him take on the Klitshcko brothers.

Today, the inaugural Airtel Champions League Twenty Twenty (CLT20) kicked off with the first match played between the Royal Challengers Bangalore (India) and the Cape Cobras (South Africa). The Cape Cobras won the match with some exceptional batting by Jean-Paul Duminy, scoring an unbeaten 99 of 52 balls.

With the T20 format becoming wholesome entertainment, I guess the Cricket Administrators took a cue from the UEFA Champions League and created CLT20. This year’s CLT20 includes 12 teams from 7 nations. However, the fact that the World T20 champion Pakistan isn’t represented in this year’s CLT20 is disappointing.

Here in the UK, I’m glad that I can watch the CLT20 on British Eurosport 2 (channel 411 on SKY).

Nowadays, there is always cricket to watch! Good for us fans, but cricketers need to have a very high level of fitness to avoid burn out. It will be the survival of the fittest!

I just watched the welterweight fight between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Juan Manuel Márquez. Floyd was returning to the ring after a hiatus of 21 months, but it seemed as if he never took a break from boxing. The fight was entirely one-sided with Floyd dominating throughout and making the current WBA and WBO lightweight champion Marquez look ordinary. Marquez stepped up to welterweight for this fight and so didn’t lose his titles. Floyd had a good weight advantage over Marquez (he even weighed 2 pounds more than the agreed fight weight and forfeited $600,000 as a penalty to Marquez), but extra weight or not, Floyd’s boxing skills were a joy to watch..

Floyd Mayweather Jr. (who changed his boxing nickname from “Pretty Boy” to “Money”) was simply too quick for Marquez and showed us why he’s the best pound-for-pound (P4P) boxer on the planet today! Floyd’s excellent defence (the rolling of shoulders, ducking and slipping away from opponents), his lightning speed (ability to jab faster than the blink of an eye) and accuracy were on exhibition during his fight with Marquez.

Floyd was darting in, jabbing Marquez and bouncing back, all within a flash, thereby not giving Marquez a chance to land any clear shots on his chin. No wonder Floyd’s the Pretty Boy!

For those of you who claim that Boxing is a barbaric sport, watching Floyd Mayweather Jr. in the ring may change your mind, as he makes boxing look a skilful art, rather than a brutal sport.

So, what’s next for Floyd? A fight with the winner of Pacquiao-Vs-Cotto or Sugar Shane Mosley will be fascinating to watch and a more even match.

A couple of days ago, after Sri Lanka thrashed New Zealand in a test match played in Sri Lanka (primarily due to Muralitharan’s exceptional bowling), Mark Richardson (former Kiwi batsman) resurrected the issue of “Murali chucking the ball by going beyond the 15-degree”.

Typically, with yet another “chucking claim” from a non-Asian affiliated with the game, Asians will be quick to react that such claims provide more evidence for the negative bias against Asian cricket teams. Yes, history has provided some reason for such reactions. For example, when Simon Jones bowled beautifully in the 2005 Ashes, England called it reverse swing, but when Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis (the Sultans of swing) bamboozled the English batsmen, England called it “ball tampering”. It is such hypocrisy of teams like England and Australia that has alienated some of the Asian cricket players and fans.

However, with regards to Mark Richardson’s recent comments on chucking, I believe he makes a very valid point. He did not attack or blame Murali, but rather criticized the ICC for its inept policing of chucking.

I also believe that the ICC’s current policing of chucking is woefully inadequate. As per the current process, an umpire refers a suspect bowling action to the ICC, the ICC conducts several laboratory tests on the bowler with the suspect action and based on the test results, concludes whether the bowler chucks or not.

The ICC makes a bowler completely aware that it’s testing his bowling action in the comfort of a laboratory and expects him not to be consciously or sub-consciously aware of this fact and consistently replicate the same bowling action he uses in all situations in highly competitive international cricket matches.

If a suspect bowling action can only be confirmed in a laboratory, then the only excuse I can find for the ICC following the current nonsensical process is the lack of adequate technology. On the other hand,  if a technology which allows a bowler’s action in cricket matches to be analyzed exists, then the ICC should perhaps police chucking as follows:

• Ensure the law(s) related to legal bowling is/are unambiguous.
• Create a team of experts who are very proficient in all technologies required to measure and confirm whether a bowler bowls or chucks.
• Create a schedule for every Calendar year to randomly select International matches and analyze all bowlers’ actions in those matches. The selection of bowlers whose actions are analyzed must be uniform across all teams. Based on the results of the analysis, bowlers should be informed whether they have a legal or an illegal bowling action and action can be taken accordingly to ensure all players play within the laws of the game.
• If a bowler’s action is so suspect that an umpire refers the action to the ICC, then the bowlers’ action in that match must be analyzed to confirm or reject the umpire’s suspicion.

If there isn’t a technology which can capture and analyze a bowler’s action in any cricket match, then bowlers (with suspect actions) who are subjected to laboratory tests could play “Catch me if you can!” with the ICC.

My Oh My !! Usain Bolt is Superman. I have been keenly following the world’s best sprinters since I was a kid, followed the Olympics and World Athletic championships closely, always knew who the fastest man in the world was and the world record time for the 100m. However, none of the sprinters I have watched have amazed me anywhere close to as much as Usain Bolt has. I bet Usain Bolt’s name is on every athlete’s lips right now as this guy has given us some breathtaking stuff in two major championships over the past two years.

First, he broke the world records in the 100m and 200m in the Beijing Olympics (2008) by clocking 9.69 secs and 19.30 secs respectively. And now, over the past week, he has smashed those very two records by the same margin of 0.11 secs by clocking 9.58 secs and 19.19 secs in the 100m and 200m respectively in the World Athletic Championships at Berlin. Note that 19.19 secs for the 200m is a rate of 9.595 secs per 100m. Now, that’s FAST !!

Unlike most of the races I’ve witnessed in which the likes of Carl Lewis, Donovan Bailey, Maurice Greene, etc. broke world records, Usain Bolt had taken significant leads over the other athletes in the races, showing that he was clearly far ahead of his competition. And the athletes competing with Usain Bolt are also benefitting by putting in their best performances in trying to keep up with Bolt. The 100m race in which Usain Bolt clocked 9.58 secs, is the first 100m race in history in which 5 athletes clocked below 9.93 secs. Never before have so many athletes in a 100m race run so fast!

And what’s all the more remarkable is the manner in which Usain gives us these great performances. He’s super-cool and relaxed before a race (I’m sure that da Jamaican genes have something to do with it) and doesn’t seem perturbed by pressure or expectations. He makes his victories look so easy.

With the exception of the 200m race in which he clocked 19.19 secs, he didn’t seem to give 100% in all the other races and yet he smashed world records in those races. So, Usain’s certainly got more to offer and the world is going to stand up and take notice every time he runs because when Usain runs, you’d never know what is humanly possible!

I have been converted!!! When Twenty20 (T20) arrived on the cricketing scene, I was very quick to dismiss it as wham-bam cricket, a doom for bowlers, etc. I enjoyed watching the formats of the game already existing before T20 arrived – One-Day Cricket and Test Cricket. However, after a couple of IPL tournaments and T20 World Cups, I now know that I was wrong to judge T20 hastily and harshly and I now wholeheartedly embrace this format of the game. Here are the reasons why I think T20 is a wonderful format and is here to stay:

• High-Octane Cricket: Lots of Boundaries and Sixes, stumps being uprooted more often, acrobatic fielding, rocking music during breaks, close finishes/edge-of-the-seat thrillers.
• Time Saver: An entire T20 match lasts around 3 hours. The shorter the match, the more involved the audience will be. Also, you’ll still have a huge chunk of the day remaining to do whatever you want after being entertained by a T20 match.
• Innovation: Would you have heard of deliveries like the “slow bouncer” and shots like the “Dilscoop” had it not been for T20 Cricket? Certainly No! T20 has made cricketers think on their feet out there in the middle –  the Dilscoop introduced by Dilshan (scooping the ball backward over the heads of the batsman and wicketkeeper) is an example of such innovation. The slow bouncer and slow full toss used by Lasith Malinga (one of the best proponents of these deliveries), Jerome Taylor and a few others is an example of excellent innovation with the ball. Well, T20 is set to get all cricket coaching manuals updated.
• Challenge: In the T20 format, every ball matters. For every ball bowled, the bowler must try something clever to get the batsman’s wicket (no more bowling without the pressure of being hit for a boundary), the batsman must make contact with the ball to ensure maximum runs are scored (no more shouldering arms or being defensive with deliberate padding), the fielders must be always switched-on and do everything possible save every run (most matches are too close to afford even an extra run). T20 offers both a mental and physical challenge to cricketers.
• Packed Stadiums: Any sport’s survival depends on its popularity among the masses. T20 has packed stadiums like never before. T20 is attracting people who once upon a time found cricket boring. T20 is also proving to be a good family entertainer (you can get the family out for just 3 hours of entertainment, can’t you?). Packed Stadiums lead to increased revenue (ticket sales and advertising) and this makes T20 a very attractive business model for the Cricket Boards (just hope the Boards use the money wisely to develop the game around the world).

Coming back to my initial concern I had regarding T20, the ICC T20 World Cup 2009 was dominated by great bowling and proved that bowlers also have a major role and can significantly impact the result of a T20 match (not just batsman-dominated as I expected). However, perhaps, the only cricketing domain which could be adversely impacted by T20 is “batting” for the very reasons cricket purists describe T20 as a lottery or vulgar. I believe that the concern here is regarding technical batting. Will the coming generations of batsmen focus on learning the big slog and heave shots rather than straight drives, square cuts, leg glances and other technical shots? Only time will tell. That’s why I believe Test Cricket should stay on forever as it’s the purist’s game and a joy to watch in its own right. But, Test Cricket’s survival depends on the number of fans who are cricket purists and enjoy this traditional contest between bat and ball. If this number dwindles with the advent of T20, then Test Cricket could be in danger. Personally, I wish Test Cricket stays on forever as I enjoy the gruelling battles in Test cricket. However, I see absolutely no place whatsoever for the One-Day format. I believe that Test Cricket and T20 should henceforth be made the standard formats of Cricket.

Congratulations to Pakistan for becoming the unlikely, but thoroughly deserving T20 World Champions at Lords yesterday!

The Proteas have successfully defended the title of “chokers” in their semi-final match against Pakistan in the ICC World T20 2009 tournament today.

At the post-match presentation, Graeme Smith dismissed a question alluding to his team being chokers by saying that he didn’t believe that’s the case and it was just that Pakistan was better on the day. Well, yes, T20 is a format in which the stronger team or even the in-form team is not guaranteed a victory because anybody could suddenly play as if he’s in the form of his life over a short span of 3 hours and grab victory. And that’s exactly what Shahid Afridi did today to take Pakistan into the finals.

However, given the way the Proteas have played all their matches leading up to the semi-finals, you would have been deemed perfectly sensible for having purchased a ticket to watch South Africa in the finals. The Proteas themselves believed that based on the strengths of the current team, they had nothing to worry about that nagging “chokers” tag.

But cometh the moment, cometh a crunch match, cometh the pressure and it’s déjà vu – the Proteas are on the losing side yet again. I’m very disappointed to see the Proteas lose today’s semi-final. I sincerely wanted them to win the T20 World Cup 2009, because I believe they’re a world-class team who deserve a World title, having given cricket fans terrific performances over the years. Unfortunately, they choked yet again and irrespective of how Graeme Smith and his boys react to today’s loss, they’ve lost too many crucial matches and consequently World titles to shed the title of “chokers”. Perhaps, other tags like “jinxed” and “cursed” will creep in to join “chokers” and haunt the Proteas.

Pakistan was the better side today and earned their victory. Shahid Afridi finally came to the party and I’ve never seen anybody bowl so many yorkers in a match as Umer Gul bowled today. Looking forward to see who meets Pakistan in the semi-finals – another Asian country (Sri Lanka) or the unpredictable Calypso boys (West Indies).

In the recent crucial ICC World T20 match between India and England which finally saw the defending champions India being knocked out of the T20 World Cup, Harbhajan Singh pulled out of his delivery stride a couple of times. In the final over, when bowling to Foster, Harbhajan pulled out of his delivery stride just before delivering the third ball of the over. At the moment he pulled out, it was obvious that the non-striking batsman (Mascarenhas) was a few feet outside the popping crease to backup the striking batsman for running between the wickets. Witnessing this moment made me wonder about the laws of cricket pertaining to running out a non-striking batsman while bowling. So, here goes:

Backing up a batsman: The non-striking batsman usually backs up the striking batsman by taking a few steps towards the striking batsman during the delivery to facilitate running between the wickets by having to cover less distance. This “backing up” could have a profound impact on games, given the several close run-out decisions made using TV replays.

What does the Law say?: Law 42.15 of Cricket states that “The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. The ball shall not count in the over.”  Appendix D of the Laws of Cricket defines a delivery stride as “the stride during which the delivery swing is made, whether the ball is released or not. It starts when the bowler’s back foot lands for that stride and ends when the front foot lands in the same stride”

So, as per the Laws of Cricket, Harbhajan Singh could not have run out Mascarenhas even though Mascarenhas had left the popping crease as Harbhajan Singh had stopped bowling only after commencing his delivery stride.

And now for a little bit of history. Running out a “backing up” batsman has been around for a while. Though within the Laws of Cricket, it is considered unsportsmanlike. This action became famous when Vinoo Mankad ran out Bill Brown during India’s tour of Australia in 1947 and in fact a new term “Mankad” was coined for running out a non-striking batsman who was backing up. So, Bill Brown was mankaded by Vinoo Mankad . Another famous incident which has been recorded in the annals of Mankading occurred when Courtney Walsh refused to mankad Salim Jaffer in the 1987 World Cup (this probably cost West Indies the World Cup).

The unwritten code of cricket suggests that a bowler ought to warn the batsman at least once before mankading him.

Why have a Law in a Sport, which when followed to the letter, alludes to unsportsmanlike behaviour ? Why put the onus of watching the non-striking batsman on the bowler?

Yes, there are laws and there’s the “spirit of the game”, but then where do you draw the line? If non-striking batsmen are over-enthusiastic in backing up and cover a few yards before the ball is delivered, it could make a huge difference and possibly facilitate scoring the winning run! The onus of identifying whether a non-striking batsman is backing up early or not should be put on the umpires (after all they have fewer decisions to make with the advent of the 3rd umpire). Nowadays, especially in formats like T20, most games are very close and it’s simply wrong to blur the thin line between victory and defeat in the name of the spirit of the game, when there’s a clear law in place. Perhaps, Law 42.15 should be modified to indicate that the umpires will watch out for early backing up by non-strikers and give them two warnings before declaring them out (for stealing some distance on a run) so that the bowlers may concentrate on their main job – bowling. Visit this Cricinfo article for some more information on Mankading.

Another weekend, another exciting boxing match – Ricky Hatton Vs Manny Pacquiao. I thought I would be watching the fight right now instead of blogging, but Manny blew away the “Hitman” in just 2 rounds and here I am. I stayed awake all night to watch this fight LIVE and although I predicted a Manny victory prior to the fight, I am surprised at the clinical and emphatic manner in which Manny finished off Hatton.

As with the Hatton-Mayweather Jr., fight, a lot of hype was built up around the “new” Hatton for his fight with Manny. And as usual, Hatton spoke a lot prior to the fight – about how Manny will be facing a fiery Hatton, how Manny will be fighting his biggest opponent, how Manny will be punished by body blows, blah, blah…. On the other hand, Manny didn’t talk much and was just focussed on the fight. 

If at all this indicated anything, looking at the kin of the 2 fighters as they made their ring entrances, you could see such a stark contrast. Hatton’s fiancée looked very nervous, whereas Manny’s wife seemed relaxed. Manny himself resembled a smiling assassin when he entered the ring. When the first round began, it seemed to me that Manny was backing off a bit and I thought he was trying to avoid “heavy” punches from the Hitman. However, Manny soon showed us that his quick feet and hands (southpaw) were going to pose Hatton a problem and soon there was a swing and a miss from Hatton which allowed Manny to land a clean punch, thereby knocking down Hatton for the first time in the match. Hatton was then knocked down a second time in round 1 and the bell ensured that the fight would stretch to two rounds. In the second round, Manny was able to easily jab Hatton. Then, came the big one from Manny – a brutal left hook to Hatton’s chin. Hatton fell to the floor as if he were poleaxed and he was unconscious. Hatton was sprawled across the canvas for a while, causing some concern. Fortunately, he was back on his feet later and fully conscious. So, the fight was over within 2 rounds and Manny left no doubt in anybody’s mind as to who is the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world.

In my opinion, I never considered Hatton to be even among the top 5 candidates for the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world. My opinion is based on the fact that Hatton has one and only one way of fighting – walk right into the opponent punching with brute force, no quick feet and poor defence. This boxing style actually bears closer resemblance to pub brawls and will easily be outclassed by technically superior boxing styles. Hatton himself said “The Mayweather fight changed my career. I had too many fights where there was no real thought in the way I was fighting”. Unfortunately, there’s still no thought and no improvement as seen in his fight with Manny. The brilliant Freddie Roach (Manny’s coach) found flaws in Hatton’s style, worked with Manny in the gym on exploiting those flaws and predicted a 3rd round knockout. Manny made Freddie’s prediction turn out wrong by knocking out Hatton in the 2nd round, but Freddie will gladly accept that.

Ever since Ricky Hatton won the IBF Junior Welterweight World Championship belt by defeating a 35-year old Kostya Tszyu, he was hailed as a boxing legend in Britain and the marketing and money-spinning machines worked overtime to build a fairy-tale bubble around Hatton. What actually seemed annoying to me was that Hatton simply did not respect his profession enough. He did not follow a boxer’s regime and keep in shape. Instead, it was fast foods and sort of a pub lifestyle. It seemed to me that Hatton thought he was the best light-welterweight fighter in the world without even being tested by world class fighters who were in their prime. And this bloated ego was very evident in all the bragging crap he dished out in the pre-match build-ups for his fights against Floyd and Manny – both truly great champions. Well, if there’s anything I can give Hatton credit for, it’s his ability to put bums in seats. He simply never failed to attract huge crowds even when fighting away from home. He’s got a huge fan base who’ve travelled with him for his fights. To me, Hatton is a people’s champ, but not a boxing legend.

What next for Hatton?: He should hang up his gloves and enjoy his time with his family. He’s fought hard, held the light-welterweight championship belts for around 4 years and made a lot of money. Now, it seems he’s hit a brick wall with regards to where his boxing ability can take him. He’s had a shot at 2 great champs and has been knocked out by both. Unless, he can radically transform himself into a new Hatton bearing all the qualities of a great fighter (new style, strict training regime, etc.), will it be worth him trying another shot to get back his title, but there is a very, very small possibility, if not zero, that this can happen.

What next for Manny?: Floyd Mayweather Jr. fights Juan Manuel Marquez in July 2009. Manny has already had 2 gruelling fights with Juan (1 draw and 1 controversial win for Manny) and all boxing fans would love to see Manny take on Floyd Mayweather Jr.

I was disappointed when I came to know that no UK TV broadcaster agreed a deal to telecast the Froch-Taylor match LIVE. Well, ITV stepped in at the last moment to telecast the matcvh “as LIVE” around 18 hours after the fight. Fortunately, Omnisport streamed the fight LIVE for £9.95 and I booked the fight just minutes before punch-off! And man, I’m thrilled I didn’t miss the LIVE telecast!

Since watching Carl Froch take the vacant WBC Super-middleweight title with a classic match against Jean Pascal, I knew that Froch will be an exciting prospect and I admired his tough chin and stamina.

So, this was Froch’s first big fight (against the former world champion Jermain Taylor who’s no pushover) and his first fight on American soil. Also, it was hist first defence of his WBC super-middleweight title.

Jermain started strongly and dominated the first couple of rounds. He looked more stylish and solid in defence than Carl Froch. And then in the 3rd round, he handed Froch his first knockdown in his career (Carl Froch was undefeated and was never knocked down to the canvas prior to this fight). It seemed that the skilful, former champ Jermain Taylor was ready to teach Carl Froch a boxing lesson and Jermain went on to dominate the first half of the fight. From the 7th round onwards, Carl Froch became more active, using his jab more frequently and taking the fight to Taylor, who by now was backing off a bit (Taylor has publicly acknowledged his issues with stamina and going the distance). However, Taylor was still doing enough to lead Froch on the judges scorecards. Going into the final round, Taylor was leading 106-102 on two of the three judges’ scorecards. Just before getting off his stool for the final round, Froch’s trainer told him “You’ve got to get a big round. Don’t blow it!”  and that’s exactly what Froch did. He threw several combinations at Taylor and moved him towards the ropes. In the last minute of the final round, Froch avaenged his 3rd round knockdown by knocking down Taylor. Taylor looked stunned and Froch knew that if he didn’t finish off Taylor, Taylor could still win on points. So, Froch continued dishing out the punches while Taylor just had his arms up  trying to defend while leaning against the ropes. It was obvious Taylor could not defend himself and Froch could punch him at will and so the referee made the correct decision of stopping the fight, just 14 seconds before the final bell! Froch had won his first defence, retained his WBC super-middleweight title and had arrived in the USA! Shame on the bloody disgraceful UK TV broadcasters who telecast LIVE boring Commonwealth/British title fights and Amir Khan’s over-hyped matches, but refused to do so for the Froch-Taylor fight. Now, perhaps,  they’ll line up to strike a deal for Froch’s next fight.

Well, it should not be down and out for  Taylor as he fought well and did not allow Froch to dominate the fight. The fight was actually going Taylor’s way until the last few seconds of the final round. In the end, it was Froch’s tough chin and stamina which helped him stage a wonderful comeback and nail down the victory. There may be a rematch on the cards, but it seems that Froch’s most keen to get Joe Calzaghe out of retirement and called out loud and clear for him. Joe avoided Carl before retirement, dismissing Carl as a nobody. Well, I’m interested in watching Carl Froch take on one of these fighters soon – Lucian Bute, Mikkel Kessler, Sakio Bika (featured on “The Contender” show).

Will Carl Froch be a great champion? Well, his tough chin, stamina and some powerful punching have impressed me, but his poor defence could prove to be his downfall. He simply does not keep his gloves up to defend and can prove to be easy to hit by skilful boxers. So, it  seems that his chin will determine how far he goes in boxing if he doesn’t improve his defence. He’s not afraid to sign up for the big fights. If he develops a solid defence and starts strongly (use his jab more often in early rounds), then he’ll be very difficult to beat. Perhaps, his first big fight in America made him a bit nervous and that’s why he didn’t start very well against Taylor, but in the end, two excellent boxers gave us fans a cracking nail-biter! Thanks guys!

I purchased the Khan Vs Barrera fight on Sky Box Office and looked forward to a good night’s fight with a glass of Ballantine’s and some fried swordfish.

Among the undercard fights, I quite enjoyed the Enzo Maccarinelli Vs Ola Afolabi (left photo)  for the interim WBO cruiserweight title.

Ola was slithery and dodged most of Enzo’s punches, thereby systematically tiring Enzo. Also, Ola was poking fun at Enzo and keeping the crowd entertained. Finally in the ninth round, he delivered a lethal right-hand to the head of Enzo, knocking him down and winning the match.

With both my glass and plate empty, the big moment finally arrived. I decided to hold back on the scotch as I was paying a good amount to see some boxers, rather than myself, getting starry-eyed. I watched Barrera dismantle Naseem Hamed and I’ve been following Amir Khan’s career since he turned professional. The questions which were unanswered for me, before the fight were:

(1) Has Amir improved his defence and technique to protect his chin?

(2) Can Amir knock out a tough Mexican like Marco Antonio Barrera? Does he have the punching power to do so?

(3) Can Barrera, at the age of 35, keep up with the speed of the 22-year old Amir?

(4) Will Amir collapse (like he did against Breidis Prescott) should he get punched on the chin?

Well, after the glitz and glamour of the boxers’ entrances, the match finally got underway. Amir Khan was out of his blocks quickly, moving around with lightning combinations. Unfortunately, in the very first round, there was an accidental clash of heads which caused a deep cut on Barrera’s head with blood literally oozing out. Barrera’s cuts man could not stem the flow of blood from Barrera’s head and he went on to fight almost 5 rounds continually wiping blood off his face. Finally, in the 5th round, after the referee’s second consultation with the ringside doctor, the fight was handed over to Amir Khan via a Technical Decision. For a fight to be ruled a no contest due to a head-butt, the fight must be called off within the first 4 rounds. I do not know if this was the reason the referee waited for the 5th round, but that’s just conjecture.

Trying to answer the questions above after the fight, here’s what I came up with:

(1) Amir has definitely improved his defence and technique after being taken under the wings of Freddie Roach. He had a different approach – hit and move, rather than hit, hit, hit and risk getting the odd punch back.

(2) Still unanswered. Amir could not knock out a wounded Barrera despite working some very good combinations on him for almost 5 rounds. We don’t know if Amir can eventually blow away tough opponents like he did with Michael Gomez and Oisin Fagan,  should the fight go the distance.

(3) No. Amir Khan was simply too fast for Barrera. Well, Barrera is a legend, but he’s well past his prime and would have found Amir’s speed tough to handle. Anyway, I have no idea what pride a young Amir can take by beating an old, pretty washed up Barrera. If Amir has a rematch with Breidis and defeats him, then I will be impressed (and I’m sure that’s what a lot of serious boxing fans will want – for Amir to prove himself against the best).

(4) Still unanswered. Amir’s speed and quick movement around the ring against a wounded Barrera, did not give Barrera a chance to test Amir’s chin. If Amir’s speed can help him protect his chin, then fair enough, but given what happened in his fight with Breidis, we all know that’s his single point of failure, until proven otherwise.

So, despite the improved boxing technique exhibited by Amir and the promise he showed, his win over Barrera was not comprehensive, not a spectacle for the boxing fan and although he said after the fight that he’s answered his critics, I’m afraid that some questions still remain unanswered.