Cardiac events during sport on TV

The dangers of WATCHING elite sport - health checks needed!

If you're reading this (or are a regular reader), then you're probably also inclined to spend fairly large periods of time actually watching sport (and wondering where we've been lately, but that's another story).

Being sports fans, you probably make it a point to follow coverage of your teams whenever possible, and live and share in the emotions of the game. People follow sport differently, of course - some dress up in the playing kit, scream at television sets and referees, and feel more anxiety and stress than the players they are supporting. Others (and I'm in this group) tend to be more dispassionate and 'cool', watching with a more analytical eye.

Uncertainty and enjoyment

Regardless, the enjoyment comes largely from the uncertainty. In marketing terms, sport on television is classified as an "instantly perishable product", which is to say that the value of sport perishes instantly once the outcome is known. Few will watch a game with emotion and enjoyment if the result is known, though of course, there are other reasons to watch matches over and over (game analysis, for example).

But what if that uncertainty is also the cause of medical problems? I have no doubt that those of you who fall into the first group - the screamers who live and breathe every moment - have been told to calm down or you'll damage your health.

Well, it turns out that this may be true! A study published in 2008 in the New England Journal of Medicine (very prestigious) looked at the incidence of cardiac events in Germany during the 2006 Football World Cup, and found that spectators are almost four times more likely to suffer cardiac events when their team played, and particularly, when they played very close, high-stakes matches.

The reason this is topical, of course, is that my country, South Africa, is gearing up for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, and is currently hosting the Confederations Cup (though I must say, when we play, the uncertainty in the outcome is perhaps not as great...!). We're also hosting the British and Irish Lions rugby team (a team picked every 4 years from the best of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales). Yesterday was the first test, and it probably gave a few people cause for some cardiac events....!

The study - a spike during matches

The study was done from Munich, during the World Cup in Germany, and it tracked the number of cardiac events reported during German matches, during the World Cup when Germany did not play, and during a control period that was made up of about 4 months in the years before and after the 2006 World Cup.

The graph below shows the spikes that occurred when Germany played, indicated by numbers on the red line. The blue and yellow lines represent the control periods of 2003 and 2005.

In particular, games 5 and 6 are the ones of interest - those were knock-out matches where Germany first defeated Argentina in a penalty shoot-out (Game 5 - huge tension for fans), and when Germany were defeated by Italy in the semi-final (Game 6). More than 60 cardiac events per day were reported, compared to the average of about 15 per day! (Match 2, by the way, was a group game between Germany and Poland - the stakes in that game are high because it's something of a local derby, with some animosity between the teams)


Once losing that semi-final, Germany played Portugal in the 3rd-4th play-off, and you'll see how there was no spike, which confirms that the 3rd-4th play-off lacks any tension or interest! The final (not involving Germany) produced more cardiac events than this game.

This was of course the final where Zidane infamously head-butted Italy's Marco Materazzi - this was an event that probably produced its fair share of cardiac events back in France...!

Breaking the numbers down a little further, the graph below shows the number of cardiac events reported during the three stages, separated into men and women's totals. The average number of cardiac events during German matches was 43 per day, compared to only 14.6 per day during the control period (and 18.2 during the World Cup when Germany did not play - the die-hard football fans, perhaps).
Differences between men and women

Perhaps not surprisingly, the increase in cardiac events is much greater in men than in women, with an almost four-fold increase in the number of events for men during German matches, compared to a two-fold increase for women.

This is further shown by the graph below, which shows the calculated incidence ratio of cardiac events for men (in blue) and women (in magenta) during German matches, during the World Cup when Germany does NOT play, and during the control period.

Just to explain, the incidence ratio is worked out on the basis that the chance of a cardiac event during the control period is equal to 1. For example, if there were 20 cardiac events a day during the control period, and 40 during matches, then the incidence ratio would be equal to 2 - effectively, you are twice as likely to have a cardiac event during a match. In this particular study, the calculation is complicated a little by the fact that the researchers adjusted the incidence for environmental factors such as barometric pressure (which is why you won't quite get the same values as these if you do the calculation yourself).

So the graph above shows that men are 3.26 times more likely to have a cardiac event during a German match than on another day, whereas women are only 1.82 times more likely. My first reaction is that this is pretty easy to explain - men tend to follow the game more and experience the stresses that would trigger heart attacks more than women (a generalization, certainly). However, there are a couple of other possibilities - one is that men have pathophysiological differences that make them more vulnerable to heart attack, or that they are more vulnerable to emotional triggers. I'd still suggest that TV viewership stats will reflect that men are perhaps 4 times more likely to be watching the game than women, which would explain the finding almost entirely.

The point is - preventative measures needed

So the point of all this is not simply to tell a story about an interesting scientific observation. It has some very serious implications. The spike caused by live sport (and there is no reason to think this is unique to soccer, though of course a World Cup is likely to produce the greatest spikes) is significant, and something needs to be done, quite literally, to save lives.

The authors suggested options such as taking or changing the dose of beta-blockers (drugs that block the stress response and potentially protect the heart), drugs including anti-inflammatories, anti-platelet drugs like aspirin, and behavioral therapy to counsel fans on how to cope with stress. One observation that is significant is that almost 50% of those who had cardiac events were diagnosed as having coronary artery disease BEFORE the heart attack, and so simply pre-screening will identify people most at risk, and they can then be counselled or treated to further reduce the risk.

So without wishing to throw a wet blanket on your baseball/rugby/soccer/cricket watching activities, try to reign in the stress - it might be life-saving. And it's just sport, after all!

Ross

Sports science and management strategy

Science IN sport: Search for meaning and higher performance

This post is long overdue. It might even turn into a series, there is so much to say. But for the last week, every time I have sat down to work on this topic, I have discovered a form of writer's block, where I'm unable to properly express the point I would like to. So this is my latest attempt, and it will probably develop into a series, personal (even autobiographical) in nature. But it is my take on where science fits and contributes to high performance sport.

A series with a purpose

Many of these thoughts are inspired by my recent experiences with the South African Sevens rugby team, now the world champions, with whom I've toured in the last few months in a sports science and strategy consulting role. Their success was the result of a strategic plan developed by coach Paul Treu almost four years ago. It borrowed from business, science, strategy, philosophy and half a dozen other sports and represents the most complete, professional and advanced strategy put together for national sport in South Africa. It should (though it won't) serve as a template for other sports in South Africa (my local interest), but hopefully lessons from it will also be of interest to you reading this, regardless of whether you follow the sport of Sevens rugby or not!

I don't wish to dwell exclusively on this experience though, and will also share some of the insights gained from my other experiences in South African sport. Sadly, the Sevens success is an isolated one, a rare occasion where the expertise of people, from the coach down to players, was valued and implemented. For the most part, South African sport remains the domain of the fragile egos who recognize not expertise but process, not vision but individual incentives, and who reward mediocrity rather than excellence. But more on that later.

And then finally, I hope (without being presumptuous) that this series of posts can inspire each reader to strive for "higher performance", regardless of their occupation. A scientist, a marketing manager, a triathlete, a cyclist, or a runner - wherever you fit, hopefully you'll find this series relevant as a guide to how you can find the next 1% towards your own high performance goals.

Not science, but expertise

The very first, and perhaps most important principle about seeking higher performance, is that the answer lies not in science per se, but in expertise. And expertise is brought by people. So Principle number 1 is get the best intellect involved, and don't limit your search to scientists. So this series is not a punt for sports scientists to take the reins of high performance sport, not for you individually or for sport. And if you're a cyclist or a runner seeking to improve your own performance, don't be led into believing that sports science holds the answer simply because it is sports science.

The far more important factor is the expertise and the insight that underscores the application of sports science. This crucial logic means that simply "doing sports science" is not good enough. It also means that people with no scientific qualification CAN make a bigger contribution than those who do, because the stringency of their thinking and their insight adds the value, not the content of their knowledge. I have had the pleasure of working with consultants from the world of business, who have developed skills and tools that make them far more valuable to elite sport than their scientific counterparts often are.

Therefore, for the duration of this post and series, I will refer to "intellect" rather than sports science, for the simple reason that sports scientists do not necessarily bring world class intellect to the system!

I will never forget that a certain high performance athlete here in South Africa once went for a laboratory test at a certain high performance institute, only two months before the Olympic Games. The test consisted of the usual VO2max test, and the report which was given to the athlete's coach said the following: "The athlete displays a VO2max that lies in the average range. It is recommended that the athlete work on endurance in order to improve the VO2max and running ability".

Turns out that athlete was Mbulaeni Mulaudzi, who would go on to win the silver medal in the Athens Olympic Games only 2 months later! And yet scientists sometimes wonder why their work is not respected by coaches...

The "no compromise principle": Your Ferrari is not the same as my Toyota

What has happened in South Africa in the last year or so, since our disaster in Beijing (one silver medal), is that people have "recognized" the need for expertise in sports. That's the good news. However, they fail to recognize that expertise does not simply equal sports science for the sake of sports science. And so, much political lobbying and grandstanding has created a situation where everyone is following "sports science principles" (whatever that means). "Yes, we're doing sports science now", is the call from the executive authority. "We have roped in our sports scientists". The atheltes are all seeing dieticians, psychologists, having regular tests and assessments, doctors and so on. Problem solved then? Well, no, unfortunately not.

I drive a car - it has four wheels, a steering wheel, an engine, a gearbox and brakes. So does your car. But you drive a Ferrari, I drive a Toyota. In the world of SA sport and the application of sports science, they're the same car. Your Ferrari is the same as my Toyota, because "sports science is sports science", after all. This kind of logic, exposed as ridiculous by the analogy, is where we stand in SA today.

The competition principle for intellectual support to athletes

In elite sport, an Olympic Games competition between athletes is the culmination of many months or years of preparation. Science is part of that preparation, and therefore the quality of the intellectual support (which includes coaching and science) is heavily responsible for the standard of the 'finished product'. When that intellect is sub-standard, then the athlete takes to the line with little chance of success, regardless of their talent. And the epicentre of the system, the "sun in the solar system", is the coach, who incorporates the science in such a way that it adds value.

You cannot allow a situation (as we have in SA, or rather, which we are currently allowing), where the athletes sit on the start line behind the wheel of a Toyota (0 to 100 in 12 seconds), while the elite from around the world drive Ferraris, thanks to the level of intellect. It may have wheels, engines and gearboxes, but intellect, like all athletes, is not created equal.

This is not the case across the board, mind you. Some of our sports have some remarkable people driving them - rowing, for example, has set out in the right direction with the right people, and needs only the support of the funders to give those people every opportunity to succeed. That is because it has the best people already - support the best and they will deliver. In the famous book Good to Great, author Jim Collins explains how getting the best people on the bus is crucial to success.

That is what rowing has. Sadly, they are there only through the initiative of a few people, not the system. Isolated success is possible when the best people are involved. Sustainable success comes from getting the best people involved as part of a longer-term strategy. Either way, the best people must be involved, and all it takes is a strategy that ensures their ongoing involvement.

Unfortunately, for reasons that range from stupidity and incompetence to hidden agendas, the chances of this happening are slim mostly because those in charge at the top don't recognize the value of people and so isolated success rarely becomes sustainable. It's happened for SA Sevens, thanks to Paul Treu. Hopefully it will happen for rowing. Triathlon and canoeing are trying to do it, but the higher up you go, the less common it becomes. The "soldiers" may be worthy, but the generals often are not.

So Principle Number 2 in seeking higher performance is that compromise destroys performance, and "elitism" is crucial to success. This is true for athletes and for management, but mostly for coaches and those providing the "intellectual capital" in the elite sports system. Wherever there is competition, if you compromise on quality, you lose. If you fail to dedicate every single resource towards excellence, you lose.

And the take-home message for you reading this (unless of course you're an SA Sports administrator, in which case the take-home message should be obvious), is that whether you're trying to shave 1 minute of your 10km time, or trying to qualify for the Hawaii Iron-man, then you cannot compromise on the quality of the expertise you seek and use.

The scientific process: It's not WHAT you know, but HOW you learn it

The point is, the CONTENT of the science is far less important than the MEANS by which it is developed. It's not WHAT you know, but HOW you know it. I could list for you the ten enzymes involved in the glycolytic pathway that converts glucose into ATP, and I could explain to you the energetics underlying the enzyme reactions and why the re-oxidation of NAD+ is required to allow the process to continue, even though lactate forms as a result. Blah blah...that's not relevant to the high performance athlete in that form. Their coach will be able to work out exactly what training is required to improve the glycolytic enzyme capacity of the 1500m runner so that more energy can be produced, without such a level of "expertise" ever being involved.

So my point is this: The value of science lies not in the content it brings to the coach and athlete, though this is of course still valuable if applied correctly. What is infinitely more important is that the person who is applying content appreciates HOW they know what they know, because this gives them the ability to develop hypotheses and critically evaluate their observations.

And that is what good science TENDS to deliver and create in people - the ability to ask questions, measure variables and then answer the question. This SHOULD be a quality that good science adds to the athlete. Sadly, as we show in South Africa, it doesn't happen often, and the sports science we have created rather tells elite athletes that they are average because their VO2 max is not as high as it should be.

The model for integration

Where is all this heading then? Well, the model below is my illustration of where sports science fits into the elite sporting system. The key point in this whole system is that of "intellectual immersion" - you cannot relegate intellect to the role of a "service provider", to whom you outsource a few of the peripheral support functions. The best coaches bring their own level of intellect, which drives the whole pyramid and performance, precisely because it is immersed. The same should be true of those in the support team, from management down to sports scientists.

But in creating a support team, you must surround yourself with people who are excellent at what they do, and then simply step aside and let them do those things. That is true of business as well - small teams, working with freedom to innovate and grow will change the world. Boring old services, and the idea that "sports science is sports science" never will. It brings only failure, as we'll discover in SA over the next few years.



The SA Sevens Team have, in my experience, most closely achieved this model, and that's something that testifies to the value of having a coach who understands how important good people are. Paul Treu surrounded himself with scientists, management experts, business strategists, psychologists, and other experts, and then set about developing a strategy that would ensure sustainable success.

One of Treu's key mottos or principles is that "Better people make people better", and that's perhaps the take-home message of this whole post. There is a great deal to be said about what actually underscores the on-field performances of the players, and the mind-set that the high performance environment requires, but that's a topic for future posts.

The margins are too small not to care about this: A game of inches

Perhaps to end off, a video from the movie Any Given Sunday. I've no doubt that most of you have seen or heard this speech, but probably never connected it with sports science and high performance. Of course, there is a lot more to it, but it helps explain just how vital that expertise is. Some of the language is coarse (for sensitive readers), but the speech makes the point that "inches" matter. It inspires the players to seek inches, because those inches, when added up, "make the difference between winning and losing".

Sports science is involved in the quest for those inches, not necessarily on the field during the match, but in the training, during the hours of preparation, and the times when the cameras are not rolling. Consider that Michael Phelps won the 100m butterfly title by 0.01 seconds. Consider that the margin between winning and losing in shotput is 1 degree in the push-off angle. Consider that 9.69 seconds of 100m sprinting is the culmination of thousands of hours of training. Or that winning a Sevens world series, which might take 7 minutes of play in the final, actually comes down to thousands of hours of work, discipline and effort. Then you realise that if you fail to seek those inches, and if you fail to pursue every last millisecond, then whether you're an elite athlete or a marketing assistant at a shoe company, you're failing to achieve higher performance. Cue SA sport...

Next time - a new approach to sports science: Away from the VO2max: Lessons from the SA Sevens Team




A final somber word for a great player and a great person, who experienced a tragic turn of events in the last few weeks. Vuyo Zangqa was one of our great stars of the 2008/2009 Sevens season. He emerged and grew progressively as the season developed, and electrified the world of Sevens during the last four tournaments.

He's also one of the team's characters, a leader and an inspiration, and one of the most genuine, committed and passionate people I've had the pleasure of working with. Last week, while up in Johannesburg, Vuyo was involved in a car accident and received serious facial injuries. Two days ago, he underwent surgery to his left eye. At one point, the eye was going to be removed, but they are now holding out that it can still be saved. The implications of this are obvious for his playing career, but that is less important now than his general health and quality of life.

So here is to Vuyo Zangqa, a special player and person, please keep him in your thoughts and prayers, and we'll see you on the field bringing the magic in no time...

Ross

Frence Open climax

One down, one to go for Fed

So Roger Federer made it (squeaked it) against del Potro yesterday, and now stands one match away from the title that it seemed might elude him in his glittering career.

Standing between him and that title is Robin Soderling, who rallied from an apparent slide to beat Fernando Gonzalez in his own five-set thriller. Soderling was all but buried, having led by two sets, he let slip the third and fourth and then found himself trailing 4-1 in the fifth before winning five games in a row to make his first final.

For Federer, I believe it was the best possible result. Can Soderling muster up any more great tennis, having already dismised Nadal, Davydenko and Gonzalez in such epic circumstances? I doubt it. For him, the achievement of reaching the final, by far his greatest achievement, changes the stakes. Also, I think Gonzalez had more weapons and might have beaten Federer, Soderling does not.

And so Federer has seen yet another (potentially) favourable outcome on the other side of the draw, as though the stars are lining up for him. I think, based on yesterday's match, that Federer will now feel that the worst is past, and he'll win the final comfortably...

Then again, perhaps the pressure will be too great, and he'll simply try too hard to finish what many expect, and what he wants so badly.

I gave my thoughts on the pressure in yesterday's post, so I won't do it again. I will however steer you towards another excellent piece that I read in the Times this morning... (this is the fallback plan when I find I haven't watched enough to post myself!)

One of the perks of spending the week in London is that I've been able to read some of the journalism here, which is just world-class compared to what we have in SA, sadly. OK, some of the writing is quite self-indulgent, and either overly hopeful or overly critical of English sport (depending on the occasion), but on the neutral topics, it's absolutely brilliant.

And this article, by Simon Barnes, is one such piece. It's a great read ahead of the Federer-Soderling match, and is the last word I'll leave you with before the men's match tomorrow.

The women's final

A cursory word on the women's final - I noted that earlier this week Serena Williams said that women's tennis is far more exciting than men's tennis, because of the personalities and characters involved.

Apparently, I've been watching the wrong version of the women's game, because I find women's tennis to be in something of a rut at the moment. Obviously, this is the marketing/management hat that I wear speaking, not the science, but I think women's tennis needs an injection of something to regain parity.

There was a time, perhaps 5 years ago, when it was the other way around. The men's game was completely dominated by Federer, Nadal's rise was only just beginning, and Murray, Djokovic and co were not nearly up to the challenge. We' d moved on from the Sampras-Agassi and Sampras-Courier rivalries, and the game had become a little boring.

In contrast, the women had the Williams sisters, Sharapova, two Belgians in Clijsters and Henin, Davenport and a mix of Russians who could win any tournament. Before that, diverse playing styles of Sanchez-Vicario, Hingis, Graf, Seles, and the Williams sisters created compelling viewing precisely because of the characters.

The situation is now different on both sides. While men's tennis is extra-ordinarily strong, with some of the greatest rivalries ever fuelling some of the greatest matches ever played (think Nadal-Verdasco in Aus, think Nadal-Federer in Aus and Wimbledon), there are no great rivalries in the women's game, and there seems to be a general lack of suspense.

There seems little consistency in the characters (who are the same as in previous years), because top players seem to be on a carousel of injury, recovery, retirement and loss of form. The overall hierarchy seems to have been flattened, the result being that new players can emerge, win big matches, and then disappear again. For example, name the Romanian who beat Jelena Jankovic this week in Paris? And will she feature again this year? I doubt it.

Speaking of, wasn't Jankovic a world number one once? Then again, so were Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova, Ana Ivanovic and now Dinara Safina. As I was saying, it's something of a carousel.

Now, some may say this is a sign of strength, and in a sense, it can be viewed positively. It means that there is great parity among the top 10 players. The trouble is, it doesn't lend itself to popularity and creation of affinty among spectators for recognizable, consistent performers.

The French Open final this year will be played between Dinara Safina and Svetlana Kuznetsova, world number 1 and world number 7. In the semi-finals, two relative unknowns were knocked out - Samantha Stosur and Dominika Cibulkova. The men's final, while featuring a player who was not expected to be there, also features one of the game's great players. Even the progress of the unknown Soderling has been marked with suspense, great matches, huge interest and drama. Women's matches rarely reach the heights of the men's game - finals are routinely won in straight sets in one-sided contests, the winner barely leaving third gear.

So Serena may feel the game is more popular, but I'm afraid she's either watching the wrong men's game, or has lost sight of what is possible for the women's.

So for the women's final, my interest levels are too low to even warrant a prediction. Hopefully Safina wins, as number 1, it would at least lend some credibility to the rankings.

Bring on the men

Ross

French Open history looms

Federer's big chance

At long last! A post!

Rugby 7s triumph - dissected soon

Apologies again for the lengthy absence - the IRB Sevens Series is now a thing of the past, and so I can't even use it as an excuse for not posting this week! However, I've spent much of the last week catching up on sleep, and had a few failed attempts at posting (call it writer's block) since the final tournament in Edinburgh last weekend!

The Series was duly wrapped up, for those not following the game, and South Africa won its first World Series title! I'm not going to allow the opportunity for a post or two on it to pass, don't worry - I'm just waiting until next week when I've had time to sift through the thoughts (and emotions) of the season's victory, so that I can post something objective and meaningful to those who perhaps don't follow the Sevens game closely! So that's on the way.

Roland Garros - history looms for Roger Federer

For today though, it's less a proper post than a short comment on the big sports happening of the weekend, the French Open.

I guiltily confess that I haven't been able to watch a single shot from Roland Garros, what with the rugby and the subsequent travels. So, my "expert" opinion is based on nothing more than what I have read or heard in news reports.

Pretty much everyone will know that Roger Federer has been given the greatest opportunity he'll ever have to claim the elusive clay court Grand Slam. Before the tournament began, those standing in his way included Novak Djokovic (this year's second best clay court player), Andy Murray, Fernando Verdasco, and of course, Rafael Nadal.

Twelve days in, and not a single one remains. It was Nadal's defeat, at the hands of Robin Soderling of Sweden, that sent shockwaves through the tennis world, since it was Nadal's first loss ever in the French Open. Not much time was spent dissecting that defeat, because attention immediately turned to the Swiss champion, who has, year after year, found a Spanish street-fighter from Mallorca standing between him and the career Grand Slam.

Semi-final, final, final, final, and four defeats must have created in Federer the perception that a brick wall stood between him and the title. That wall is now gone, courtesy Soderling, and Federer has two matches left to win the title many must have thought he never would.

Standing between Fed and the title are...

He plays del Potro in the semi-final, and then one of Fernando Gonzalez (hand of stone, for his big forehand) or Soderling in the final, and both are matches you'd expect him to win. Yet this is not quite the same Federer as in years past, and he stuttered past Haas and Mathieu earlier this week before finding form against Monfils in the quarter-finals. If he is anything close to his best, he should claim this one.

The problem, however is pressure. As I mentioned, nobody gave too much attention to dissecting Nadal's loss (which, by the way, I believe is the result of playing too much tennis, because Nadal's game at 95% is not effective. He starts leaving balls short, denying himself time and giving more time to the opponent. He needs to rethink his playing schedule, in my opinion)

In any event, the focus switched entirely to Federer's quest to win the tournament now that his nemesis was gone. Federer must surely recognize the magnitude of the moment, and while he is downplaying it, he will tackle these matches knowing that this opportunity may not come around again. That's not to say he won't win it, of course, but he'll be desperate to do it now.

And pressure does funny things to people. Here, I can relate a story from the SA Sevens triumph - we went into the England tournament well clear in the overall world series, and needed only 13 points to clinch the overall title. Yet the pressure was enormous, and deny it as much as we wished, it became a factor that very realistically affected performance.

The focus among elites in such situations is to stick to the routines, focus on small targets that have formed the foundation for success for so long, and don't allow the mind to drift onto the big picture, but this is very nearly impossible. Focus on each step, the small essentials that sum to produce performance, is the goal, but under pressure, it's very difficult to achieve.

That pressure, which for Federer must be even greater, is a key factor that will influence the outcome of the matches. Not only for him, but for those he plays against, because they will enter an arena loaded with meaning that is not normally present.

Some will rise to it, and raise their games, others will be weighed down by it. If Federer encounters a challenger who rises to the occasion, and plants doubt in his mind, it might unravel very easily. If he gets on top, and stays in the moment, then he could walk it comfortably, with the perception that "destiny in on his side". Either way, it could go quickly. My very brief exposure to a similar pressure is that rather than denying it exists, it should be embraced and channeled towards making sure that performance is not compromised. Time will tell how Federer handles it!

The good news (for me, anyway), is that I'll actually be able to watch the final, and so might even comment with a little more insight than the big picture come Sunday!

Enjoy the action, and join us soon! We should be back on track now!

Ross

P.S. For an excellent piece on the tennis, check out this article by Dan Nicholl of iafrica.com. One of the funniest sports writers around, he also knows a thing or two about sport