The complete beginners guide to betting on the Melbourne Cup

Have you ever watched the news in the lead up to the Melbourne Cup and wondered how they come up with 'favourites' and a list of horses who are the best chances to win the race? You may have decided over the years of watching the race that you would always back the one with the best name or the jockey is wearing the most flamboyant colours. But you are ready to stop with that. You want to know how to use your money wisely with betting, you say. Then this is the guide for you.

This guide is designed for people whose only interaction with horse racing or gambling of any sort comes on the first Tuesday of November every year.

Before we jump in though, the thing to remember is that there is no 'best' method to working out which horse to back. Everyone has their own reasons. A horse may put in a surprisingly excellent performance that defies everything people thought about it, or a champion may have an unlucky day and finish dead last. That's racing for you. But with some knowledge you can at least make an educated decision about what you want to get behind.

So let us start at the basics of betting. If you are familiar with 'returns,' 'odds,' 'each way' and 'favourites' then you can give this a skip if you please.

PART ONE: What is betting?

1) What do these dollar values next to the horses mean?

This is the amount of money you will receive for every dollar you spend betting on the horse to win. If a horse is at $7, that means if you put $1 on the horse to win you get $7 back. This amount you get back is usually referred to as the return.

$7 (Horse's price) 

x 

$1 (Your bet) 

= 

$7 (Your return)

In this simple example you made seven times back what you bet! So your one dollar becomes seven! But you feel a little more risky and decide to put $10 on a horse to win instead of your $1. So if that same horse wins, this happens instead...

$7 (Horse's price)

x

$10 (Your bet)

=

$70 (Your return)

But remember, to go for the bigger return you have to risk more money!

Example time!

This first horse you see on the form guide is $6. The next one is $10. But the one after is $35! How do they come up with that? And does that mean you should go for that $35 one that will get you more money back?

Simply put, the lower the dollar value is on a horse, the more likely it is to win. The horse with the lowest dollar value next to its name is referred to as the favourite. But of course what this means is that if a horse that is deemed more likely to win does so, then you will get less money back. This is what makes betting such an exciting feature of horse racing, trying to weigh up whether you want to either...

A) Back a lower value horse for a better chance of winning, or

B) Back a higher value horse with a lower chance of winning.

So that horse at $35 is believed to have a very small chance of winning, while the $6 one is deemed to have a very good chance. A horse around $1.50 to $2 is believed to be near impossible to beat while a horse around $150 is deemed not a chance to get close to winning (but upsets still happen!).

My Kingdom of Fyfe was a horse who came out to Australia from England to begin a career here in Autumn 2011. In his first race here he started at $150... and won! Miracles do indeed happen!

On the other end of the scale Black Caviar had odds of $1.04 in many of her races! Odds that incredibly low are reserved for legendary horses. If you put a dollar on her to win you wouldn't even make five cents back! A $10 bet would only make you 40 cents! Unless you have thousands of dollars on hand, betting for a win on a horse like her isn't worth your time! And betting against them? You're very brave.

How they come up with those values for the horses anyway? We'll get there soon.

2) How to place a bet

There are almost limitless ways to bet on a horse race, but there's only two that should concern you if you don't want to lose your head. Those two methods are betting on a horse to win and betting each way.

If you bet on a horse to win, to get any money back your horse must come first! That's it. If he or she finishes in any of the other 23 places on Melbourne Cup day then your money is gone. However, betting to win is the most simple method to understand and it's very easy to calculate what you stand to gain and what you stand to lose (as shown in question 1). It's recommended if you are completely new to betting to bet on the win.

Maths warning! 

If you bet on a horse each way, you can make money back if your horse finishes first, second or third. For example, lets say you back a horse at $11 each way. To make an each way bet you put the same amount of money on the horse to win and get a place. So if you, for instance, go $5 each way on this $11 horse, this is what happens...

You put $5 on the horse to win and $5 on the horse to run a second or third... So you are actually spending $10! This is very important to remember. Why? Because if your horse wins, despite the fact you spent $10, only five of it goes to it winning! So using that equation back in question one assuming our horse wins...

$11 (Horse's price for winning)

x

$5 (Your win bet)

=

$55 (Your return)

Had you spent that $10 entirely on the horse to win, you would have got $110 back instead. But the beauty of betting each way, in this case splitting your bet into two $5 halves, is having some backup in case your horse gets second or third! If your horse just gets beaten in the last few metres of the race, there's no need to be sad because you can still make money! So let us go and cash in that bet...

Horses that finish second or third have a place value next to them in place of their standard win one. This number will always be significantly lower than their standard win value. Using our $11 example, lets say our fella tried his hardest but just fell short and finished second instead. Luckily for us, we bet $5 each way on him instead of the whole $10 on the win! We find out our horse paid $4 for the place. So...

$4 (Horse's price for getting a place)

x

$5 (Your win bet)

=

$20 (Your return)

Well, it's certainly not as good as winning the $55 if our horse won, but guess what! You still get $20 back meaning we made a $10 profit (since we started by spending $10). Very nice!

But a word of warning! It's not always efficient to bet each way. Lets say you decided to put a $5 each way bet on the favourite, who ran at $3 instead of . So we put $5 on the win and $5 on the place (again, spending $10 in total). This seems great because if he wins we get $15 back - a $5 profit.

But the race doesn't go so well. Our favourite runs third. So what's his place value? $1.40 it seems.

$1.40 (Horse's price for getting a place)

x

$5 (Your place bet)

=

$7 (Your return)

We actually lost three dollars despite our horse running a third place! What went wrong? What happened was that we put our bet each way on a horse with a rather low value. This isn't a good idea. If your horse runs a place and its place value is under $2, then you have actually lost money!

So backing each way is an excellent idea if you are backing is horse that is less favoured to win! What this means is that having a successful each way bet does not guarantee a profit!

If mathematics makes you throw up in repulsion, don't worry too much. Just remember this rule of thumb instead: If you want to pick a horse to back each way then try to pick a runner whose value is around $7 or higher. Though there is certainly some give either side of that number, it's a safe one to work with. This guarantees that a top three finish for your horse will at least give you some sort of a return instead of a loss!

If that's a little too much to take, you can't go wrong simply betting only on the win!

PART TWO: Reading and understanding form guides

1) A form guide at its most basic

To know what to back, we have to compare horses. To make that happen, we need to understand the form guide! Remember when we asked how we come up with the different values on horses? This the starting point to finding out.

A form guide is a list of races taking place that also includes a lot of interesting and relevant information about the horses racing, including their past results, where they have ran. You may be very familiar with them or have heard about how important they are. The most basic part of a form guide is the race list or summary. They are unique and laid out in different ways, but most follow a similar format. Form guides usually contain much more in depth information, which I'll come to a touch later.

A word of warning to those unfamiliar with reading form guides, the following example may give you a fright at first - but have no fear because we'll make reading it look like child's play soon enough! Here is an example I've prepared for the first three horses out of 24 listed in this year's Melbourne Cup....

1. x43228   Dunaden.....................................................................................58.5kg (1)     C. Williams

2. 44x599   Green Moon..............................................................................57.5kg (10)    B. Pebble

3. 389624   Red Cadeux...............................................................................56.5kg (23)    G. Mosse

So now that we've got some information, let's study it.

2) Horse numbers + weight

Horse racing numbers are always given out the same way no matter what the race. Horses are listed in descending order of the weight they have to carry. In this year's edition, Dunaden will be carry the most weight with 58 and a half kilograms (what people refer as the top weight). This means he will carry the number one saddlecloth. More weight obviously makes running the race more difficult for a horseAs you can see, moving down the sheet the weights continue to decrease. 

These weights are calculated depending on what level of racing we are at and how well the horse has raced in his or her career. The weights then get given based on the handicapper's rating. Good results add to the rating and poor results either result in nothing or even loss of points. Simple enough. Dunaden currently holds a rating of 118, Green Moon 116 and Red Cadeux 114. This explains the weight distribution as well as their listed order. Good so far? Excellent!

Weights don't always perfectly match the rating, other factors mean some horses can jump up or fall down the race order. But they are the basis for which horses qualify for races through!

This means generally that the most successful horses over a longer time are listed towards the top in a race! Of course, the trade-off for these good results is that the horse has to carry more weight! Dunaden carried 54.5kg to win the 2011 Melbourne Cup. The following year he had to carry 59kg because his rating had increased so much! That was a massive increase in weight. He finished the race in 14th position. It is very likely that a big factor for the lower finish was the additional weight on board - but of course there are many other things going on that could have contributed, don't forget!

It can be hard for horses to lose handicap weight, even if they don't continue racing very well. A horse could be nine years old, but because he or she had a very successful four and five year old career they are constantly stuck towards top weight wherever they go! This is actually quite a common occurrence for many horses and something that should always be taken into consideration! Dunaden hasn't won a race since last year's Caulfield Cup but still has carry just half a kilo less than last year's Melbourne Cup.

These ratings mean if a horse such as Dunaden were to race in a lower-standard event, he would be slapped with a significant weight penalty! But a horse that has never raced in something the standard of the Melbourne Cup will enjoy a much lower weight in Tuesday's big one.

Makybe Diva is pictured here winning the 2005 Melbourne Cup. The number one saddle cloth indicates she was carrying more weight than any other horse, but she still managed to win! It's a rare feat for top weight horses to win the Melbourne Cup

  

This means that in handicap events, such as the Melbourne Cup, the more successful a horse has been the more weight they have to carry. It comes as no surprise then that the winners of the last two Melbourne Cups are carrying the most weight in this year's event! The aim of a handicap race is to balance out the competition to keep the racing as close as possible.

2) Previous form

See that string of numbers and x's following on from the horse's number? That jumble of numbers actually represent how the horse has run over his or her past six starts (the number of starts listed usually is different between publications). Look at Dunaden. He has x43228. The numbers represent finishing position. 8 for eighth. 2 for second. Easy.

Note: the most recent start is always on the right. So Dunaden finished 8th at his last start and second in both races before that.

What these numbers won't tell you though is what class of racing they took place at. A horse could have 111111 next to its name, but that wouldn't mean much if I told you it had only been racing at country races against soft competition! You may need to look at the extra details in a form guide to see what competition a horse has been up against. But these numbers alone are a good start! 

The Melbourne Cup is a Group One race. Group racing in Australia is the peak of the sport. The best of the best. One is the top with three being the lowest - but only a fraction of horses in the country are capable of racing at any group level! Below group racing are listed events and open races. Try to take note of what standard a horse has previously raced in. How many starts at group level have they had? Group experience counts for a lot. A horse with an 8th in a group one may have scored a win in the same distance in a group three. Always take that into account!

What on earth is that 'x' though? That is when the horse was spelled or rested, usually a couple of months minimum. It may always be indicated by an 's' or '-'. How you can use this to your advantage is to find out how the horse performs after being spelled, or perhaps two or three starts afterwards. Some horses may need more than a single race to get back into the groove, while some really enjoy coming back from a lengthy break and run excellent while fresh!

If a horse in the Cup has finished well in any group-level race over 2000 metres or so, then you certainly can't rule them out. Horses who race against classy horses will always be easier to judge than those pushing aside easy opposition.

3) Barrier

Horse racing doesn't mirror athletics in that the start is handicapped so runners get to run a similar distance. The straight line of barriers means one very important thing: Horses towards the outside have to run slightly further than those inside. This is a very big advantage. A bad barrier even has the potential to push a horse's value out! A horse with a price of $15 for example, could find itself out to $25 if the horse gets the dreaded barrier 24! That's the importance people place on having a good starting position! But then again, although a barrier can be a godsend or a hindrance, being on the outside doesn't mean you are doomed.

The horses to the right of the picture have the 'inside draw' or the barriers lower in number. They start closer to the inside rail and thus get to run a slightly shorter race and gain a desired position in the field much easier

That little number in the brackets is the barrier the horse will start from. The numbers are drawn at random by owners or trainers. Some horses have even shown a tendency to race between from certain barriers, but knowing this will take a bit of dedication and more research!

In all, barriers do help a lot and starting from anything in the inside half is usually considered an advantage. But a bad draw won't always end someone's race before it begins!

Fun fact: No horse has ever won from barrier 18!

PART THREE: Dissecting the details and making a choice

So this is it. Time to make a choice. You've decided what type of bet you'll make and had a look through the form guide. Now it's time to dive a bit deeper if you're feeling up to it! In the form guide you will usually find more details like distances won or lost by, how track conditions were and even the horse's parents. Trust me, it's all very important!

These points below are useful for those looking to go an additional step beyond that of part two. The following factors take much more time to look at and question, but they can help you narrow down some choices and improve your punting in the future!

1) Race distance

* Has the horse raced at this distance before? What's the longest the horse has ever raced? The Melbourne Cup is very long for an Australian race at 3200 metres. You will find many Australian horses entering the Cup have not won at this distance before, usually being restricted to races around 2000 to 2400 metres. This makes it very difficult to ascertain whether they can run the extra distance... though many still manage to, don't worry.

* If so, how did they fare over the distance? Simply running it doesn't mean the horse ran well or pulled up well after the race. Look for how the horse fares over different distances.

2) Quality of the race

* Has the horse won or placed well in any Group 1, 2 or 3 races, especially those beyond 2000m? This is a sure sign they can match the pace in the Melbourne Cup.

* How many starts has the horse had at group level? Quality opposition always looks excellent on a horse's resume.

3) Ground

* Does the horse race better or worse when the track is in a particular condition? Race tracks in Australia can be broken down into five categories depending on how soft the ground is. So from hardest to softest...

FAST --- GOOD --- DEAD ---- SLOW --- HEAVY

Fast tracks are a rarity, usually extremely hard with little give in the ground. Heavy tracks meanwhile are a sloshy mess usually due to rain! Nearly every Melbourne Cup you would have seen will have taken place on a good or dead Flemington track. Try to determine how horses go in different weather. There's a reason many punters wait until the day of the race to make their pick! Rain or sunshine can make or break a race

Note: European horses may sometimes struggle to run on firm Australian tracks. Our racecourses differ very much to those in the cooler European climate. If you want to back an overseas horse, look into how conditions of the track can hinder or help them them. Trainers have even withdrawn horses on a Melbourne Cup morning following a big downpour the night before or because some expected rain didn't show up.

4) Location

* Following on from the track condition, has the horse every run in Australia? Though recent events are continuing to prove the theory of 'every horse should have at least one race in Australia before racing the Cup' wrong, many find Australian experience important!

5) Weight

* As mentioned earlier. Has the horse carried this weight before? Some horses might not cope with the extra baggage

6) Race timetable

Remember, doing additional research can actually be fun. Trying to sift through the details can be rewarding. If a horse manages to go as you predicted you can tell your friends they were silly for betting on that horse that hasn't raced on a good track at this distance and then proceed to laugh at them, beaming with pride at how brilliant you are at reading form. From there you can pretend you know more about the sport than you actually do. At least that's what I do.

Thank you very much for reading. Happy punting!
- Alex

Agar's near-ton a piece of sporting folklore

Cricket

Ashton Agar, the man most of country had never heard of, became the talk of the nation overnight after his 98 runs saw him not only bring Australia back into the first Ashes test but create a story that even be remembered for generations to come.

That story starts with a 19-year-old who strolled to the crease with his team sitting at 9-117, a daunting 98 runs behind England, and lit up Trent Bridge with a flurry of shot making more befitting of an accomplished top order player.

Agar started out with a cool attitude and patience that seemed out of ordinary for a tail-ender. Was it by chance that the new kid had been defaulted to the bottom because of his lack of test experience? As he refused to get out, it became apparent that was the case.

Suddenly boundaries started to flow. England's short balls and attempts to give Agar a rough welcome into test cricket were pushed aside. The home side persisted in striding away from the tight line they had demolished the upper order with and paid the price for it.

Ashton had his 50 in as many deliveries and there was now more than a hint of concern among the home crowd and team. Who is this young man? Why is he at the bottom when his refuses to put a foot wrong with the bat? Turns out, many on the other side of the world were wondering the same thing, but with a much happier disposition.

Twitter blew up with #Ashtag and #Ashton making the rounds quicker than the youngster could find the boundary rope. That says a lot considering his golden innings consisted of 12 fours and a pair of sixes. Popularity stemmed not just from his surprisingly adept technique, but his demeanor and shot selection in an unfamiliar environment of big-stage cricket.

60. 70. 80. 90. The runs kept coming. It was only in an Graeme Swann over where Agar finally looked like he was being truly tested. But he made it through.

Then the unbreakable kid from Western Australia finally snapped. He had missed several tempting pull shots from the hands of Stuart Broad before finally bashing one into the mitts of Swann in the deep on-side. The tactics that had done nothing to him early in his innings had finally lured him into a simple mistake, off a solid shot regardless.

Ashton Agar's 98 is the highest score by a number 11 in test cricket history. PHOTO: Getty Images

It had been a long time since I had watched a sporting event where I felt my heart physically sink. I felt like I had been robbed of a moment, along with millions of others, when Swann celebrated like he removed Sachin Tendulkar in his prime.

Then Agar removed his helmet and beamed with a smile that forced a similar one out of me. He didn't care. He had helped lift a poor side into a winning position on cricket's biggest stage, the Ashes. That's what mattered to him. And suddenly I knew I had seen something that went beyond simply rewriting the record books.

Agar didn't just change the history books, he wrote himself into Australian sporting folklore. He had joined an elite company whose tales are those we know we will end up sharing with future generations. That's the importance of what many late-night viewers experienced on the 11th of July.

The man clearly knew how to make the most out of a situation, when he survived a stumping call with his team sitting at just 131. Turned out he thought sending that total to 280 would make a better story. That moment might have rattled a lesser player, but Agar clearly has a wonderful mental game that even his own selectors might not have been aware of.

Australia took of lead into the 2nd innings of England. A lead. From 98 runs down on the last wicket. Let the enormity of that sink in, if you hadn't already last night.

It would be criminal to forget the contribution of the man at the other end, Phil Hughes. Here's a man that has consistently had so much pressure applied towards his game, yet he was able to remain composed enough to assist his young teammate (and himself) in finding history.

Hughes ended his innings on 81 not out, having watched six of his teammates walk back to the pavilion before him. This was one of his finest moments in test cricket since his South Africa century in his early test days, and the history books may mention only his partnership contribution but he deserves an equal share of the imminent truckload of praise about to be heaped on his fellow young countryman.

In an innings full of highlights, none stand out more than a graceful on-side shot where Agar lofted his back foot high into the air as he put his body through the motions. It was clear from that moment that this kid had a future not just with the ball.

This is just a selection of the records that were broken on day 2 at Nottingham:

* Highest 10th wicket partnership in test cricket history, 163

* Highest score by a number 11 in test cricket history, beating last year's 95 effort by Timo Best by 3 runs

* Highest score by a number 11 on debut. More than doubles Wawrick Armstrong's 45 from 1902.

* 2nd fastest test 50 on debut, behind Adam Gilchrist

* 2nd debutant to finish with the highest test score at number 11

* The third time the 10th wicket pair have doubled their team's score (remember Lyon/Siddle in South Africa? 47? Yep, that's one of the others)

* 5th Australian 100-run 10th wicket partnership

Well played, young man. Well played.

Aussie hopes handed nightmare draw at Wimbledon

Tennis

Lleyton Hewitt will have to play beyond the excellent level of tennis he displayed at Queens if he is to make a similar inroads at Wimbledon, after drawing world number 10 Stanislas Wawrinka in the opening round.

Hewitt's Swiss opponent is having the year of his life, having played in four finals in tournaments this year and winning one of them.

Hewitt drew praise from all circles for his run at the Wimbledon lead-up tournament last week, which saw him make easy work of Juan Martin del Potro in a deciding set, before bowing out in the semis.

The defensive style of Hewitt will be in contrast to the offensive style of Wawrinka, and the Aussie's best hopes of winning will be in forcing the errors rather than making the winners.

Although Wawrinka doesn't possess the grass court records that Hewitt does, preferring red as opposed to green under his feet, he made his first ATP grass court final overnight and will be hungry for further success during the short-lived grass season.

Sam Stosur returns once again to her least favoured Slam with the odds again stacked against her.

Her first round matchup will be against 18-year old qualifier Anna Karolína Schmiedlová, who snatched a place in the main draw as a lucky loser. The young Slovak was a runner-up in last year's French Open girls singles final and caused an upset at Roland Garros by taking out Belgian Yanina Wickmayer in the opening round.

Lleyton Hewitt in action last week at Queens

Though Stosur sits 105 places higher in the world rankings, an unknown quantity will make the first round an uneasy affair, with an opponent still climbing in the rankings and with nothing to lose.

The really bad news for the sole Australian representative in the women's singles is that a potential fourth round meeting is world number one Serena Williams.

Williams is arguably the most in-form player in the world right now, in either the men's or women's game. She has taken her opponents apart in recent months to look even more dominant than she did before her life-threatening injury several years ago.

If Stosur manages to make it so far to take on the American superstar, she will be starting five Wimbledon titles and a favoured surface behind. To set up the dreaded meeting, Stosur will have to make it past the third round at SW19, something she has not achieved in ten attempts.

The run-in with grass court specialists continues for other Australian mens hope Bernard Tomic, facing 21st seed Sam Querrey. The American's powerful serve will only be accentuated further on the fresh grass of round one, and Tomic will lose if he doesn't take control of the points.

Querrey will look to simply outpace a slower and more variable game that Tomic possesses, and if the Tomic keeps a level head and makes Querrey play defensive, the match is for the Australian's taking. 

Tomic knows what it takes to make it to the quarter-final of Wimbledon, and certainly has one of the easiest eighths of the draw. He could do it again, it's just about getting the tough first round encounter done.

James Duckworth and Matt Reid have both managed to qualify for their first ever Wimbledon. Duckworth has a very winnable match against fellow qualifier Denis Kudla, and it may come down to who has the mental game at a nervous time for both youngsters.

Reid has the rougher end of the stick, facing top 50 player Radek Stephanek. Stephanek crashed out of the opening round at the French Open to fellow Aussie Nick Kyrgios, but just came from a home tournament victory several days ago. Reid has nothing to lose and should play accordingly.

Lastly, Matt Ebden and Marinko Matosevic will have tough times, coming up against Kei Nishikori and Guillaume Rufin respectively. Matosevic can certainly beat his lower ranked opponent, though has had a tough time of late against players ranked lower. Ebden meanwhile may have to look to the next tournament.

No Australian looks a certainty in their first round game, and it could be that all lose and crash out. For some  like Matt Reid, it's a new experience on a stage greater than all previous tournaments played combined. For others like Stosur, it's a chance to put past demons behind.

The draw gods were not kind to many, particularly to Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, who may meet as early as the quarter finals!

Put a puncture in painful Pirelli

Motor Racing

Formula One Management are destroying their sport with a tyre from Pirelli that looks more determined to spew rubber than hold itself together.

I wish I were exaggerating but I'm not. If the measure of skill behind the sport is 'who is the quickest driver' then the tyre needs to allow this vision to be realised, not the show we saw instead in China.

Current degradation, particularly on the softer compounds, is making drivers hold back when they should be letting loose. Because this is motor racing after all, isn't it?

Not a single driver in the Chinese Grand Prix raced for eight laps on the soft compound. When your medium, or standard, compound is being used for an average of 20 laps then you know the race is becoming borderline 'artificial.'

Lewis Hamilton was very vocal in the lead up to the race saying that he had never had tyres behave this way before. Qualifying soon attested to his worries, with his teammate Nico Rosberg losing five seconds over as many laps in a horror stint.

Hamilton's former team principal, McLaren's Martin Whitmarsh, said that "it's quite excruciating trying to save tyres. It's painful... and however bad it is for me, it must be a lot worse if you have to drive like that."

If I'm feeling heated about it from the perspective of a viewer, I can't begin to imagine the frustration of teams.

In saying this, I certainly don't want a return to the early 2000's where the superior car trounced all and driver ability had a slightly lesser impact. Schumacher's Ferrari F2004 was the most dominant machine I've seen since Senna and Prost's infamous McLaren MP4/4.

Though the racing was flat out in both years, the gulf between the front and mid pack was incredibly wide. Let's never see that again. We should be thankful that today as many as five teams look more than capable of taking home a race win.

Instead, I want a balance. Believe it or not, we can live in a world where tyre degradation, car performance and driver ability can have an equal impact on an F1 championship. We just haven't found it yet.

Fernando Alonso celebrates winning the 2013 Chinese Grand Prix

Pit stops can make or break a race, but there is no need for three of them. I'm all for degradation having a slight impact on strategy, but as for defining a race (or even a championship)? It's gone too far.

Pirelli, to their credit, are only providing what 'challenge' has been given to them by FOM. They were asked to create a compound that fell away quickly and that would constantly asks questions of team strategy more than driver ability.

Much of the hate they have received should be directed towards the management responsible for the orders. It's not becoming a good look for the Italian manufacturers, as they are forced to swat off criticism race after race.

It almost brings out a desire to see another tyre war between suppliers, a-la Bridgestone/Michellin, to keep teams on edge and monitor each other to improve tyre performance.

A solution could be to set some form of quality control for tyre manufacturers, where a predefined rubber compound could be put in place. It could then have slight alterations made to it as long as they fall with certain boundaries.

The arguments for the poorer quality tyre are that it lends itself to more exciting racing and strategies, but the sport comes down to the driver. After piecing a car together, maintaining it and testing it, only one member of a team gets to run it around the track.

Why can't we have a tyre that respects that?

Put 'Fifth Slam' talk to rest: Time for a grass court Masters tournament

Tennis

Now that we've made our way through the American March, we've had to put up with more talk of a "fifth Slam" for another year. For another year, people seek more grandeur and 'top tennis' while the sport they love continues to suffer unbeknownst to many.

It's getting on my nerves to hear talk of people pushing for one of the two American Masters tournaments, Indian Wells and Miami, to be given 'Grand Slam' status. It seems to me like there are far more pressing issues in the tennis world to be discussing, namely the topic that will never go away from the game, court homogenisation.

But lets put that aside just for a moment.

The problem is that the world never seems content to let traditions carry on. People seem to forget that the more you have of something, the less value it will acquire.

The Australian Open is the baby brother of the four Grand Slam siblings at a meager 108 years old. There are very few things left in the world, especially in the world of sport, that can claim such a pattern of consistency and lack of change. It would be nice if we could respect that.

If you make another Grand Slam tournament, it slowly takes the shine off all of the other ones year by year. A new Slam would certainly try to assert its dominance through superior prize money, facilities and promotion at the cost of the others. No thanks.

Last time I checked, didn't the respective ATP and WTA schedules seem crammed and condensed enough as it was? I think the last thing they could use is a more strenuous tournament. The sports faithful may forget that those are human beings on the tennis court.

Let's put the 'fifth Slam' talk to rest, for good.

One of the more pressing issues happening in tennis is the desire for organisers to create tournaments with surfaces promoting 'entertaining' tennis. Entertaining is the super-secret code-word for slow, I've discovered.

This year's Australian Open fourth round match between Novak Djokovic and Stanislas Wawrinka would have been won comfortably by the latter on a more traditional hard court surface that didn't continually hold the ball for Djokovic to scramble to.

While the match itself was a very high quality affair for the most part, there would be very few opportunities for a man playing a hard-hitting game like Wawrinka to put opponents away due to the court.

Grass was supposed to be the surface that the ball skidded off, not kicked off. Today, Wimbledon is green clay disguised as grass and to deny such an accusation is pointless. I doubt a peak form Pete Sampras would make a final today.

Steffi Graf in the 1995 final. Note the green colour of the court. This is called grass.

The Australian Open is now arguably the slowest of the four majors. The French would have died laughing if you told them that 20 years ago.

In further support to the claims of players that the tour is too grueling and long, did they ever consider the toil and strain slower courts put on their bodies? There's only so much they can be expected to do. But there's a fix waiting right around the corner.

Of the nine Masters 1000 tournaments, six are on hard courts and three are on clay.

I ask a simple question: for the sake of variety, the game itself and players of all builds and sizes, why do we not have a Masters grass court tournament? I'm talking Halle grass, not Wimbledon. The speedy stuff.

Perhaps upgrade one of Wimbledon's lead up tournaments to a 1000 level? There's hardly any space on the calendar, as I've already said, to simply create one. It's either upgrade or pull the plug on a current tournament and replace it.

This era of tennis has drawn in a ton of new tennis followers who have only witnessed the game styles of the top four players and don't have the time for the more make-or-break players who can't get lucky on the current surfaces.

Sport itself is built on variety. Players with different style, height, characteristics, attitudes and aggression. Tennis court variety has always helped bring this to the fore. But our insatiable hunger for longer and more 'exciting' matches push it away.

Take a look at the world's top ten players and note how many of them are defensive baseline players. In five years time you'll be hard pressed to find any that aren't. This is plain wrong.

Aggressive tennis is dying right before our eyes, yet we sit back and do nothing about it. How about changes for the sake of the sport and not for the spectacle. Stop the talk of more big tournaments and put your minds to work at fixing the calendar and the courts. It's common sense.

Three incredible racetracks that are missed on the Formula One calendar

Motorsport

Perhaps it's the recent rise of the street circuit or the lack of undulation on modern circuits, but I can't shake the feeling that viewers of 2013 Formula One are being robbed of some of racing's most exquisite tracks.

It's made me reflect on those circuits we've had stripped from the calendar and how the commercial nature of Formula One is influencing decisions in track design that tarnish 'quality' racing.

A common thread I've noticed between these tracks I've listed is that they are not as thrilling for track side viewing as they come across on the television screen.

Yet as I say that, tracks such as Spa still have a place on the calendar despite giving little viewing opportunities because of its design and location. It hardly then seems a fitting excuse.

The true reason for the rapid rise of the street circuit is that it seems to be the perfect match that meets both the racing and the commercial needs of organisers. You can put spectators virtually on top of the action at almost any corner of the track and the urban location gives arguably greater economical benefits to the host country and therefore the sport in general.

Though is that coming at the cost of more traditional racing style? Hermann Tilke's redesign of Hockenheim remains as one of the greatest catastrophes of modern racing, in my book. It destroyed the essence of that track. What was once a track with a technical final sector and a sweeping, forest filled middle sector is now a slow mess and has no 'identity.'

Here are three exceptional tracks that would give the championship a much needed lift in race quality.

#1: Magny-Cours

There are several things the world needs more of: Peace, prosperity and fast chicanes. France's greatest piece of tarmac outside of Circuit La Sarthe, Magny-Cours, delivers the latter in spades.

The 'Imola' chicane's inside kerb (turn 12) is blind upon entry and will certainly punish any driver that misses the mark. It's fast and a pleasure to watch as drivers snake their way through before scrambling for the brakes into turn 14.

The closest thing we have to the Estoril turn, with its big test of when to put the foot down out of the corner, is Spoon at Suzuka. The turn very long. It feeds beautifully into a fast back straight with a great overtaking opportunity at the end hairpin.

Of the tracks listed, it's the most stop/start in nature. However the elements in between the slower sections complement this well. France still has good driver participation in Formula One and the fans would support a return to the country for sure. Magny-Cours would also remain the better option instead of circuit Paul Ricard if a French track were to make a return.

#2: Red Bull (A1) Ring

Redesigned by Tilke as a safety measure in 1996, and still kept its basic structure with a shortened length. The whole track has wonderful flow to it and plenty of undulation to keep the drivers on edge. The drive up to turn 2 presents a great overtaking opportunity, at the peak of the track, for anyone who got a nice drive out of the opening turn.

The track is simplicity defined. There's no complex elements to the track and it is capped off nicely with two speedy right hand turns a-la Monza, with a bit more kerb use.

And what about that scenery? Literally no other racetrack in the world can combine such wonderful views and good racing so well. Just check out the view when coming out of turn one.

#3: Istanbul Park

The latest victim of the Ecclestone axe. Removed from the Formula One calendar after 2011 when organisers failed to negotiate a new contract. A real pity, because for mine this was the second best track on the calendar following Spa.

Like the Belgian masterpiece, this Turkish track is home to one of the best turns in world racing. The four apex turn 8 is a monster and a great lesson in nailing a perfect racing line to set yourself up for the perfect exit. Not an easy thing when clipping four inside corners at full speed. Great to behold.

The back straight is as good as they come and is an excellent overtaking opportunity in the both its second half of the straight and the following turn.

Also rivals Melbourne for the best opening turn on the calendar. Action guaranteed with the dipping left hand bend. Would love to see a return for the track, not just for its fun style of racing, but just so I can admire that pit complex once more.

Smith inclusion the obstacle for Khawaja

Cricket

Steven Smith's inclusion in the touring Australian party in India is the most questionable thing to come of this series. Forget everything else.

You can question giving the captaincy to Watson after being dropped from the third test or the place of Maxwell in this squad let alone the side if you would desire. But continuing to deny Usman Khawaja a place in the side while putting a halt to his domestic duties must do little for both his technical game and his confidence.

Put aside for a moment those other things that have arisen these past few weeks and realise that a very promising player is being denied a place in this test team by a man who has been groomed to fit a limited overs format.

Originally I didn't buy into the idea that the selections were ruining the team's chances of making a real impact on the subcontinent. However I'm becoming more and more convinced I should be applying for a job on the selection panel - along with thousands of other Australian cricket fans.

So why then do I want Khawaja so badly to take Smith's place?

Statistics won't allow you to accurately compare the pair. They'd tell you that Smith has the higher test average and even an extra test to his name. Meaningless.

The real issue lies in their respective backgrounds in different match formats. Smith has vast experience in limited overs cricket and much more match time for his country. Khawaja is far less experienced, but until his recent foray into limited overs cricket (which was a bizarre selection to say the least), he was being groomed to play in a style that works in a test match format.

Instead he's getting no experience over in India except getting better at sitting down. Not the most useful of cricket skills.

Neither man before this series had played a test match in over two years. Doesn't logic say if you had to choose between the two you should play the man better suited, and more importantly the one who has practiced to adapt, to test cricket?

Khawaja has also had no chance to prove himself on a turning wicket, having played all his few tests on lively, pace favouring wickets in Australia and South Africa. He could benefit from a change, as well as gain some crucial experience on a vastly different surface.

Steve Smith's 92 in the previous test is an outlier in an otherwise poor showing throughout his career in Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka on said pitches. That's not just in test cricket but in all formats.

If people want to also discuss Smith's flexibility in the squad due to his bowling, I'd really be hoping that Smith wasn't included in the squad for his bowling in the first place.

He's bowled six wickets from nine innings of test match bowling in Asia. Not even close enough to warrant a future place in a test bowling attack. Smith has been given the chance to prove himself with both bat and ball in test cricket, and until his 92, he looked like a horrendous choice.

Now he's given himself a safety buffer with that score and pushes Khawaja further away from the first team. But credit where it's due to Smith for doing so. If you can step up when the pressure's on then it becomes harder to remove you from a place you're trying to keep.

Seeing as these two occupy different roles in a team it may be hard to attempt to compare them. But I don't understand the mentality of the selectors by picking someone they've played for so long in game with completely different attitudes to scoring rates and play style. It hurts the more I think about it.

Don't think for a moment I'm sour with Smith, I actually feel sorry for the man. He's got a game suited for one day and T20 cricket but seems lost in the whites.

Still, I don't understand how we can expect incredible results from players when you shift them between formats as simply as pawns on a chessboard. Expecting great results to follow from limited overs to test cricket is like asking a Union player to adapt to the stop and start nature of League.

What message is that sending to up and coming players? That their experience in different formats and the time dedicated to learning them counts for absolutely nothing? Not very inspiring.

At times it feels harsh to put the boot into the selection panel, sitting here behind the safety of a computer screen and my keyboard, but when they continue to make questionable choice after questionable choice it takes the sting out of being so scathing.