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

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.

Leadership questions are distracting from the bigger issues

Cricket

With Michael Clarke looking at the prospect of missing a test through injury for the first time in his career, the return of Shane Watson to India has stirred up a commotion about leadership and even the future of our cricket side over the next decade in regards to the captain's role.

This kind of reaction from the media over the past few days seems to come from Watson's lack of popularity in the public as a captain. As someone who is seen by the public to lack passion and talk on the pitch, Watson's potential rise to the top simply had to be a focal point.

The past few days have been worrying for myself because everyone has grabbed hold of an easy target in the form of the Queenslander and what started as a discussion of short term captaincy has exploded into long term leadership speculation.

Watson's credentials as captain are not what I'm here to discuss - that's a topic of its own.

But what I feel is that the media are almost driving the team's focus into a long term vision instead of the short term it so desperately needs to be.

In two separate stories today I've seen David Warner and Ed Cowan both mentioned as possible future leaders. I'm sorry, but why are we discussing potential leaders for years and years down the track when we have two final test matches in India and an Ashes to prepare for?

We have a pair of openers who need to figure out why their form is so all over the place, instead of filling their heads with notions of captaincy. If you want a pair of focused opening batsman, don't you think it's better to have them earn their place before making them feel like a secure part of the team? Telling them or writing that they have good leadership material can only serve to make them a little more complacent.

Even leadership questioning about the upcoming test is getting stale. You may have your opinion on who may be a better leader for the upcoming test but last time I checked a game of cricket was won with 11 players. A good voice in the field and well thought out field placement is crucial, of course, but it can only take you so far.

Huge questions need to be made of recent selections and how some players have managed to keep their place in the side, looking outside of the recent four man expulsion of the previous test.

Phil Hughes is incredibly lost and is being wasted at first drop. Yet it's difficult to see him bumping one of the openers of the top of the order after this tour. Where does he sit? Henriques started with a bang then limped off the last two tests. Does he need a break, or is it too quick to write him off? Khawaja needs the game time if he wants to be a long term part of this team. Get him in there?

These are the tough issues that we should be addressing. Not leadership for this test. Not leadership for five years down the road. Just playing cricket and playing it well.

I believe the only reason we've seen such a shift in focus by the media this week is because Watson is the subject. Supposed 'unpopularity' in leadership seems to breed a good story, as Julia Gillard could attest to.

Regardless of your opinion of Shane Watson, throwing other names in front of his for leadership certainly can't be inspiring confidence in the man.

The media is becoming distracted and seemingly wants to forget that this tour has ever happened - but you can't pretend it hasn't. No amount of long term vision came make you see beyond the wall of trouble in front of your face.

Underrated Hewitt having a year to remember

Tennis

The 31 year old fighter from Adelaide goes into tonight's third round encounter at the Olympic Games against world number two Novak Djokovic with nothing to prove and even less in the expectations department. He may not have played anywhere near the number of matches the top fifty in the world have this year, but Hewitt has put on a good show when he's been on court.

His tough two set victory over Marin Cilic last night was a typical Hewitt performance, hitting less winners than his opponent, but keeping more serves and shots in the court to see him through.

It's hard to believe that he started his Grand Slam career in 1997, but even fifteen years down the track he still retains that keen eye and sense of composure that saw him become a two-time Slam champion.

I respect Lleyton Hewitt very much as both a person and a tennis player. The bloke has had his fair share of injuries in his time, which continually acts as bait for the media to pressure him into retirement.

But he keeps on keeping on and has improved both his image and his personality into the back end of his career, especially in comparison to his time as world number one. His game and fitness might not be near the same level, but he is still playing sublime tennis at times.

Results this year have been better than the record books suggest. All first round exits have been to highly ranked players (Troicki at Sydney, Tsonga at Wimbledon), players on favourable surfaces (Karlovic at Queens) and included a tough loss on his least favourite surface (Kavcic at Roland Garros).

Perhaps only in his loss to Karlovic did he ever look completely out of a contest this year. His four set battle with Djokovic at this year's Australian Open should go down as one of his best performances in a losing match. Not to mention his straight sets loss to Tsonga being one of the least one-sided three set wins I've seen in a Grand Slam.

After missing last year's French and US Open's due to a foot injury, and missing large chunks of 2010's calendar to rib surgery and and a wrist injury, Hewitt looks like he's found a little performance boost.

He's playing more consistent, inspired tennis and looking about as fit since he upset Roger Federer in the Halle final two years ago. It's fantastic to see.

In his first final since that day in Germany, Hewitt lost to world number 11 John Isner last month on the Newport Grass in anything but a poor showing from the Australian.

Despite having only played six tournaments this year prior to the Olympics, Hewitt's had his share of some unfortunate match-ups. These may have masked the fact that he is playing as clever, defensive tennis as he was back in the middle of last decade.

He remains one of the most mentally sound players the modern game has seen, a trait put on show when he took the third set from a red-hot Djokovic at Melbourne. I wish him the best for his second encounter with the Serb this year, and hope he can find just a fraction of that fighting spirit once more.

I'm of no doubt a loss tonight will spark a retirement question again from all corners of the country, but on the back of the few matches Hewitt has been able to attend this year, performances suggest to me he might just have a little longer left in him.

An innovation for a stale Formula?

Motorsport

If someone had told me that this year's Formula One World Championship would see seven winners from as many races, then calling them crazy probably wouldn't have been enough.

It's been a breath of fresh air following one of the most one-sided championships since Schumacher's Ferrari days, where Sebastian Vettel romped home to the title with several rounds to spare.

Regulations on exhaust placement to cut down on aerodynamic advantages has arguably had the biggest influence on leveling out this year's competition. It's helped Williams find their first victory in eight years, in partnership with engine supplier Renault once more just like their glory days in 90's.

It's brought Lotus F1 into the fight for the minor placings in the constructors championship and almost brought Sauber their first victory as an independent team.

The lack of off-throttle blown diffusers has cut back Red Bull's distinct edge over the rest of the field, and as viewers we must be better off for it. Or are we?

While innovations in bodywork and aerodynamics come to the fore every season, tyre quality has taken a step in the opposite direction.

Pirelli took over the helm of tyre supplier from Bridgestone at the beginning of the 2011 season, and all the pre-season talk last year was about the rapid degradation of the new rubber. Rightfully so.

Last year's blistering debacle at Spa was a testament to how unprepared the supplier was to cope with Formula One standards of wear and tear.

Last year's Pirelli's spent much of 2011 in the headlines for wrong reasons. Source: f1.co.uk

Now into their second season, Pirelli have improved the longevity of their prime tyre considerably. There has been much less talk about the rubber this year than 2011, but the issue is still there for people to see.

They feel like a shadow of the giant Bridgestone that preceded them, in terms of consistency and quality.

Now, for sure, this hasn't impeded on the quality of the racing this year. In fact, it has given it a unique flavour.

Just look at Mark Webber's prime tyre move on the outside of Fernando Alonso at Silverstone to win the race, as the Spaniard's soft compound gave up on him. The gap between compound durability has never been larger.

It does raise the question though of whether we should be celebrating more exciting racing as a result of poorer standards of parts - in this case the tyres.

It seems to conflict with the ethos of Formula One, that is it being the pinnacle of engineering and mechanical innovation.

F1 Chief Executive Bernie Ecclestone has employed little tricks like the Drag Reduction System to mask the issues Pirelli have had.

It's been creating tacky, fake overtaking scenarios and not allowing the racing to be the direct result of the drivers' abilities.

At the halfway point in this season I can say this is easily the most thrilling season I've witnessed since 2008, where the championship came down to the final corner at Brazil to give Lewis Hamilton his title. But I may end up looking back on 2012's season wondering why I enjoyed it.

Should a sport forget its roots in new ideas and forward thinking for the sake of a bit of entertainment?

I've never felt so split down the middle looking at this fine sport.

A red flag for Seven

Tennis

For any Australian who has sat down to watch their home Grand Slam on Channel 7, they are supplied with the usual score interface located in a corner of the screen, which allows them to know who has the advantage in the match. It also serves the purpose of letting them know what corner of the world the players have come from, assuming that corner of the world is Australia.

Yes, for the previous week of the Australian Open we have been confronted by an Australian flag on the scoreboard. That, of course, isn't a problem. But the lack of the foreign one above or below it is concerning. Suddenly, I get the instant impression that there is only one person of significance standing on the Melbourne Plexicushion. We have a local hero, someone we are given a visual cue to support, and a faceless (and nationless) opponent. Something isn't right here.

Some will be quick to defend this one flag policy from Seven, saying that those who do not regularly watch tennis are given a free guide as to where the local hopes lie. It makes some sense, as even those who don't have great sports interest do feel an unnoticed attachment to our sporting culture when a large, international event arrives on our doorstep. But ask yourself this, why then not include the opponent's flag? What is lost from doing so? You'll struggle to find a citizen who doesn't recognise their own flag, so I'm sure when faced with a pair of coloured rectangles they'll know which one belongs to the good guy and which one belongs to the bad guy, yes?

I first felt a real uneasiness about the flagless opponent when young Australian hope Bernard Tomic played Spaniard Fernando Verdasco in what was the first round's most hotly anticipated match. Here is Verdasco, a man who in the 2009 semi-final went down to then world number one Rafael Nadal in one of the most thrilling five-set matches I've watched in my life. Then there's the young boy who we remember made the Wimbledon quarter finals this year. But unlike the Spaniard, he gets a flag. So just like that all non-regular viewers are given a faceless, even homeless, opponent. Where's he from? Doesn't matter, he's not from here. What a way to make regular tennis followers quiver in disgust. The lack of a flag is saying that the past achievements mean nothing, and that you are a lousy pawn in the path of a great home victory.

Seven seems to be so hungry and desperate for ratings that they will happily make us look like nationalistic fools to get there. Some would think I'm being extreme with all this. I mean, the interface is only used for the Australian broadcast, right? So what damage could it do to our image. Well think of all the visitors watching the footage between their time at the ground. "Why does the Aussie have a flag but not our player?" "Seems like blind patriotism, doesn't it?" Yes, made-up tourist, you nailed it.

And then think of the Australian fans who support players who aren't local and also those outside the internationally renowned top four male players. What do they think of it all? Two of my personal favourite players, Alexandr Dolgopolov and Milos Raonic, made out to be another faceless wall in the way of the Australian bandwagon train, whose brakes are only applied when "AUS" no longer appears on the draw.

Get real, Channel 7. Aussies aren't the only people watching your coverage. One-time viewers aren't the only people watching your coverage. Regular fans are watching your coverage, and they are shaking their heads. Barring a miracle Lleyton Hewitt victory tonight over world number one and defending champion Novak Djokovic, perhaps the true fans will take some comfort in knowing that no-one gets a flag in the main draw next week, male or female.

Two races, two different emotional experiences

Horse Racing

The first Tuesday of November turns to night, and following my second trip interstate to Flemington for Australia's biggest annual sporting event I feel I've experienced a great range of emotions of the Melbourne Cup as a spectator. This year and last have been perfect in demonstrating opposites. Weather. Media focus. Even my own personal vantage point. It took me just a single visit to the carnival to experience the crushing blow of popped expectations, but a second helped me see the drama and the tension. As a man behind the fence watching it all unfold, I couldn't ask for a more vivid and encompassing experience of this iconic day.

Last year's lead-up always boiled down to three words: So You Think. Anything other than a Cup victory for the dual Cox Plate champion would be a disaster, not really for his connections, but for the Australian public. Almost anyone you talked to wanted to see Bart Cummings-trained horse become only the second runner to take two Cox Plates and a Melbourne Cup, the other being the one and only Phar Lap. But the burden of five Group 1 victories, but especially the two mile distance, got the better of him as he slipped over the 200 metres to third. I can still remember the huge groan of disappointment that flooded through the stands as Americain passed the post first. It's like no form of sadness I've ever experienced before - something truly depressing to me as an Australian sports fan. This was the 150th running, the perfect moment for national pride to come busting to life through a local hero. Instead, it was as if we were watching the script to a fairytale movie stutter in the final frames before grinding to a halt. Under such a mockingly beautiful, sunny day, it hurt all the much more.

I walked out of Flemington straight after the race's conclusion and boarded the train. I tried to make light conversation at times, but it never felt right. Silence spoke better about what we thought better than words ever could. There was a specific moment during the exodus, however, that I thought we were being overdramatic about it all. But people grow attached to anything that can give them hope of being a part of our national history - particularly when that history involved is an Australian treasure in Phar Lap. For a day every year we cheer on an animal we've never followed, heard of or perhaps even seen on television. Yet the sense of national involvement, that everyone drops everything for around 200 seconds every November is what brings on such an emotional connection. So You Think's failure to succeed only served to bring to light the magic grasp that the Cup has on our society.

The sale of So You Think within a week of the carnival was like Irish salt being pressed forcefully into the gaping wound that had been left on every Australian racing fan's heart. Looking back on his effort in the 2010 edition of the great race, So You Think's third when he was unproven at the distance shows just what a magnificent creature he is. We never know when the next horse may come around that gives us such heightened expectations and a whirlwind of emotions. His departure overseas makes the wait that much more anxious.

This year swapped sadness for outright drama. As Dunaden and Red Cadeux hit the line together under threatening grey skies, the Flemington throng fell silent. It's not supposed to be like that. As the horses cross the line, the celebrations begin and the counter to next year begins immediately. Funny how that works, but that's the nature of the event. I'm sure many walk out feeling tired and washed out, with the peak of their day being that moment the winner passes by the post. But that peak lasted an agonizing three minutes, as everyone awaited a photo finish. I know I was mentally drained this year as I left the racecourse, but for a different reason - one more positive in nature.

It was easy to talk about the race at this time. I was riding home Godolphin's stayer Lost in the Moment, who almost hit the lead on the inside on the home straight before fading back. For the second year in a row my horse had been swamped at the 200 mark. I didn't care this time. This year provided a finish with more action than a Hollywood blockbuster could deliver. The thought that a few millimetres can keep millions of people on edge brought a smile to my face. My lost investment became irrelevant. There was another groan, backed by shock as opposed to disappointment, when a replay of the final 50 or so metres went up on the big screen. You could even hear it through  your TV screen. My view from the grandstand made the wait particularly cruel for me, being just out of line with the post. Being behind the line and above ground level made it look as if Dunaden, on the inside, had got there. He did. Tension lifts. The clock restarts for next year.

Post-race media attention now falls on the lack of local challengers for our treasured Cup. Interesting to note that last year's attention was spent on an individual failure, compared to the collective one today. A shift has gone from the hearts of the Australian people to heart of the local racing industry. But that's another story. What this does show is the uncertainty of what the next talking point will be. An up and coming Australian stayer could win us our own Cup back for the first time since 2009, or we could see a mare get up for the first time since a certain triple winner in 2005. It's enough to make me excited for November 2012 already.
We are entering a new chapter of the race that stops a nation. It's full of international raiders who dominate our local crop. I don't know how many pages the chapter goes for, but the final paragraph ends with an Australian-bred victory. Who cares how long it takes? Every year, a new hope arises - however small it may be. Aussies everywhere will worship those four legs that bring the Cup home.

I've only seen two of the Cups in person, and I can't help but feel I've only scratched the surface of the emotional range it can deliver.

Cadel Evans: A victory for the ages

Cycling

As an avid sports fan I've watched numerous moments that will go down in Australian sports history these last nineteen years. I've witnessed several cricket world cup victories, a rugby one, and too many Olympic moments to mention here. Yet never before have I been more proud to be an Aussie sports fan than I am tonight watching Cadel Evans ride his way to the Champs-Elysees.

The strong sports culture down under has seen Aussies winning many events, yet the Tour de France has been a very long time coming. That's what makes tonight very special. There is no better feeling as a fan than seeing one of our own countrymen steal the thunder from more fancied opponents, in a sport that virtually belongs to another continent. Evans' time trial ride yesterday draws parallels to the America's Cup victory of Australia II in 1983 in that Australia explored new sporting triumphs in both cases. You see, it's one thing to consistently assert dominance in sport but something else to be that person or team to break new ground - creating a new standard by which everyone after is judged. And what a way for Evans to do just that, stealing the lead with just one stage in hand. But national pride aside, in the end this story isn't about our country because it's about one man and his ability on two wheels.

If there was one word to describe Cadel's tour it would be 'patient.' When Andy Schleck broke away for the victory on stage 18, Evans let the lead grow out to four minutes before bridging the gap enough to halve the deficit. Clever, but risky. The following stage he suffered a mechanical problem but kept his head, letting himself drop back to the peloton to conserve his energy. He then worked his way back up the field with not an inch of help from anyone, with his team already left behind. He did this catch with virtually zero help from any other team, in respect to pacemaking. Every time it somehow ended up being Evans all alone doing the catching while Contador and Schleck powered on ahead. No Basso. No Cunego. And especially no Voeckler, clinging desperately to his yellow jersey. Just Evans, a man alone on a mission.

He'd left himself enough energy to cut down the younger Schleck, convincingly, in the time trial the following day for what must be called one of the smartest tour victories you'll see. Evans has a remarkable team time trial to thank for his maillot jaune. The second placing behind Garmin-Cervelo, by just four seconds, must be close to the top of his highlights reel. For sure it was an immense individual achievement winning this great cycling event, but consider what might have been should that team time trial have unraveled. George Hincapie deserves a medal, the veteran providing invaluable assistance for Evans over the three weeks in his sixteenth tour. The seven others, too, cannot be overlooked for the work they've put in. It's sometimes difficult to remember that cycling is very much a team sport, but this tour showed us how.

The Tour de France, to me, represents the ultimate test for human endurance, teamwork and tactics. The gorgeous scenery of the Pyrenees, Alps and Mediterranean is simply a bonus. It all comes together to create one of sports' greatest spectacles. And now we just had a countryman beat 197 other men to claim the title. I don't think any of my words could describe what this means for both Australian cycling and Australian sport.

Hoogerland the hero

Cycling

I won't be forgetting the name Johnny Hoogerland in a while, nor stage nine of the 2011 edition of the Tour de France.

The 28 year old Dutch rider from lowly-ranked outfit Vacansoleil-DCM has put on a display of great strength to make his way onto the podium to receive his King of the Mountains jersey on Sunday's stage.

It was a shame that such unnecessary actions brought him this pain.

Hoogerland, in a very strong and experienced breakaway of riders, managed to claim all hill climb points on offer to take the polka-dot jersey before the end of the stage.

With team leader Romain Feillu unable to make any great inroads in the sprint stages early in the tour, Hoogerland was drawing the attention his way. His repeated attacks stage after stage were showing not only his desire to win the King of the Mountains, but to support his more experienced teammates back in the peloton.

Then the incident happened that we will still be talking about at the end of this tour.

With less than 30km to go, a French media car swerved right into the path of fellow breakaway member Juan Antonio Flecha, in turn sending our young Dutchman into the path of a barbed wire fence.

Despite the pain, he somehow managed to finish the stage within the time limit, well behind the main pack.

Bandaged on both legs, he hobbled onto the podium to receive his jersey in clear discomfort. Then he broke down in tears as the zip was done up.

It's a profound moment that will stick with me as a great Tour memory.

Yet it seems so sad that years of training can be brought undone by a terrible split decision by those who, ironically, are supposed to be spreading the wonderful images around the globe of this annual event.

Like any other controversial moment in sport, people will be quick to throw together a bunch of reasons for instant changes to be made to the system. But there's no need.

The Tour de France is a monument. To make any changes to either the roads or the current traffic system is an insult to its grand history. This was a simple case of a break in concentration, nothing more.

If riders of the past can deal with these random incidents caused by traffic then so can those of the present. The unpredictable nature of the event is what makes this race, watched my millions across the globe, just that more intense.

Through the great maze of fast winds, heavy rain and unpredictable traffic awaits Paris.

Don't ever change, my Tour.

Black Caviar, a racing icon outside of the Melbourne Cup?

Horse Racing

Will Black Caviar become known as the horse that didn't need a Melbourne Cup to make the public smile?

When Makybe Diva won her third straight Melbourne Cup in 2005, people from not just outside of the racing industry, but all sport itself, had found themselves a champion to admire. They had discovered a horse that could rewrite history and find headlines outside of the sports column in their paper. It was a golden time for Australian racing in the media, following the triumphs of champion middle-distance runners Lonhro and Sunline in the years before, albeit sadly, with far less impact in the wider community. These are the horses that come to mind when considering runners that found their way into mainstream Australian sports folklore in the past decade.

But soon the hype and the joy after the Diva dominace died down, and all of sudden Australia was waiting for another horse, ready to take on history to a level that would once again captivate the nation next year around. However, the following year our nations great race was pinched in a 1-2 Japanese raid, and before long it looked as if horse racing appeared to be well and truly locked away in the inside pages of the newspaper for a long time.

Yes, it might seem a bit dramatic that when just one race fails to achieve what the public hoped for, the public switch off the sport completely. But that's the Melbourne Cup. Unless something sensational or historical has the potential of unfolding, then it's just another name on the winner's list and nothing more. Everyone enjoys their workplace sweep, has a couple of drinks, has a laugh and flicks the telly off. The intricacies and the sheer volume of horse racing can quite easily become a turn-off for those people outside of the industry to learn or watch more. The Australian sporting culture enjoys the 'one chance to shine' ideal in reference to the Melbourne Cup. Of course, in reality horses have to earn numerous group victories, placings and prizemoney before even thinking about a Cup start. But that's just some simply irrelevant backstory, rather sadly, to most Australian sport fans.

This ideal was on show again, in the Spring of 2010. It appeared that for the first time in several years, Australia had a horse prepared to make history to an extent that the public would do more than take a cursory glance at the racing world. His name: So You Think. Not only was this horse by champion stallion High Chaparral a dream headline for writers (i.e. "So You Think he can win?" etc.), but he boasted an envious race record and collection of victories. Most notably, on just his tenth start, winning his second Cox Plate - Australia's premier Weight-for-Age race. So You Think was shaping up for a challenging run in the 2010 Melbourne Cup, a race that appeared to be a touch long for his liking, but trainer Bart Cummings had confidence that his champion would bring him a thirteenth Cup. But there was something else worth running him for.

It didn't take long for the media to pick up on an interesting tidbit of info: So You Think, with victory at Flemington, would become just the second horse in history to win two Cox Plates and a Melbourne Cup. The other was some horse from a long time ago by the name of Phar Lap. No big deal, right? Well, when you look like equaling a record set by something beyond a champion - an icon - then people swarm over you like bees to the hive. It's a frenzy.

So You Think ran third to Americain and Maluckyday. I was on the winning post that day in Flemington. As the horses crossed the line, I heard the biggest groan of disappointment I've heard in my life. It was followed by a short, unnerving silence. But soon we learnt to smile. He had ran beyond his means, and still did a fine job. History wasn't made, he was sold to Coolmore, he was gone. Australian racing was undoubtedly feeling a little empty on the inside.

Come present day. It's Autumn 2011. There's a change on the horizon. Is it possible that Australia can switch, just for a moment, from its love affair with tradition and find the need for speed? Quite possibly. The driving force behind the temporary change might just be a speedy mare by the name of Black Caviar. You might have heard of her. The "Cav" will be chasing an unprecedented 10th straight victory from as many starts in the Group 1 Newmarket Handicap on Saturday. And it seems we love to see a new form of dominance in Australian racing. I've noticed BC creeping slowly outwards from the middle of my newspaper pages, I've noticed her working closer towards the front of sports segments on television. Since when do we pay attention to sprinters?

The thing in Black Caviar's favour is the possibility of having the title of "World Champion." If Australia can't see history made in its own race, then what better thing to do than make history across the globe. It's no secret that Australians love being better than other countries at any sport wherever possible. Imagine having a horse so good that people will bring their runners down under instead. You could be looking at something that will rapidly expand foreign interest beyond the great distance races of Australia. Just maybe.

Trainer Peter Moody recently stated that Black Caviar wouldn't take a step off Australian soil. So it's like having a bonus: An Australian horse, that races like a world-beater, that you know you go just around the corner to see. Makes a nice change. After the affair with Dato Tan Chin Nam's sale of So You Think, done effectively behind Cummings' back, it makes loyalty to the Aussie tracks only further appreciated. The public loves having that extra piece of security knowing that a champion will reside among us forever, and will only serve to heighten her already mighty profile.

If (sorry, when) Black Caviar wins her third straight Group 1 on Saturday, I hope that those who just take a passing glance at the racing world can stop for a while and take in what a truly remarkable beast we have tearing up the turf of this country. And she won't even need a Melbourne Cup to make you notice. You'll see.

List: The top 30 people, moments & matches of the 2011 Australian Open

Tennis

#30: Fish vs. Hanescu

Although there were longer five set matches in the first round of the Open, I found this encounter to be one of the most entertaining. This was due, mostly, to the incredible serving power and percentages of both men. Both gave as much as they could in rallies, and both deserved a victory. In the end, Fish walked out on top 2-4, 4-6, 6-3, 7-5, 6-3. Could be seen as perhaps another unfortunate match-up so early in a tournament that promised a good run from both players. One heck of an underrated match.

#29: Bryan Brothers Make it Five

Mike and Bob sure know how to win. It's their 5th Australian Open Doubles crown in just six years, and their competition was no pushover, either. Veteran Indian doubles stars Bhupathi and Paes teamed up in a Grand Slam once more, only to be beaten convincingly by their younger counterparts 6-3, 6-4. A little part of me couldn't help but feel sorry, as it's the third finals loss at Melbourne for both halves of the Indian duo, over ten years. They were simply outclassed in every facet, and are still missing that one trophy in the Grand Slam cabinet.

#28: Jarmila Groth Captures our Attention

Born in Bratislava, Groth gained Australian citizenship in 2009, and the following year she achieved third round victories at both the French Open and Wimbledon. However, she faced a huge task in round one of the Australian Open against 21st seed Yanina Wickmayer. Fighting well, but beating herself in the end, Groth fell in three sets, visibly upset with herself. But her efforts moved her up to 31 in the world, and will undoubtedly break her six-year curse in Melbourne Park as a seeded player next year.

#27: Alicia Molik Manages One More Melbourne Second Round

Alicia Molik looked almost 7 years younger playing Italy's Roberta Vinci in the first round. The Australian was playing against a woman only two years younger than herself, but in the best form of her career. From nowhere, Molik pulled out all the stops to win 8-6 in a mammoth third set. Vintage form was on show for the Rod Laver Arena crowd, and they loved every minute of it. It didn't matter than Molik lost her next match to Petrova, she showed that she can still give it to the best well beyond her most memorable years.

#26: The First All-Swiss Quarter-Final

Stanislaus Wawrinka was carrying high expectations coming up against his slightly-more famous countryman, Roger Federer, after wiping Andy Roddick of the court in the previous round. Although Federer was all class in removing a clearly nervous Wawrinka from the tournament, this match earnt its place in this list simply through the expectations and hype it carried from Federer looking vulnerable at times during the tournament and Wawrinka looking flawless. The world number two showed why he'd won the tournament four times already by winning easily in straight sets, but credit to Wawrinka for perhaps making himself known to a wider audience.

#25: Juan Martin Del Potro Returns to Melbourne Park

The 2009 U.S. Open champion saw majority of 2010 from the sidelines, nursing a wrist injury which stopped him from defending his title. Needless to say, there was plenty of support for the giant Argentinian as he made his way to Australia. Although he lost in the second round of the Sydney International to Florian Mayer in the second round, signs looked good that he could trouble in Melbourne. But it wasn't going to happen, as Cypriot Marcos Baghdatis bundled him out in four sets in the second round. He'll be back.

#24: Henin vs. Kuznetsova

If there was anyone that looked as if they were capable of playing well above their seeding at the Open, it was Justine Henin. The eleventh seed was in great touch coming into the tournament, and looked capable of taking out any of the ten above if she continued her solid form. But Svetlana Kuznetsova had something to say about it, and took it to the Belgian, removing her in a close match 6-4, 7-6 - needing ten points to win the second set tiebreaker. The loss was made all the worse by Justine's announcement of her immediate retirement from professional tennis due to an elbow injury.

#23: Venus Williams' Wardrobe

Venus Williams looked more like a giant, gangrene infected honeycomb than a tennis player at this years open. It didn't take long for debates to rage about her new outfit. While Sharapova played it safe with orange & blue and Wozniacki with white and pink, Williams somehow thought that every colour in the visible spectrum sploshed together would not harm anyone's vision. I think even fellow countrywoman Bethanie Mattek-Sands would have walked away from this one.

#22: Wozniacki Gets In a Scuffle With A Roo, Or Perhaps Not

This is kind of painful writing about this one. Caroline Wozniacki decided that the best way to avoid the media labelling her as 'boring' was to conjure up a story about a nasty kangaroo that didn't take kindly to her presence in a park. It certainly worked. Instead, the media focused on how distracted she must have been to come up with an alternative story to real one - that she had a close encounter with a treadmill. No-one let the story drop throughout the tournament. Not the most run-of-the-mill Australian Open for the Dane, sometimes on the court, but mostly off of it.

#21: John Isner on the Losing End of a Marathon Match

In his third round encounter with Marin Cilic, John Isner had lost a fourth set tiebreaker to send the game to a fifth set. Surely somewhere in the back of Isner's head must have been memories of the last time he played a five set match, at Wimbledon last year. That one contained 138 games in the fifth set. That match went for 11 hours. It was the longest match in the history of tennis. As the score went past 6 all in the 5th in Melbourne, you almost hear the mix of pity and laughter from your living room. The result didn't go Isner's way, but the 9-7 5th set scoreline was a fitting finish to a fantastic match. John Isner deserves a holiday. Or two.

#20: The Fun of the Rally for Relief

Queensland suffered its worst floods ever seen in the weeks before the start of the tournament. Thousands of homes were destroyed and communities plunged into grief. Even the Pat Rafter Arena, which had hosted the Brisbane International just the week beforehand, resembled a swimming pool with a net. It didn't take long for suggestions to arise that a charity event be set up in Melbourne Park to raise funds to assist those affected. Much like last year's "Hit for Haiti," the "Rally for Relief" was a quickly organised exhibition match featuring some of the world's top players in the mens and womens game. Novak Djokovic and Andy Roddick were the real winners in a chaotic mix of tennis, providing comic relief throughout. Good times for a good cause.

#19: Andy Murray Destroys Jurgen Melzer

Only one match on the mens side of the draw can be considered a true annihilation. Fifth seed Andy Murray smashed eleventh seed Jurgen Melzer 6-3, 6-1, 6-1 in a match that stood to reaffirm Murray's Grand Slam credentials. The Austrian never had a chance against a player who was producing possibly the best tennis of his career. Although Murray managed to lose even less games against Spain's Garcia-Lopez, the class of player in Melzer made his fourth round match even more impressive. Murray earnt himself two breadsticks against one of the finest players on the ATP circuit. No easy feat for any player. Impressively, after this match Murray had won 68 games and given up only 22.

#18: Federer vs. Djokovic

No one saw it coming. No-one. Djokovic took the sixteen-time Grand Slam apart in straight sets 7-6, 7-5, 6-4. It wasn't as if Federer was playing dreadful tennis, albeit not his greatest. But when Federer made the mistakes, Djokovic went on the attack. His victory meant that it was the first time since 2003 that Federer had not held one of the Slams in his possession. It's not end for Federer, but it might be the start of the decline. Djokovic was unplayable, sending back anything and forcing a normally perfect Roger backhand in malfunction. Easily the biggest match in 2011 so far, in terms of shaking up the rankings. Djokovic is knocking on Federer's door, again.

#17: Petra Kvitova

She broke the hearts of the home fans by sending out remaining Aussie hope, Sam Stosur in straight sets in the third round. She then proved it was no fluke by coming from a set down to defeat Flavia Pennetta in the following round. The 25th seed eventually bowed out to world number two Vera Zvonareva, but gained a lot of attention along the way. Kvitova, age 20, turned heads before the tournament by winning the Brisbane International final 6-1 6-3 over Andrea Petkovic. Her victory there moved her to number 28 in the world. Scratch that number because she's now 18 after her Open efforts. Watch out.

#16: The One Game Match

Love her or hate her, Venus Williams fought what must be called the most painful victory seen for a while on the WTA Tour. Playing against Russia's Sandra Zahlavova in the second round, she looked sore in the deciding set, moving awkwardly in obvious discomfort. But she managed to find the winners and keep her own movement limited to take an inspired victory. In the following match against Petkovic, however, her pain looked to have increased tenfold. What followed the opening game was a very controversial move. Williams retired 0-1 down in the opening set. Needless to say, the crowd were not appreciative. Debate will likely continue on whether the move was sporting or not for quite some time.

#15: Monfils vs. de Bakker

A lengthy match. A bunch of brain snaps. A great comeback. A mildly controversial post-match press session. It was certainly a match full of everything you could ask for. de Bakker, with match point and two sets advantage, somehow lost the match in five sets - and quite quickly for that matter. So quickly, in fact, that Gael Monfils was quick to accuse the Dutchman of throwing away the fourth set deliberately in order to get set for a clean start in the fifth. Needless to say, the comments did go down well with the opposite camp. What was looking like the biggest upset of the opening round turned out to be a strong revival from the twelfth seed Frenchman.

#14: The Unbeatable Esther Vergeer

If you think Roger Federer is the most successful singles player of all time, then you'd be wrong. Esther Vergeer, from the Netherlands, developed paraplegia after an operation to fix blood hemorrhaging around her spinal cord. Didn't stop her from becoming one of the most dominant sports people on the planet. She hasn't lost a wheelchair singles match since 2003. Yes, thats eight years of being undefeated. Furthermore, she beat Australian Daniela di Toro in the final with double bagels. Once again you read correctly - that's 6-0, 6-0. If you want someone thats both successful and inspirational, look no further.

#13: Rafael Nadal Injury Causes An Unexpected Exit Against David Ferrer

Rafael Nadal suffered a hamstring injury in his quarter-final clash with countryman David Ferrer which saw him bow out in straight sets 4-6, 2-6, 3-6. It was unclear when Nadal started feeling the effects of the injury, but it was relatively early in the match, and that didn't help his cause in the long run. With his defeat went the dream of the 'Rafa Slam,' where Nadal was attempting to hold all four Grand Slams at once. However, nothing should be taken away from the David Ferrer game. Ferrer played his strokes very well, and would go on to challenge a confident Andy Murray, taking him to two tiebreakers, showing his worthiness of holding his world number seven ranking, if not, asking for more.

#12: Andrea Petkovic

Look out, here comes the Petko Dance! One of the biggest breaths of fresh air for the WTA Tour and tennis in general is the bubbly 23 year old German who's post match dancing and humorous online videos are winning her bunch of new fans. Petkovic just fell to an equally exciting Petra Kvitova in the Brisbane International final, and brought both her charm and impressive game down to Melbourne. She wiped out Maria Sharapova in the fourth round 6-2, 6-3 to book a meeting with eventual finalist Li Na, where she was defeated by the in form Na, but leaves the country able to hold her head high. Keep on dancing.

#11: Milos Raonic

He's Canadian, and my word he can serve. He's the qualifier that could. The hard-hitting Raonic played 6 matches to make the fourth round, having played through the three-round qualifying draw to make the main singles draw. He brushed aside 22nd seed Michael Llodra in straight sets in the second round, but that wasn't enough for him, so he beat world number 10 Mikhail Youzhny in four sets. He lost to eventual semi-finalist David Ferrer in the fourth round, but who cares? How much would you have bet that a qualifier would take out two seeded players at this years Open?

#10: Makarova Takes Out Ivanovic and Petrova

I predicted earlier in my blog that the best chance for an upset in the first round was for Makarova to defeat Serbia's Ana Ivanovic. It's nice to pick something right, for once. Ekaterina Makarova looks in great touch since taking her first Premier tournament in the middle of last year. And she knows how to put up a fight. She overcame Ivanovic 10-8 in the decider. The Russian would also remove Nadia Petrova from the tournament with an 8-6 win in the last set. Eventual champion Clijsters didnt have it all her way against her in the fourth round, and Makarova was by far the best female player at the tournament in terms of punching above their weight in the rankings.

#9: Clijsters Doubles Bagels Former Number One Safina

It's hard to see Dinara Safina making any impact on the WTA Tour despite having time to do so. I described her several weeks ago as being like a "yo-yo with the string waiting to be cut." The steely precision on the Clijsters game just might have been the decisive cut. Everyone expected tournament favourite Clijsters to walk away with the goods, but to walk away with two freshly baked Bagels from a former world number one? Hardly. The 6-0, 6-0 scoreline is arguably the most embarassing moment in Safina's professional career. She is the first former or current world number one in the history of tennis to be beaten by the dreaded scoreline in a Grand Slam. The Russian is in crisis mode and I have no idea what will snap her out of it.

#8: Tomic Comes of Age

Bernard Tomic didn't even need to walk on a tennis court to start debates across the Australian tennis community when he was granted a wildcard entry into the tournament, despite his 199 world ranking. The sole teenager in the top 200 managed to earn a spot in the tournament based on his previous form and his strong showing in the Sydney International qualifying draw. Despite the criticisms, Tomic made fantastic use of what he was given, taking it to players well above his ranking, including the man at the top Rafael Nadal. He defeated Chardy and Lopez to book the meeting with the world number one in the third round. He held a 4-0 lead in the 2nd set, but let it slip, giving the set away 7-5. Nonetheless, Tomic has proven he is ready to make a move on the ATP Tour.

#7: Alexandr Dolgopolov

And the winner of best pound-for-pound fighter of the Open goes to Ukranian Alexandr Dolgopolov, the man with the greatest ponytail since Pat Rafter. Here's some big hits for you. Down two sets to one against thirteenth seed and 2008 runner-up Jo Wilfred Tsonga he won the last two sets 6-1, 6-1 in style. In the following fourth round, he pulled off the upset of the tournament to remove Sweden's Robin Soderling - the world number 4 at the time. That's some big scalps for a man ranked 46 in the world. In the final 8, he played four very tight sets against eventual finalist, Britain's Andy Murray, before succumbing to his opponent. It's an amazing achievement for a man that has never won an ATP Tour final.

#6: Murray Falls Short for the Second Year Straight

Never before have I seen such emphasis placed on who didn't win than who did in a Grand Slam final. All talk was on whether Murray could finally break through in his third Slam final. The English media treatment of the situation was almsot comical to the point of being sad, where the angle was whether "Britain's" Andy Murray would win. Well it appears that, once again, "Scotland's" Andy Murray fell at the final hurdle. Novak Djokovic defeated Murray in a sorry excuse for a Grand Slam final, 6-4, 6-2, 6-3. Djokovic's solid defensive and much better serving percentages kept him on the front foot the entire match. But hey, remember folks, Ivan Lendl lost four finals before talking his first of eight Slams.

#5: Gilles Simon Almost Makes the Upset of the Decade

Oh how close it was. Frenchman and world number 34 Gilles Simon held his serve to make it 2-2 in the final set of the second round clash with Swiss legend Roger Federer. Things were looking good until Federer suddenly remembered who he was and upped the ante on Simon, breaking him at 3-2 and never looking back. Federer has never lost a Grand Slam when two sets ahead. When Simon won the third, not a soul was worried. When Simon won the fourth, people took notice. This was very different to the Alejandro Falla match at Wimbledon last year. It was the other way around, with Federer forced to defend his lead he had built early, a seemingly awkward position for him. Simon had won the Sydney International just the previous week, and it seemed as if his draw against Federer was a cruel injustice to his game, on the rise once more. But he made a game of it, and one to remember at that.

#4: Li Na

Li Na, the ninth seed Chinese, is a figure of fun and a figure hope for the future of the sport in Asia. She is my pick for player of the tournament this year. Na is similar to Germany's Petkovic, in that she carries a positive demeanor about herself, and her post-match interviews were downright funny. We've learnt that she's in it for the prize money and her husband's credit card (finally, someone is being honest). We've also learnt that her husband's snoring keeps her awake at night. But most importantly, we've learnt she can play tennis. She really put her name on the map by bowling over the seed above her, Vcitoria Azarenka, 6-3 6-3 in the fourth round. Then she beat fellow fun-girl Petkovic in straights, before making the comeback of her career against Caroline Wozniacki in the semi-final. Down a match point, Na played incredible tennis to rattle the world number one. When she took the first set of the final against Clijsters, people started to believe that perhaps the first Asian player in a Grand Slam final could go the extra step. Just maybe. In the end, the only thing that beat Li Na was experience. Now she's gained some for next time around, and she'll use it well.

#3: "Aussie" Kim's Victory and Acceptance Speech

On the other side of the net in that final was a Belgian mother looking to take home a slam that would generate massive amounts of joy from the home crowd, whose media had dubbed her 'Aussie' Kim due to her huge Australian support base. Her first words after winning the title were "I feel like you guys can call me Aussie Kim now because I won the title." Somehow I think we haven't heard the last of that 'Aussie' title next to her name. You could almost feel the love of Clijsters towards the crowd through her speech. This was almost like a home victory for her. Kim even thanked a lucky Melbourne dentist in her speech who helped her out with a chipped tooth before the start of the tournament. She has finally added the other hardcourt slam to her name, and might not be done yet. Just wait and see.

#2: Hewitt vs. Nalbandian

The gasps and the "oohs" were all too clear from the crowd during the Australian Open draw when they saw one non-seed/seed match-up that had the promise of dishing out seed vs. seed quality - Lleyton Hewitt vs. David Nalbandian. In the 2002 Wimbledon final rematch, people expected a bitter encounter in one of the greatest, sometimes unspoken of, rivalries in the sport. We got what we expected, and some. 3-6, 6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 9-7. Easily the best mens match of the tournament, and it's a shame it was in the opening round. Blow for blow they went until 1am local time, where Nalbandian broke at 7-all and then served out a thriller. Both men looked equally capable of winning the match, with a solid Hewitt forehand and the reliable Nalbandian backhand on show. An instant classic.

#1: "Schiova"

Move over John Isner and Nicholas Mahut because there is a new marathon duo in town! Francesca Schiavone and Svetlana Kuznetsova played what is arguably the greatest women's tennis match in history, with an epic third set battle which result in victory for 2010 French Open champ Schiavone, 16-14. The opening sets were bizarre in the Schiavone took te first 6-4, but bombed the 2nd 6-1. Yet, somehow, she found a way to bring herself into the match, and eventually take it. What makes this match just as impressive, if not more, than the Mahut/Isner epic, is that this match was decided in the late stages with weary, but passionate, baseline rallies - not through first serve percentages. I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking that if Schiavone had a full tank of energy left in her that she would have gotten past world number one Caroline Wozniacki in the quarter final. The fact that the Italian sixth seed took a set off Wozniacki, despite a turnover well under 48 hours, is a victory in itself. What a phenomenal Open this was for the WTA Tour.