Djokovic's early exit opens the door for Murray

Defending Indian Wells champion, the world #3, Novak Djokovic's defeat in the quarter finals to Andy Roddick will see him lose a sizeable chunk of points when the new rankings come out next week. His score of 1000 for the tournament last year will be replaced by a meagre 180 for his 2009 performance, dropping his overall tally to 8420.

This is the opportunity that world #4, Andy Murray, needed. Through to the final at Indian Wells, victory there will propel his score up to 8250, just 170 behind Djokovic. With both players only defending 1st round exits at the next tournament, the Masters 1000 event in Miami, then a straight race ensues for the #3 spot; providing both players make at least the quarter finals, then if Murray gets further in the tournament than his Serbian rival he will claim the position. Before the Australian Open, I had predicted Murray would be #3 after Miami; but his subsequent quarter-final exit in Melbourne seemed to put paid to that idea. Now though, he has a real chance to claim that new highest ranking - one higher than compatriots Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski managed.

Even if Murray loses in the final on Sunday, or underperforms in Miami, he looks favourite to claim that position in the long run. He failed to advance beyond the round of 16 in any of his 2008 clay court outings - the 'swing' of the season that follows on from here, leading up to the French Open in June. Djokovic, meanwhile, has semifinal appearances at Roland Garros and at two Masters events - Monte Carlo and Hamburg - on his 2008 scoresheet, as well as victory in the Rome Masters, meaning a hefty sum of points to defend in the coming months. This defence must come from a player whose 2009 win-loss record (before this week) reads 14-6 versus Murray's 15-1.

If Murray can improve his performances on clay - and I believe he can; he is a much changed player even from 12 months ago, and his noticably improved power and serve will help him here - then he can challenge that #3 position, and by the year's end, hope to put pressure on Federer for the #2 ranking. One feels only US Open victory would be good enough to make inroads into the top two, but the way Andy Murray has started 2009, that is not beyond him.

The FIA - Missing The Point(s).

This week the FIA introduced, with immediate effect, a new rule to decide the F1 World Champion. The driver with the most wins would be crowned champion, irrespective of his points score. This, in turn, rejected the suggestion of FOTA (Formula One Teams Association) to change the points scoring to 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1, and also a development from Bernie Ecclestone's equally short-sighted 'medals' system (i.e. award gold/silver/bronze to the drivers, and the driver with the most golds wins the championship).

How ridiculous.

Ecclestone claims that the drivers will be encouraged to race because of this change. Even in his interview on Five Live he refers constantly to the lack of incentive to overtake for 'two points' - well why not give more points to the winner - as per the FOTA suggestion? Also, 'drivers' - plural - is a bit far-fetched, surely this only applies to one driver per race (the guy in second?).

And in this season of all seasons. The new rule is reported in some quarters as 'shaking up F1' - well, in this season of dramatically different car shapes, KERS and slick tyres, I think there is enough shaking going on already thank you. On that point, surely because of this consistency in driving should be rewarded sufficiently? I predict that there will be more shuffling of the pecking order throughout the season as teams learn their way around the new regs; improve their aero (especially the struggling McLaren), introduce their KERS systems etc. Drivers that can keep towards the front throughout all of this, all season long, should get an equal chance to win the championship as someone who struggles initially but comes with a late surge in the back end of the season, or starts off quick but gets swamped by the pack by mid-season. For instance, last year, Robert Kubica - who was always there or thereabouts in his BMW - would not have ever been considered a title contender under these rules, but was in the fight up until the last few races last year. Had he stole the title from his competitors in demonstrably quicker cars through consistent driving (while his opponents were busy crashing into each other) I don't think anyone would have begrudged him winning.

Furthermore, this system - which I would wager was partly to try to simplify matters for fans - is actually causing some confusion. Already on one thread on BBC's 606 message board people have been asking questions or making incorrect statements. For clarity, the following is true:

- The current scoring system - 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 - will be kept in place.
- The changes ONLY affect the outcome of the world drivers' title - all other positions will be decided by the points.
- The world constructors' title will still be decided by points.
- Yes, the changes do come into effect for 2009.

Whilst I would not go out and accuse the FIA of anti-Hamilton/McLaren bias, the fact that this rule has come in the year after Hamilton won the WDC with fewer wins than rival Felipe Massa may only serve to fuel those (already quite popular) suggestions. Especially after Ecclestone likes to cite Hamilton's supposed 'settle for second' attitude, blatantly disregarding his bold/stupid moves for the lead at Spa/Fuji (which he got penalised for both times - so no wonder he might be scared of overtaking anyone by the end of the season) and his pole-and-victory run at Shanghai (the penultimate race of the season). Only at Brazil were the 'just do enough' tactics out in force, and we all know what happened there - one of the most exciting finishes to a season in living memory. No-one ever brings up (for instance) Fernando Alonso's (absolutely correct and sensible) adoption of these tactics to land him his first crown.

Besides, everyone has got it wrong anyway. The points should go down to at least 12th place. The CART/Champ Car system from the late 90s was one of the best:

20-16-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 (plus, I seem to recall, bonuses for pole/fastest lap)

The MotoGP system is also useful, with the top 15 scoring. In my view, points are supposed to be merely a reflection of performance throughout the season, rather than something special to be earned. We would get a better picture of the midfield battle (which has been very tight in recent years) if points went to more places. To be honest I don't see why we can't have points for all of the positions available, at least then we can have fights throughout the field, and every position means something, even if it is a driver gaining, say, 14th instead of 15th. The old system of points for the top 6 went back to the days when barely more than 6 cars finished - even with 26 starters (wiki any race result from the late 80s/early 90s). They were right to change it to top 8 in 2003, but surely with the reliability of modern F1 cars, something needs to be changed again.

All in all, this seems like a very long and very reactionary article to something that might not even have an effect anyway (usually the driver with the most wins takes the title). But these changes themselves seem similarly reactionary and, given their prominence in the current sporting news, definitely warrant discussion.

A list of bands I've seen (probably, no, certainly non-exhaustive).

So, I thought (just for my own amusement) that I'd sit down and try and compile a list of every band/singer/artist I've seen live. Well, for a start not all of them, because there's no way I could recall the myriad of student bands I've seen, so I'll omit them for a start. Otherwise, I present this list, ordered with some sort of weighting criteria based on number of times I've seen them, how much I like them, commercial success, and to some greater extent the order in which I remember, which will usually mean support bands go right under their respective headliners unless I really like/dislike them. Don't expect to have heard of too many of these, though, many are local bands, random support bands, or just generally 'underground' acts. Here goes (starting with the obvious, for those of you who know me well enough)...

Frank Turner x7
Athlete x4
Sky Larkin x3
Los Campesinos! x2
Johnny Foreigner x2
Youthmovies x2
British Sea Power x2
iLiKETRAiNS x2
Pulled Apart By Horses x2
Editors
Ra Ra Riot
The Kissaway Trail
65daysofstatic
Asobi Seksu
Tired Irie
Adam Gnade x2
Broken Social Scene
¡Forward, Russia!
Cursive
Sometree
Nine Black Alps
Boy Kill Boy
The Magic Numbers
Snow Patrol
Silversun Pickups
Iain Archer
You Say Party! We Say Die!
Kyte x2
British Expeditionary Force
Napoleon IIIrd
Dive Dive x3
Beans On Toast x2
These New Puritans
Film School
Morning Runner x3
Alberta Cross
I Was A Cub Scout
Rolo Tomassi
This Town Needs Guns x2
data.select.party
Colour
Omes
Collisions and Consequences
Brontide
Oceansize
The Mules
Kid Harpoon
Noah and the Whale
Captain Black
Jay Jay Pistolet
Chris T-T x2
Emily Barker
Wintermute
Fell City Girl x2
The Winchell Riots
We Are Scientists
The Little Ones
Frightened Rabbit
Captain
Blanket
Xmas Lights x2
Borderville x4
Hreda
A Silent Film
worriedaboutsatan
Laboratory Noise
New Rhodes
Thomas Truax
Shy Child
Applicants
Victorian English Gentleman's Club