Tony Becca, Contributor

THE PAST week was an interesting time for sport, what with Michael Holding resigning from the ICC's Cricket Committee, the ICC bending backwards to accommodate Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka giving their players the go-ahead to play in the IPL next year despite a clash with their tour of England.

Also, there was the West Indies coach saying that, with a little luck, the West Indies could have defeated Australia in the one-day series and the ICC's CEO expressing fears that the IPL, the Indian Premier League, could hurt international cricket and more so Test cricket.

Change its verdict

Holding resigned following the ICC's decision to change the controversial Test match between England and Pakistan at The Oval in 2006 from a victory for England to a draw. Regardless of the reasons, with Pakistan refusing to continue the game, with the ICC deciding to change its verdict two years after the event, even though he probably should stayed to ensure a strong voice on the committee, hats off to Holding for taking a stand. In an obvious compromise, instead of banning Zimbabwe from international cricket because of what is happening in that country, the ICC, saying that politics and sport should not mix - the same ICC that banned South Africa because of its apartheid policy and manhandled by the likes of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, allowed Zimbabwe to withdraw from next year's Twenty20 championship in England while still remaining in the fold to play one-day internationals.

In fact, the ICC, the shameless ICC, went further than that: despite the missing US$7 million from the ICC's contribution to Zimbabwe cricket, although it has failed to find out what has happened to the money, and even though Zimbabwe will not be playing in the tournament, the ICC has decided that they should get a share of the profits.

And with Sri Lanka's decision re their players availability, with the ICC's CEO, Haroon Lorgat, talking about the IPL's money and begging the ICC to do something to protect the other forms of cricket, John Dyson, the Australian coach of the West Indies, was quoted as saying that he did not expect to have been beaten 5-0 in the five-match series.

"If everything went in our favour and fell into place, we might have walked away with a 3-2 win. I was expecting it to be a 3-2 scoreline or at worst 4-1. I did not expect to be beaten 5-0," Dyson said.

Limited-overs cricket

With limited-overs cricket being what limited-overs cricket is, no one expected it to be 5-0 and it should not have been 5-0.

The West Indies should have won one match.

With the West Indies on 271 for four and needing 12 to win off 17 deliveries, with the West Indies on 275 for six and needing eight to win off six deliveries, the West Indies should have won the fourth match.

Based on the performance of the team in recent times, the fact that the West Indies did not win that match was really not surprising.

And as far as the other four matches were concerned, Dyson should remember that the West Indies lost the first one by 84 runs after they were dismissed for 189 in 39.5 overs. They lost the second by 63 runs after they were dismissed for 140 in 41 overs. They lost the third by seven wickets with Australia romping to 227 for three in 40.3 overs and that they lost the fifth by an embarrassing 169 runs after they were routed for 172 in 39.5 overs.

There was, however, something special at the start of the week.

On the same day that the West Indies were struggling in St. Kitts to avoid the dreaded whitewash, an epic encounter, a match, a contest, to remember, was taking place at Wimbledon.

Although I saw some of the great matches in recent years, including the clash between Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe in 1980, that between Jimmy Connors and McEnroe in 1982, and those between Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg in the late 1980s, I did not, obviously, see matches of the early days of professional tennis.

I did not see players like Bill Tilden, Fred Perry, John Newcombe and Rod Laver in action and it is therefore impossible for me to compare last Sunday's match and the two players with anything or with anyone in the history of the game.

If, however, as far as drama, excitement, strokeplay and shot-for-shot action are concerned, there has never been a better tennis match, a greater contest, than that between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, to decide the men's champion of 2008.

I wish I was there and, based on their skill, their courage, and the audacity of their strokes, if there has never been anyone better than Federer and Nadal, I wish I had seen him.

Something to remember

The men's singles final at Wimbledon this year was something to remember.

It was so close that had Nadal not been able to question three line calls that went against him at crucial stages of the match but which were then corrected, Federer, today, may have been some US$700,000 richer and with six Wimbledon singles titles in his bag.

For those who are against the player in cricket asking for a replay if he has been given out when he knows he is not out, for those who are against hearing from the third umpire in cricket, it is interesting that but for a question, or two, or three by the new champion, the former champion probably would have still been the champion.