PM Shehbaz accuses India of backing terrorism, urg…

MONTREAL: French Open champion Alexander Zverev suffered a surprise early exit from the ATP Montreal Masters after falling 6-7 (3/7), 6-2, 6-4 to Dutch underdog Tallon Griekspoor in a dramatic second-round clash on Wednesday. The top-seeded German entered the tournament hoping to bounce back from his Wimbledon final defeat to Jannik Sinner, but instead endured one of the toughest losses of his season. Despite claiming a tightly contested opening-set tiebreak, Zverev struggled to maintain his rhythm as Griekspoor mounted an impressive comeback. The world No. 69 displayed remarkable composure and consistency, taking control in the second set before sealing the biggest victory of his campaign after two hours and 34 minutes of intense tennis. A visibly disappointed Zverev did not hide his frustration after the match. “I didn’t expect to play well, but I also didn’t expect to play this badly,” the German admitted. “This was probably the worst match of the season. Tennis has its ups and downs, and now it’s about finding my best level again.” The defeat marked Zverev’s first match since finishing runner-up to Sinner at Wimbledon and brought an abrupt end to his Montreal campaign. Griekspoor’s reward is a place in the third round, where he will meet the winner of the match between Italy’s Matteo Arnaldi and Hungary’s Fabian Marozsan. The tournament had already witnessed another setback for the top seeds after second seed Felix Auger-Aliassime withdrew before his opening match because of a back injury sustained during training earlier this week. Despite the disappointing result in Montreal, Zverev has enjoyed an impressive 2026 season. He reached the semi-finals at the Australian Open, Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo and Munich, finished runner-up in Madrid, and captured his maiden Grand Slam singles title at the French Open. However, his latest defeat serves as a reminder that even the game’s biggest stars can face unexpected setbacks as the North American hard-court season gathers momentum.

West Indies have come under scrutiny after employing an unusual fielding tactic against Pakistan during the first Test, sparking widespread debate among cricket fans and experts. The incident occurred on the final delivery of an over when Pakistan batter Babar Azam played the ball into the field and attempted to take a single. Instead of collecting the ball immediately and throwing it back, West Indies fast bowler and fielder Shamar Joseph deliberately allowed it to continue rolling toward the boundary. Joseph waited until the ball reached the boundary rope, conceding four runs instead of preventing the boundary. The apparent objective was to ensure Babar remained at the non-striker’s end, preventing him from facing the first delivery of the next over. The move effectively sacrificed three additional runs in exchange for denying Pakistan’s star batter more time at the crease. At the time, Babar appeared to be batting confidently and had shown encouraging signs of returning to his best form, prompting the West Indies to adopt a tactical approach aimed at limiting his influence. The moment was captured on camera and quickly spread across social media, where it generated mixed reactions from fans and former players alike. Many questioned whether the decision reflected the spirit of the game, arguing that intentionally allowing a boundary to avoid bowling to a particular batter was against the traditions of Test cricket. Critics described the tactic as unsporting, saying teams should focus on dismissing batters through skill rather than manipulating the strike in such an unconventional manner. Some supporters of Pakistan also expressed frustration, claiming the strategy highlighted the respect and concern the West Indies had for Babar’s batting ability. However, others defended the decision, pointing out that Test cricket has always involved strategic planning and field placements designed to gain an advantage. They argued that if a team believes facing a certain batter poses a greater threat, using legal methods to keep that player off strike is simply part of the tactical battle that defines the longest format of the game. Supporters of the move also noted that the Laws of Cricket do not prohibit a fielder from allowing the ball to reach the boundary intentionally. As long as no law is breached, they believe captains and players are free to make calculated decisions that improve their chances of success. The incident has reignited discussions about the balance between gamesmanship and sportsmanship in modern cricket. While innovative tactics have become increasingly common across all formats, opinions remain divided over where teams should draw the line between strategic thinking and preserving the spirit of the game. Regardless of the differing viewpoints, the episode has become one of the most talked-about moments of the opening Test, with Babar Azam once again finding himself at the center of attention. Whether viewed as clever strategy or controversial gamesmanship, the West Indies’ decision has added another fascinating chapter to the ongoing contest between the two sides.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino is facing growing criticism after abandoning a controversial proposal to sell a stake in the commercial rights of the FIFA World Cup, a move that has raised questions about his leadership and decision-making within world football’s governing body. The proposal sparked strong opposition from several football organizations, particularly regional confederations and professional leagues, who argued that such a major commercial decision should not have been pursued without broader consultation. Critics believe the plan exposed concerns over transparency and governance at FIFA. Claudius Schaefer, the chairman of the organization representing 53 professional men’s and women’s football leagues across Europe and the chief executive of the Swiss Football League, said the handling of the proposal had seriously damaged confidence in FIFA’s leadership. According to Schaefer, the situation would have significant consequences in most organizations, especially when a senior executive advances a major business initiative without informing or involving key governing bodies. He suggested that the controversy has left Infantino’s position under increased scrutiny. The proposal was officially withdrawn after widespread resistance from football stakeholders. The decision came following criticism from various regional football confederations, with UEFA and CONCACAF publicly expressing that they had lost confidence in Infantino’s leadership after the episode. Schaefer argued that the failed proposal reflected a broader concern about FIFA’s priorities. He said the organization appeared increasingly focused on generating greater commercial revenue rather than protecting the long-term interests of football competitions, players, clubs, and domestic leagues. He also warned that expanding commercial opportunities could encourage FIFA to create even larger tournaments and increase the number of international matches. Such developments, he said, would place additional pressure on an already crowded football calendar. Professional leagues have repeatedly voiced concerns over fixture congestion, arguing that players are being asked to participate in too many matches throughout the season. Domestic competitions, they say, often bear the consequences when international tournaments continue to expand. Schaefer emphasized that national leagues remain the foundation of professional football and should not be weakened by decisions aimed primarily at increasing commercial returns. He argued that any future reforms to international competitions must balance financial objectives with the welfare of players and the health of domestic football. Another major point of criticism centered on FIFA’s decision-making process. Schaefer claimed that even members of the FIFA Council—the organization’s highest decision-making body—were reportedly unaware of the proposal before it became public. He described this lack of consultation as surprising and said it raised serious concerns about governance within FIFA. The controversy has intensified calls for greater transparency and accountability in football administration. Many stakeholders believe decisions involving the commercial future of the World Cup should involve extensive discussion with FIFA’s governing bodies, member associations, leagues, and other key partners before being considered. Although FIFA has now withdrawn the proposal, the fallout continues to fuel debate over leadership, governance, and the future direction of world football. With criticism coming from influential football organizations across different regions, pressure remains on Infantino to rebuild trust and demonstrate a more inclusive approach to decision-making on matters affecting the global game.