India, July 6 -- I've tried hard to like cricket but I haven't succeeded. Quite frankly, it goes on for too long. A lot of the time nothing or very little seems to happen. And other than former British colonies - America and Canada being the great exceptions - no one seems to understand the game. Tennis is very different. From serve to rally, it is continually exciting. A match rarely lasts more than three hours, but when it stretches towards five, it's riveting. And there are very few countries who don't play the game. This week the All England Tennis Championship is underway at Wimbledon. This Sunday is in fact the traditional halfway point. Are you watching? If you're not, can I gently suggest you should? For a start, tennis is a sport made for television. Far more so than cricket or football. And the reason is simple. The camera can cover both the action on the court as well as where the players are very effectively. Even the full court frame, whether from behind one of the players or from the side, doesn't feel distant and removed. As a result, your involvement in the game is considerably enhanced. Now consider cricket. To appreciate how a batsman's playing you need to know how the other team is positioned on the field. But for that you need wide shots which immediately diminish the batsman and bowler. You can either properly see the batsman and the ball being bowled or the full field. Not both. Certainly not at the same time. So, at no point do you get to see a complete picture of the full game. In fact, the truth is tennis is probably better watched on television. Cricket and football ought to be seen in a stadium. The first time I visited Wimbledon was to see the opening match sometime in the 1980s. We had ideal seats on centre court, just above the umpire's chair. But as soon as the game started I found we had to swivel our necks each time the ball was hit. Left, right, left, right. After an hour, it felt like a pain in the neck! The next time I chose to sit behind one of the players. I no longer had to swing my neck in coordination with the ball. But now I was on the opposite end of the court to the other player. He felt rather far away.These problems don't occur when you're watching on television. But Wimbledon is more than just brilliant tennis. It's also a social event. British industry does a lot of entertaining whilst the tennis is being played. It's part of the fun. And you'll discover that quaffing strawberries and cream whilst balancing a glass of champagne is quite an art. I would say the best match I have seen was the Bjorn Borg versus John McEnroe final of 1980. In the fourth set Borg had seven championship points but couldn't win any of them. He lost the set. And then he had to battle game for game till he won the fifth 8-6. It was his fifth consecutive Wimbledon championship but he never won again. In 1981 he made it to the finals but McEnroe took his revenge. This year, if Novak Djokovic wins, it will be his 25th grand slam. That's more than anyone else. If it is Carlos Alcaraz, he will become the fifth player in the open era, which began in 1968, to win three times in a row. The others are Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic. Alcaraz will also be the first after Borg to win both the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year for a second consecutive time. Borg did it in 1980. And if the winner is Jannik Sinner he'll become the first Italian player to win Wimbledon. So far, the only Italian to make a Wimbledon final, Matteo Berrettini in 2021, lost to Djokovic. Now, aren't those good reasons to watch?...