Mad Dog Game

The Sky Sports Golf YouTube channel offers live coverage from the Grand Final of the inaugural European eTour season; Eight players from five countries are competing using the World Golf Tour (WGT) game

The 2020 European eTour season reaches a climax on Wednesday, with the Global Finals available to watch for free via Sky Sports Golf’s live YouTube stream.

Golf’s first esports series is played using the online and mobile golf game World Golf Tour (WGT), with over 800,000 qualification entries during the five regular-season events over the past year.

Players who have won or finished runner-up in any of this season’s events will feature among the eight finalists, with four wildcards allocated through a closed playoff tournament ahead of the final.

Payton Gordley, known on the game as golfx3, will be the pre-event favourite after winning the first four tournaments and finishing runner-up in the other, while American Young46 features after winning the Nedbank Golf Challenge in November.

The format will include four quarter-final matches before progressing through to semi-finals and then a final, with the one-day event offering a $50,000 purse and seeing the inaugural eTour champion take home a $30,000 first prize.

Players from the UK, USA, Canada, Italy and the Philippines all feature in the unique five-hour contest, which is being streamed live on the Sky Sports Golf YouTube channel from 4pm.

Click on the video above to watch our free live stream from the European eTour’s Grand Final!

Opening batsman David Warner has voiced his opinion on where Australia must desperately improve in the wake of their disastrous Test series loss to India, pinpointing the out-of-sorts top order.

Australia are set to face South Africa in the Proteas’ backyard in three Tests across February and March, which loom as their only remaining chances to claw back a top-two spot on the World Test Championship points table.

MORE CRICKET NEWS: Pat Cummins backs in ‘brilliant’ Tim Paine amid public pressure

Tim Paine’s men slipped from first to third in their humiliating loss at The Gabba, in which India became the first team to defeat Australia at the Brisbane venue since the West Indies in 1988.

The sides that finish in first and second will square off in the inaugural World Test Championship final at Lord’s in June – and the countries currently in that position are India (No.1) and New Zealand (No.2).

Australia are also set to host Afghanistan in one Test in November, before striving to retain the Ashes on home soil over the 2021-22 summer.

Warner says Australia’s top order is the most pressing concern as they lift their sights to the cricket ahead.

“The biggest questions and debates were around the top order this series – chopping and changing and not scoring runs,” Warner said on Wide World of Sports radio.

“I think that’s where we need to be better.

“I hold myself accountable as a senior player. I need to do everything I can to make sure I’m scoring runs out there.”

A combination of form and injury forced Australia to use five openers across the four-Test series against India: Warner, Will Pucovski, Marcus Harris, Matthew Wade and Joe Burns.

Every one of those batsmen were outscored by rookie Indian Shubman Gill, who made his Test debut at the MCG and finished the series with 259 runs at an average of 51.80.

Warner said it still hadn’t been confirmed to the squad if the series against the Proteas would take place in South Africa, despite what’s scheduled, as the pandemic continues to shake the sports landscape.

“I am unsure at the moment,” Warner said.

“We are doing everything we can to prepare for that.

“We’re governed by our medicos and Cricket Australia, who are trying to get that series up and going, and obviously they’re in talks with Cricket South Africa.”

For a daily dose of the best of the breaking news and exclusive content from Wide World of Sports, subscribe to our newsletter by clicking here!

If the period in world cricket from 1977 to 1995 belonged to the West Indies and the period from 1995 to 2005 belonged to the Aussies, then I fear the coming decade will belong to India.

As others have written, the Indian triumph in this Australian summer was like nothing seen before. I can think of no precedent where a team devastated for 36, decimated by injury and devoid of its most fabled player simply refused to give up; ultimately prevailing deep in the last hour of the last day of the last Test. If the Australian team played with that kind of resilience, I would be a very happy supporter – walking around with a stupidly satisfied grin on my face.

Whilst pundits have rightly lauded the likes of Shubman Gill, Cheteshwar Pujara and Rishabh Pant for their scarcely fathomable gallantry on the last day of this epic series, I attribute the Indian victory to two middle-order batsmen of whom few had heard before this Test: Washington Sundar and Shardul Thakur.

On the third day in Brisbane, Thakur strode to the middle of Gabba, to join his unsung partner, Sundar, with the Indian score at 6-for-186 – still 150 behind the Aussies’ first innings score of 336. Most batsmen in their position would have been nervous. Thakur, at least, was playing his second match and had his Test debut behind him. Playing his maiden Test, however, Sundar did not have that luxury.

Had they failed, it would have been understandable. But with three haplessly unaccomplished batsmen to come in behind them, there was every chance that India may have surrendered a lead of 100 or more. With half the day to play, Australia could have accumulated a lead north of 250, with two days still to play. Then it’s a very different Test match.

Instead, the young men batted with confidence and verve, with competence and daring. They repelled everything the Australian bowling attack hurled at them and they prospered. Together, Sundar and Thakur contributed 129 runs to the Indian total and propelled their team to within 33 runs of the Australian score. Rather than being 250 or more ahead at stumps, the Aussies only enjoyed a slender lead of 54.

Australia should have started day four, luxuriating in the comfort of a healthy lead and pressing forward towards an imposing total, with time to spare. Instead, runs, wickets, time and weather were all in the mix when they made their uncomfortable calculations. As it turned out, even a seemingly distant target of 328 was not enough.

Australia lost this match long before the heroics of day five. The Test was lost on day three when Sundar and Thakur – two youngsters of close to zero Test experience – defied the most-feared bowling attack in modern Test cricket.

That India can lose the majority of their preferred team and still prevail is sobering. That they can win away from home is daunting. And that Indian management can cast a confident eye around their squad, point to two unknown kids and say, “Washington and Shardul, you’re up!” is terrifying for the rest of us.

That depth of skill and composure – not to mention character – heralds a period of Indian dominance like no other.

And, frankly, it’s going to be thrilling to watch.

As mentioned by every Australian news source within the last 24 hours, the Australian Test team needs to address its batting line-up. [Read more…] about Marsh and Khawaja are the answer to Australia’s batting woes

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

---

 

Currencies are the pillar of any real-world modern economy, since exchanges are done through them. Their objective is to be as universal and frictionless as possible, to make the system more efficient in allowing transactions.

Contrary to that, F2P games feature specialized currencies that have strict rules and limitations. Each in-game currency has been designed with a purpose: be it to push the player towards specific activities that will foster the fun, generate monetizable scarcity, provide a reason to come back later, or other.

This article aims to list the main types of in-game currencies, their uses, and general characteristics. The goal is to help you decide which ones would be appropriate for your game and which extra rules you should add to them — or even think of new hybrid mutations.

This is a follow-up of my article about IAP packs balance and design, which covers the relationship of in-game currencies with real world money. You may want to check that one out if you haven’t already!

First of all: What’s a currency?
I’m defining ‘currency’ as an element that has no use value in and of itself, but rather its main purpose and value comes from its ability to be exchanged for something else which has an actual use value.
So in accordance to this, I’m not considering currencies the following things:

• Score metrics like Clash Royale’s Trophies. Even though trophies grant rewards when reaching certain milestones or at the end of a competition period, we could argue that the main purpose of Trophies is not to be exchanged, but to represent the player’s competitive prowess and progression.
• Progression metrics like Experience Points or Player Level, which similarly are oriented towards representing (or gating) player progression within the game, rather than serving as a means to be exchanged.

But I will be considering currencies any resources or items whose purpose is accumulation to buy upgrades (like Clash Royale‘s cards… the first card of each type is to unlock the unit in gameplay, but after that point they’re a currency).

Also, note that the types are not mutually exclusive and some of the categories may in fact be subcategories of each other. For example, an event currency can be a hard currency, within the context of an event.

Based on those assumptions, I’m classifying currencies in 11 different categories. (Though I’m sure the list is missing several so it may grow. If you spot what’s missing, let me know in the comments!). They are:

A hard currency is a high value currency which is primarily obtained through IAP and is closely related to monetization. Often it allows the player access to exclusive premium content. Examples would be the Gems on Brawl Stars, or the Gold Bars in Candy Crush Saga.

Hard currency is the closest thing to an universal medium of exchange, since it not only allows players to purchase content, but can also be exchanged for most of the other currencies — and indirectly allows players to obtain the means to get what they want:

As a consequence, overflowing the economy with hard currency will diminish a game’s ability to generate situations of scarcity where the player needs to spend real money.

Because of this, sources of hard currency tend to be few and are under strict control — it’s a resource that generally doesn’t suffer inflation over the progression of the game.

A good way to check the health of an in-game economy is to check the sources of hard currency, and the amounts stored by paying and non-paying users. Increments on the player currency savings may indicate an imbalance on rewards, or perhaps the lack of valuable content to buy, or sinks.

Nevertheless, if used wisely and with measure, hard currency is an excellent reward because it’s extremely valuable for all the players, regardless of their progression or amount spent. This may not necessarily be true for other types of rewards (i.e. heroes, which may already be owned by the player, not valuable for competition, or below the level of the characters already owned by the player).

A soft currency is a low value, general-purpose currency which is primarily obtained for free, either by playing or just waiting. Examples of this would be Credits in Call of Duty Mobile (the main reward for completing matches), or coins in Idle Miner Tycoon (which are automatically generated over time).

We all know about this one because it’s part of the dual-currency mechanism that has ruled the F2P model since before the times of Facebook games. The benefit of this dual model being that it’s a simple way to separate the content for non-paying users from the one that is premium and exclusive.

So what happens when you want a currency that players can grind with relatively ease without destroying your overall economy, but your soft currency is too soft to generate monetization around it? You create a mix, of course!

The medium currency is a currency obtainable through grinding, but which has some kind of limitation to their usage or accumulation.
This makes it more resilient to the devaluation that soft currencies tend to suffer due to their nature, while creating additional monetization opportunities around their limitations (storage expansions, refills, etc…).

Some games incorporate several of these gating mechanics to their soft currencies, in order to keep the game economy more under control.
This is a great idea to have a game economy that’s easy to manage, but incorporates clear friction points versus a standard model, which users may find unfair or frustrating.

Some examples of the gating that medium currencies may incorporate are:

Capped accumulation

This may range between a hard limit on how much currency can be stored (like Gold in Clash of Clans), or making harder the accumulation beyond a certain point (like the protection capacity of storages in Rise of Kingdoms).

In most cases, this cap can be increased through successive upgrades or other purchases, which generates an additional — and highly valuable, in the player’s eyes — monetization point.

Capped acquisition

On the other hand, the limitation can be on how much the player can obtain within a specific period of time, rather than on how much it can be stored. The hard limits on currency acquisition on Clash Royale and Brawl Stars are good examples.

Contrary to the usage of energy, in those examples the player can still play after reaching the limit, but that won’t generate currency rewards.
This is well suited for multiplayer games, where there’s an interest in allowing long sessions so that the players keep on being content for the rest, but it lacks the monetization aggressiveness of energy.

Additional applications of this concept may include boosting the ratio of acquisition up until reaching a certain amount (which some items do in Brawl Stars and Wild Rift) or stopping the resource generation when reaching a certain point (like happens with energy in most games).

Limited usage

Another point where gates can be added is on the capacity of the currency to be exchanged into the game element that has the actual value.

For example, this can be because the player has to accumulate specific amounts before the currency can be used, or because multiple resources or additional requirements are required in order to allow the exchange — or because the points where the currency can be spent are few and limited.

The defining characteristic of energy is that it’s exchanged exclusively for playing time. Usually it’s a price to be paid on every attempt or action (Monster Legends‘ Dungeons), or has to be paid on a retry (Candy Crush, Homescapes).

Either if it’s a strict cost per action like in Monster Legends, or a payment upon failure (to allow that the player can extend its play time through skill and luck), the objective of energy currencies is to gate the time that the player can spend in the game for free.

If your game features multiple activities which reward the same thing, players will naturally tend to orbit towards those that are more efficient for gaining rewards. For example, they’ll do Daily Dungeons instead of grinding the single player mode, because Dungeons grant more gold.

This is an issue, because each of those activities may ask the player different inventory requirements and styles of playing, which will make the game more interesting and also incentivize players to spend more on it. So, inadvertently enabling them to avoid less reward-generous activities can limit your overall ARPDAU and lead them to miss out on features that can add value to their gaming experience.

To avoid the likelihood of certain game activities from being overlooked by players, consider creating a currency that can only be obtained on specific modes.

Feature currencies have a very specific in-game usage, and are linked exclusively to a specific game activity. Some of the objectives may be:

• To force the user to play a specific section of the game in order to be able to access a set of rewards, progression or upgrade axis.
• To isolate an entire system from the rest of the in-game economy, in order to make it easier to manage, balance and analyze.
• Limit access to a specific feature, whose over-usage might be detrimental for the economy.

Social currency is a feature currency which aims to foster a specific game behavior of incentivizing virality, social interaction and connectivity inside the game.
It’s important to note that virality can actually have two meanings:

• Bring new users via those who are already on the game (classic, K-factor virality).
  This is the one that most of us think the most with the word virality: players extending the contagion among people they already know outside of the game.
• Incentivize interaction and connection between players that are already in the game, with the objective of boosting their engagement and retention (the neighboring or network effect).
  Usually, this is oriented towards players that are not related or friends outside of the game.

In general, social currencies in games are oriented towards the second example, since players bringing new players is not something that happens often enough to sustain a currency.

In Puzzle & Dragons dungeons, your team is reinforced with a monster from another player. Doing so, as well as being selected by others, generates Pal Points (social currency), which grant monster egg rolls. And if you use players from your friend list, you get many more points.

This makes players look to add as many friends as possible and constantly delete inactive low-level ones (because the friend list is limited), as well as post their ID in fan pages, in the hope of being added by active players that will help them farm Pal Points.

Meanwhile, Summoners War grants Social Points that allow players to summon more creatures. They are primarily obtained by gifting to friends, and being gifted by them on a daily basis.

This encourages users to add active players as friends (through an ‘friends suggestion’ list), and discard those that are inactive (and therefore occupy space on the friend list but don’t generate social currency).

Guild currency is intrinsically related to a clans/alliances/guilds feature. What makes it stand out from other feature currencies is the fact that it usually has unique mechanics related to being generated by a group.

This often means that additional balancing measures need to be deployed (calculating the distribution of costs among all members, limiting the benefits that some can provide to freebooters, etc…).

Examples of potentially unique mechanics in guild currencies would be:

• The currency is shared and generated by all the guild members, but can only be spent by the high members of its hierarchy (i.e. Shop Titans‘ Renown, which guild leaders can spend in Boosts or Perks to the entire clan).
• The currency is entirely individual, but all team members may contribute to the payment, and the benefits are shared (i.e. gold priced City Upgrades in Shop Titans).
• The currency is entirely individual, but it’s generated by the shared collective effort (i.e. Guild Points in Summoners Wars).

It’s also important to note that guild currency may also have additional social dynamics beyond its direct exchange usefulness: For example, clans may use it as an indicator of contribution of each teammate to establish group hierarchy, or set periodic quotas as a requirement for membership.

One of the reasons why time-limited events are so positive to monetization and engagement is the fact that they can introduce entire layers of game economy which are completely independent from the main game.

Of course, that objective would be defeated if players who’ve accumulated tons of currency can use it to smash the requirements presented there, or to buy the rewards without engaging on the event activities. This could force the developer to balance the event multiple times for several user profiles.

Many games avoid these issues entirely by using event currencies, which are feature currencies that exist temporarily and are entirely focused around a time-limited event. They may allow players to purchase an actual set of rewards, or perhaps are part of a system which exists exclusively within an event.

Discard currencies are obtained through the destruction of game items. These currencies pursue several objectives aimed to extend the usefulness of items beyond gameplay itself, or decrease the friction or randomized drops and meta rotations:

• Transform those items in rewards that can be given recurrently (i.e. fusion systems).
• Grant a use to obsolete items that no longer have gameplay value. For example, repeated items of a type that has been already maxed out.
• Decrease the friction generated by loot boxes, by allowing players to transform unwanted items into the desired ones, so the bad drops aren’t that frustrating.
• Help complete a collection, by removing items already owned and allow to craft the missing ones. Completing collections without this would be extremely hard.
• Helping players to update their inventory to a new set of items, therefore decreasing the friction of having a rotative meta or power creep.
  It also grants more confidence for the player to spend, knowing that even if the dominance of the purchased items is limited, they’ll generate some long term return too.

‘Fusion systems’ like the one featured in RAID: Shadow Legends, requires players to sacrifice units in order to level up another. This allows the game to regularly reward lesser units, they’re just another type of resource to be consumed (so they can feed the constant drops in grinding modes, loot boxes, etc…).

‘Dusting systems’ like the one in Hearthstone allow the player to transform unwanted items into discard currency, and use that to craft missing ones. This allows players to build their desired decks (which otherwise would be extremely hard to do, due to the difficulty of finding specific cards on the drops).

It also decreases the friction when introducing a new card set, because players with a big inventory can dust it to get the new cards faster, which provides a ‘long term value’ sense on any investment. Of course, since the tradeoff is not perfect, this still means having to spend extra money to get it completely.

A VIP currency is generated as a by-product of performing an IAP transaction, as a side-incentive for monetization and customer reward.
Note that most games tend to do this not through a currency but rather through a permanent score, which is a greater incentive.

There’s a saying that goes that money always finds a way, and that if people have a need which can’t be fulfilled by normal means, shadier ones will appear to do it. In many games, that need is the ability for players to trade stuff without resorting to bartering.

Informal currencies are game elements which players effectively use as medium of exchange, even though the intended purpose of the developers for that element was different.

This can happen on games that allow item gifting and trading, but don’t allow sending currency, which is a common setup to avoid exploits such as creating fake accounts for sharing the starter rewards, alternative sellers of currency (like the infamous World of Warcraft‘s gold farmers…), or hackers breaking the economy (like in GTA Online…).
Or it can happen if the main currency method of the game has been heavily devalued or has another problem which results in another game item being better suited to act as currency.

 

For instance, in Ultima Online, gold was strongly devalued because new gold was constantly being generated. Also, there was a limit on how much gold could be stacked together on a single pile on the map, which made storage of big amounts quite impractical.

On the contrary, the item ‘horse dung’ was much better suited to act as storage of value since the game horses didn’t poop so the amount of dungs in the world was strictly limited. So it had collector value, was a sign of status (like owning a diamond), and was funny as well. So ‘horse dung’ became a currency on high value exchanges and it even generated speculation with real money.

On the contrary, the item ‘horse dung’ was much better suited to act as storage of value since the game horses didn’t poop so the amount of dungs in the world was strictly limited. So it had collector value, was a sign of status (like owning a diamond) and was funny as well. So ‘horse dung’ became a currency on high value exchanges and even became a collector’s item.

Party In My Dorm (above) is an even clearer example: Players can’t trade currency, but they can exchange any other game item, allowing them to barter. The problem is that bartering is inefficient (a player doesn’t know the actual value of an item, has to consider if each deal is good, may have to do multiple exchanges until getting the wanted item…).

So players created their own universal exchanger: chibis and bentos (shards and loot boxes). They have generated an alternative, user generated game economy that self-regulates prices and facilitates trade.

I hope that this list helps you to expand your views on in-game currencies or inspires you to improve the ones you’re already considering on your game.

Special thanks to Mathew Baker, Marc Llobet, David Andrusiak, Philipp J. Karstaedt, Risto. D Holmström, Hippolyte Babinet, Tj’ièn Twijnstra, Alexandre Besenval, Paul West, Luke Stapley and ‘el designer de la plata’ Francisco Andrada, which gave me their feedback and suggestions on the topic.
Extra thanks to Tayber Voyer who pointed out to me the informal currency and sent me the screenshots of Party in my Dorm.

If you want more content like this, you can find all my stuff at https://jb-dev.net/

FLORHAM PARK, N.J. — A failing marriage in Houston has sparked near-hysteria in the New York/New Jersey area.

With the NFL’s speculation machine working at high speed, the New York Jets have been linked to Deshaun Watson in potential trade scenarios for the disgruntled Houston Texans quarterback. The talk shows, local and national, were buzzing on Monday.

The back page of the New York Post, playing on Watson’s last name, screamed: “WATEVER IT TAKES.”

Let’s take a deep breath and analyze the situation. At this early stage, three questions can be considered:

Should the Jets pursue Watson if he becomes available? Yes, absolutely. They passed on him once (2017 NFL draft). It would be borderline negligent to do it again. Pick up the phone. Make an offer. We’re talking about one of the best players in the league.

Will the Jets make an aggressive run at him? Call me skeptical, but the hunch is general manager Joe Douglas won’t open his treasure chest of draft picks and trade them for one player.

Would Watson waive his no-trade clause to play for the Jets? This is the question that is being underplayed. Basically, he has the ability to pick his destination. While the hiring of coach Robert Saleh has sparked excitement, the Jets are starting over from rock bottom. Watson will have better options.

Before we dive into the particulars of why the Jets should go all-in on the superstar quarterback, let’s recap the unfolding drama in Texas.

Watson reportedly hasn’t asked for a trade, but widespread reports suggest the situation is deteriorating. On Sunday, ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported that multiple people in and around the Houston organization believe Watson won’t play again for the Texans.

The Jets are in the middle of the Watson storm because of their unsettled quarterback situation and because they hold four first-round picks in the 2021 and 2022 drafts, including the No. 2 overall choice in this April’s draft. A team will have to move mountains to get Watson. In the Jets’ case, we’re talking Rockies, not Appalachians.

The price would be exorbitant. You’re talking about at least three first-round picks. Think about it: If Jamal Adams fetched two first-rounders — a strong safety — imagine the cost for a 25-year-old quarterback who has made three Pro Bowls and is signed through 2025.

Conventional thinking suggests pursuing Watson wouldn’t be a wise move for the Jets, who fall into the “more than one player away” category. A fair concern, to be sure. Watson was brilliant this season — 4,823 yards and 33 touchdown passes — and the Texans went 4-12. So, yes, it takes more than a superstar quarterback.

If the Jets trade three first-rounders for Watson, they’d be mortgaging a significant part of their future and would have to rely heavily on NFL free agency to bring in talent — not the optimal way to build a roster. Douglas created a rebuilding blueprint that hinges largely on that draft capital.

But you know what? Sometimes the best-laid plans need to be junked and remastered. Conventional thinking doesn’t win championships.

If Watson is put on the block, it would be a rare opportunity to get a franchise quarterback in his prime. The narrative coming out of the Jets’ 2-14 season was how the team lacked a positive culture. Put a player like Watson in the locker room and watch how quickly the culture changes. He would be their best offensive player since … well, maybe ever. He would make everyone better.

Money and salary-cap space wouldn’t be an issue. The Jets have a ton of cap room, and Watson’s charges from 2021 to 2025 would be $10.5 million, $35 million, $37 million, $29.3 million and $32 million. Remember, the team that trades for him doesn’t have to pick up the prorated portion of his signing bonus; the Texans are on the hook for that.

The Jets would recoup $4.8 million in cap room by trading incumbent Sam Darnold, who would bring back a second- or third-round pick.

All this speculation will be moot if Douglas decides to stay the course and build through the draft, but that is a flawed plan as it pertains to the quarterback situation — unless he’s convinced one of the draft-eligible quarterbacks not named Trevor Lawrence has Watson-like potential.

But if Douglas has reservations about Justin Fields & Co. and runs it back with Darnold without ever checking into Watson … well, that would be a big mistake.

The biggest obstacle in a potential blockbuster transaction is Watson himself, convincing him to accept a trade to the Jets over, say, the Miami Dolphins, reportedly one of his preferred destinations.

With a no-trade clause, Watson can control the process like few players before him. The Dolphins went 10-6 with a promising young coach in Brian Flores. Plus, Florida has no state income tax, which saves a lot of money for an individual who is making millions.

The Jets are a losing franchise — 10 consecutive seasons since a postseason appearance. New York’s biggest selling point is its draft capital, but most of that would be wiped out by the trade, leaving Watson surrounded by a Swiss cheese lineup.

Hey, there’s no harm in trying to pull off the trade of the century, but Jets fans, you might want to hold off on buying a Watson jersey.

“Now is the best time for the Anthony Joshua vs Tyson Fury promoters to make Oleksandr Usyk a serious offer either to fight the WBO champion or to step aside and fight for the interim,” says Ukrainian’s promoter. Joe Joyce’s manager adds: “We have also been in talks to fight Usyk next.”

Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury’s dream fight is closer to becoming a reality after the major issue posed by Oleksandr Usyk edged nearer to being resolved.

Usyk’s status as WBO mandatory challenger to the belt held by Joshua was a problem that the governing body have started to settle by contacting the Ukrainian to say he may have to wait for a title shot.

Early negotiations have now begun to pit Usyk against Joe Joyce (who is ranked No 2 by the WBO) for the organisation’s interim title – meaning Joshua vs Fury can take place next, with every major championship in the heavyweight division at stake.

Joshua is the IBF, WBA and WBO title holder and Fury owns the WBC belt meaning this generation-defining battle would crown the first undisputed champion since Lennox Lewis.

Usyk’s promoter Alexander Krassyuk exclusively told Sky Sports: “I received the call from George Warren [the son of Joyce’s promoter Frank Warren] with the offer to promote Usyk vs Joyce for the interim WBO heavyweight championship this spring.

“We also received the letter from WBO saying that they are considering granting sanction for AJ vs Fury.

“But Usyk has never received any serious offer nor anyone approached him with the offer to ‘step aside’. We all read it from media.

“I know that the WBO in general and its president Paco Valcarcel in particular will never violate the rules of its organisation and sanction the major fight without Usyk’s consent.

“So now is the best time for the AJ vs Fury fight promoters to make Usyk a serious offer either to fight the WBO champion or to step aside and fight for the interim.”

Usyk won Olympic gold alongside Joshua in 2012 and, as a professional, is unbeaten in 18 and became the undisputed cruiserweight champion before stepping up a division and outpointing Derek Chisora.

Joyce, a 2016 Olympic silver medallist, exploded onto the world title scene two months ago when he brutally ended the unbeaten rise of the feted Daniel Dubois.

Joyce’s manager Sam Jones of SJAM Boxing exclusively told Sky Sports: “We’ve been in talks with Joe’s promoter Frank Warren for a couple of weeks now. We are looking at extending Joe’s deal with Frank and BT given that it is going to expire.

“He is now in a very strong position after beating Daniel Dubois who was tipped worldwide as one of the best young talents in the world. Joe and the team wish Daniel all the best with his recovery from a bad eye injury and I am certain he’ll come again but this is now Joe Joyce’s time to fulfil his dream of becoming world heavyweight champion.

“As well as that we have also been in talks to fight Usyk next which could potentially be for the interim world title which would be a massive fight.

“I think this is a fair outcome for Joe and Usyk to contest for the interim title as AJ vs Fury is the biggest fight in world boxing and it’s only right it is for the undisputed world heavyweight title.”

Joyce previously told Sky Sports about taking on Usyk: “Derek Chisora put up a valiant effort but Usyk’s skills were better. Against me? It would be a different story.

“It would be a mental battle but a physical one too because he’d have a big ‘Juggernaut’ coming towards him for 12 rounds.”

Is Deontay Wilder still an obstacle?

The former WBC champion has entered a mediation process to lure Fury back into the ring for a third fight.

Joshua’s promoter Eddie Hearn told Sky Sports: “[Fury’s US promoter Bob Arum] is not too concerned. He feels like the contract is over.

“There is an arbitration going on in that respect. I don’t see that as an issue. If there is, Fury has to give Wilder some kind of compensation to take these two fights [against Joshua].”

Arum told Sky Sports: “I think we’ll sort through any issues and arrive at the conclusion, which is the fight that everybody wants.”

A location for Joshua vs Fury is yet to be decided but both boxers’ promoters have suggested they can amicably agree.

How close is a deal to finalise Joshua vs Fury?

A week ago Arum told Sky Sports: “I don’t want to make a deadline, but I just can report that everything so far has been going splendidly, and we hope to have a signed document within the next couple of weeks.

“I’m 95 per cent confident the fight happens, and I’m 100 per cent confident that my guy wins, and wins by knockout.”

Hearn added: “We’re now papering the fight, in terms of the contracts, a period of the fight, and looking out now in the next stages to go to the different various sites that have made offers and discuss the fight and the date with them.

“All I want to tell you really is we’re on track and I don’t see anything derailing it.”

Groups and starting times for the first round of the Abu Dhabi HSBC Championship. Watch live on Sky Sports Golf.

Players GB and Ire unless stated, all times GMT:

Starting at Hole 1

0320 Chris Paisley, Francesco Laporta (Ita), Nino Bertasio (Ita)

0330 Kiradech Aphibarnrat (Tha), Thomas Aiken (Rsa), Zander Lombard (Rsa)

0340 Jordan Smith, Ross Fisher, Tapio Pulkkanen (Fin)

0350 Fabrizio Zanotti (Pry), Gaganjeet Bhullar (Ind), Matthieu Pavon (Fra)

0400 Ahmed Skaik (UAE), Paul Waring, Scott Hend (Aus)

0410 Ahmed Marjan (Mor), Alexander Levy (Fra), Guido Migliozzi (Ita)

0420 Mikko Korhonen (Fin), Ryan Fox (Nzl), Stephen Gallacher

0430 Marcus Kinhult (Swe), Tom Lewis, Wade Ormsby (Aus)

0440 Ashley Chesters, Dean Burmester (Rsa), Haydn Porteous (Rsa)

0450 Andrew Johnston, Maximilian Kieffer (Ger), Oliver Fisher

0500 Chris Wood, Matthias Schwab (Aut), Steven Brown

0745 Antoine Rozner (Fra), Callum Shinkwin, Renato Paratore (Ita)

0755 Christiaan Bezuidenhout (Rsa), Danny Willett, Martin Kaymer (Ger)

0805 Justin Rose, Shane Lowry, Tommy Fleetwood

0815 Graeme McDowell, Rasmus Hoejgaard (Den), Thomas Pieters (Bel)

0825 Aaron Rai, Robert Karlsson (Swe), Sami Valimaki (Fin)

0835 Jamie Donaldson, Pablo Larrazabal (Spa), Robert Rock

0845 Eddie Pepperell, Thomas Bjorn (Den), Calum Hill

0855 Richard Sterne (Rsa), Sebastian Soederberg (Swe), Joachim B. Hansen
(Den)

0905 Justin Walters (Rsa), Kalle Samooja (Fin), Julian Suri (USA)

0915 David Law, Jorge Campillo (Spa), Andrea Pavan (Ita)

0925 Jazz Janewattananond (Tha), Masahiro Kawamura (Jpn), Grant Forrest

Starting at Hole 10

0320 Laurie Canter, Romain Langasque (Fra), Wilco Nienaber (Rsa)

0330 Justin Thomas (USA), Lee Westwood, Rory McIlroy

0340 Ian Poulter, Matthew Fitzpatrick, Tyrrell Hatton

0350 Bernd Wiesberger (Aut), Henrik Stenson (Swe), Matt Wallace

0400 Padraig Harrington, Robert MacIntyre, Victor Perez (Fra)

0410 Andy Sullivan, John Catlin (USA), Rafael Cabrera (Spa)

0420 Gavin Green (Mal), Haotong Li (Chn), Lucas Herbert (Aus)

0430 David Horsey, David Howell, Joel Stalter (Fra)

0440 James Morrison, Joakim Lagergren (Swe), Soeren Kjeldsen (Den)

0450 Jeff Winther (Den), Oliver Wilson, Richie Ramsay

0500 David Drysdale, Ignacio Elvira (Spa), Julien Guerrier (Fra)

0745 Adria Arnaus (Spa), Richard McEvoy, Shubhankar Sharma (Ind)

0755 George Coetzee (Rsa), Joost Luiten (Ned), Nicolas Colsaerts (Bel)

0805 Justin Harding (Rsa), Matthew Southgate, Ross McGowan

0815 Adrian Otaegui (Spa), Marcus Armitage, Thomas Detry (Bel)

0825 Alexander Bjork (Swe), Brandon Stone (Rsa), David Lipsky (USA)

0835 Arjun Gupta (Ind), Kristoffer Broberg (Swe), Michael Lorenzo-Vera (Fra)

0845 Alvaro Quiros (Spa), Lorenzo Gagli (Ita), Raphael Jacquelin (Fra)

0855 Benjamin Hebert (Fra), Jason Scrivener (Aus), Lucas Bjerregaard (Den)

0905 Garrick Higgo (Rsa), Marc Warren, Victor Dubuisson (Fra)

0915 Ashun Wu (Chn), Kurt Kitayama (USA), Min-Woo Lee (Aus)

0925 Edoardo Molinari (Ita), Scott Jamieson, Sean Crocker (USA)

Opening batsman David Warner has voiced his opinion on where Australia must desperately improve in the wake of their disastrous Test series loss to India, pinpointing the out-of-sorts top order.

Australia are set to face South Africa in the Proteas’ backyard in three Tests across February and March, which loom as their only remaining chances to claw back a top-two spot on the World Test Championship points table.

MORE CRICKET NEWS: Pat Cummins backs in ‘brilliant’ Tim Paine amid public pressure

Tim Paine’s men slipped from first to third in their humiliating loss at The Gabba, in which India became the first team to defeat Australia at the Brisbane venue since the West Indies in 1988.

The sides that finish in first and second will square off in the inaugural World Test Championship final at Lord’s in June – and the countries currently in that position are India (No.1) and New Zealand (No.2).

Australia are also set to host Afghanistan in one Test in November, before striving to retain the Ashes on home soil over the 2021-22 summer.

Warner says Australia’s top order is the most pressing concern as they lift their sights to the cricket ahead.

“The biggest questions and debates were around the top order this series – chopping and changing and not scoring runs,” Warner said on Wide World of Sports radio.

“I think that’s where we need to be better.

“I hold myself accountable as a senior player. I need to do everything I can to make sure I’m scoring runs out there.”

A combination of form and injury forced Australia to use five openers across the four-Test series against India: Warner, Will Pucovski, Marcus Harris, Matthew Wade and Joe Burns.

Every one of those batsmen were outscored by rookie Indian Shubman Gill, who made his Test debut at the MCG and finished the series with 259 runs at an average of 51.80.

Warner said it still hadn’t been confirmed to the squad if the series against the Proteas would take place in South Africa, despite what’s scheduled, as the pandemic continues to shake the sports landscape.

“I am unsure at the moment,” Warner said.

“We are doing everything we can to prepare for that.

“We’re governed by our medicos and Cricket Australia, who are trying to get that series up and going, and obviously they’re in talks with Cricket South Africa.”

For a daily dose of the best of the breaking news and exclusive content from Wide World of Sports, subscribe to our newsletter by clicking here!

This hurts. [Read more…] about Change required for tour of South Africa