With this year’s NFL International Series game now gone, there has been plenty of speculation, fuelled by fairly vague comments from administrators, that the UK will in time, see either an increased number of regular season games played here; or that London might host a Super Bowl; or even a franchise. As NFLUK journalist Keith Webster notes, the league must have a roadmap of where it is going with these games, as otherwise the venture risks petering out with little long-term legacy, as previous efforts did in the past.
A second annual game is widely expected, and seems realistic, especially given the high levels of interest in the games so far. Any of the other proposals however, would be much more drastic. Loaning the outside world one game a year is one thing, but a Super Bowl is America’s biggest sporting event, whilst a London team would mean weekly transatlantic trips and would need a guaranteed week-in, week-out fanbase.
With that in mind then, a Super Bowl seems more likely than a franchise, but still not likely. The NFL has a strong preference for warm weather or indoor locations, and London in February will have neither. Most important is the likelihood of rain, which can have a marked effect on the quality of entertainment, as we saw with the first game at Wembley in 2007, when the Giants v Dolphins clash was turned into a mudbath. On the plus side, it would avoid the league taking away a home game from either of the teams involved, and it is a game that fans are used to travelling for. However those same fans would be outraged at the showpiece event for “America’s game” being taken overseas, especially given the huge boost that the game brings to the local economy of the host city.
As for a London-based franchise, there are three key issues. The first is that of logistics. Could teams reasonably travel across the Atlantic every week, and would players be willing to relocate to another country? The second question relates to the fans. Although Wembley has been sold out three years in a row thanks to a combination of hardcore supporters and curious sports fans looking for something different and a spectacle, would they attend eight games a year, and support a London franchise? Casual observers might be good for a game or two per season, and whilst the hardcore would attend more regularly, financial would come into play, as would the fact that many who have attended the London games have come from around the UK and Europe. They presumably would not do so every week. Meanwhile most UK fans already support NFL teams, and would be reluctant to change their allegiance to a side whose American players would have as much in common with Britain as those in Denver, Houston or Chicago.
Finally, it would require a big change in culture. Farming out individual games, even the biggest game of all, to another country is simply promoting an American product abroad. Handing entry to the NFL to a foreign team would mean that this is no longer America’s game. It would, if successful (admittedly a big if), mean giving the outside world a say in the running of the sport. Britain gave up ownership of sports like football, cricket and rugby many years ago, but retained its own leagues and identity, and despite the increase in foreign players and cross border competitions, that integrity remains. This would be a long way from the defunct NFL Europa. Up until now, Americans who disagree with international expansion have been largely able to ignore such efforts, which have had little impact on them, and barely registered on their consciousness.
Despite the hopes of Webster and Alistair Kirkwood, Managing Director of NFLUK, veteran journalist Mike Carlson probably identified the most realistic plan on Five last Sunday night. He has observed that the most likely outcome is the addition of a 17th regular season game to the league schedule (which has already been discussed), and for each team to play their extra game at a neutral venue, whether abroad, or at locations in the United States that do not currently host NFL games, such as Los Angeles. This seems more pragmatic and could lead to London and other British and European locations hosting multiple games annually. League expansion would only follow if this move succeeded.
Ultimately, as a fan who has attended all three Wembley games, and hopes to attend more in the future, I hope that the league does not add a London team. A 17th game which allows further matches in the UK would be great, but not a Super Bowl or franchise. Part of the NFL’s charm, amongst many other things, is its American-ness. It has a different culture and character to European and Commonwealth sports, and conjures up scenes from an array of locations across the length and breadth of the United States. As Paul Hayward recently observed in The Guardian, sporting events have a sense of belonging to a place. To buy into a sport is to buy into its surroundings and history. Sporting events are a part of the fabric of their location, and their location is a part of their fabric.
There is still room for international expansion in sport, taking the PGA or LTA tours, or the Formula 1 circuit to new countries is a logical reflection of those sports’ growing appeal. The Premier League’s derided game 39 plan misjudged this balance, but there may be other ways of bringing English football to overseas fans.
As for the NFL, in the cold light of day, a London franchise or a Super Bowl seem unlikely, whatever league Commissioner Roger Goodell says. Men like Goodell and Kirkwood, with vested interests in keeping fans as interested as possible are never going to rule anything out, and the intrigue keeps people talking, so putting too much faith in their statements is unwise. Instead, British fans should make the most of whatever games come our way, and revel in the excitement of something that is truly American, in the best possible way.
Friday 30 October 2009
Wednesday 28 October 2009
Rugby: Invictus Trailer Released
The trailer for Clint Eastwood’s upcoming film, ‘Invictus’ has been released this week. Based on last year’s acclaimed sports book by John Carlin: Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Changed a Nation, it tells the story of how Mandela used the 1995 Rugby World Cup to bind together South Africa in the early days of his presidency. This has Oscars written all over it (Clint Eastwood? Triumph against adversity? Racism? Morgan Freeman? Matt Damon? It’s got to win something), and finally gives us a chance to see Morgan Freeman play a role he has been linked with for years. Have a look at the trailer and see what you think. On first viewing, Freeman and Matt Damon seem to have at least got the accents down, but we’ll have to wait for the finished article to find out whether justice has been done to one of sport’s most iconic moments.
If nothing else, it will be good to see a high-profile film about rugby. Most non-American sports have fared pretty badly on the big screen over the years, with one or two notable exceptions, and I can’t think of a good rugby union film, although rugby league can lay claim to a classic in This Sporting Life.
If nothing else, it will be good to see a high-profile film about rugby. Most non-American sports have fared pretty badly on the big screen over the years, with one or two notable exceptions, and I can’t think of a good rugby union film, although rugby league can lay claim to a classic in This Sporting Life.
NFL: New England Patriots 35 - 7 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
The 84,254 fans who crammed into Wembley Stadium for the third year running to watch the NFL’s finest do battle both for a win, and for the hearts and minds of British supporters, witnessed an entertaining but one-sided affair, as the heavily favoured New England Patriots easily defeated the winless “home” side, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
On the field, this was a routine win for the Patriots, who after a slow start, are beginning to resemble the ruthless machine that came seconds from a perfect season in 2007. This is due in no small part to the growing confidence of quarterback Tom Brady, whose early season performances suggested he was still feeling the psychological effects of the knee injury that ended his 2008 season after only a few minutes. Brady was short of his best at Wembley, but still comfortably outclassed Tampa Bay’s Josh Johnson, his precision and patience resulting in three passing touchdowns. Brady was never seriously pressured by the Buccaneers’ defence, despite giving up two interceptions, and good protection from his offensive line allowed the three-time Super Bowl winner to pick out his receivers at ease. With deep threat Randy Moss often double covered, and carrying an injury, the Patriots favoured screen passes and quick slants to Wes Welker and an unheralded supporting cast of Ben Watson, Sam Aiken, Chris Baker and Brandon Tate. Welker, Watson and Aiken all scored touchdowns, whilst Laurence Maroney, who had a good day, added a rushing score in the fourth quarter.
The tone for the performance had been set by the Patriots’ defence, when safety Brandon Meriweather intercepted Johnson on the first drive of the game, and returned the pick for a touchdown. From that point on, the Buccaneers were always chasing the game, and never really threatened an upset. Johnson was picked off again by Meriweather in the first quarter, and although he improved, showing glimpses of talent with a nicely weighted touchdown pass for Antonio Bryant in the third quarter, a combination of poor protection, throwing and catching meant that the Florida side relied on the running game, making it easy for the Patriots’ defence to stop them.
With a straightforward, albeit entertaining, game on the field, the other matter at hand was the ongoing success of the NFL’s International Series. There has been speculation, much of it fanciful, about where the league goes from here, but whatever happens, the fixture was another triumph, with the highest attendance yet, better weather than previous years, and a wealth of media coverage prior to the game. The novelty may be wearing off after three years, but there is a committed band of supporters who keep coming back. The game itself may not have been a close encounter, but they came away entertained and content that they had seen one of the game’s true greats in Brady.
On the field, this was a routine win for the Patriots, who after a slow start, are beginning to resemble the ruthless machine that came seconds from a perfect season in 2007. This is due in no small part to the growing confidence of quarterback Tom Brady, whose early season performances suggested he was still feeling the psychological effects of the knee injury that ended his 2008 season after only a few minutes. Brady was short of his best at Wembley, but still comfortably outclassed Tampa Bay’s Josh Johnson, his precision and patience resulting in three passing touchdowns. Brady was never seriously pressured by the Buccaneers’ defence, despite giving up two interceptions, and good protection from his offensive line allowed the three-time Super Bowl winner to pick out his receivers at ease. With deep threat Randy Moss often double covered, and carrying an injury, the Patriots favoured screen passes and quick slants to Wes Welker and an unheralded supporting cast of Ben Watson, Sam Aiken, Chris Baker and Brandon Tate. Welker, Watson and Aiken all scored touchdowns, whilst Laurence Maroney, who had a good day, added a rushing score in the fourth quarter.
The tone for the performance had been set by the Patriots’ defence, when safety Brandon Meriweather intercepted Johnson on the first drive of the game, and returned the pick for a touchdown. From that point on, the Buccaneers were always chasing the game, and never really threatened an upset. Johnson was picked off again by Meriweather in the first quarter, and although he improved, showing glimpses of talent with a nicely weighted touchdown pass for Antonio Bryant in the third quarter, a combination of poor protection, throwing and catching meant that the Florida side relied on the running game, making it easy for the Patriots’ defence to stop them.
With a straightforward, albeit entertaining, game on the field, the other matter at hand was the ongoing success of the NFL’s International Series. There has been speculation, much of it fanciful, about where the league goes from here, but whatever happens, the fixture was another triumph, with the highest attendance yet, better weather than previous years, and a wealth of media coverage prior to the game. The novelty may be wearing off after three years, but there is a committed band of supporters who keep coming back. The game itself may not have been a close encounter, but they came away entertained and content that they had seen one of the game’s true greats in Brady.
Monday 26 October 2009
NFL: Running up the Score
The visit of the NFL’s New England Patriots to London for last weekend’s game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers has deflected attention from a minor controversy about whether or not they were guilty of running up the score in the previous week’s 59-0 drubbing of the Tennessee Titans.
Running up the score is a uniquely American controversy. In many sports at both amateur and professional levels, it is common for teams that are comfortably beating their opponents to continue to play at the same level, and continue to score. The only exception is perhaps in friendly games, where it might be in the best interests of the game to ease off on the losing team. Whilst a football team might start to string passes together, rather than press for another goal, the side will still take whatever opportunities comes its way.
In the United States and Canada however, a winning team that has a comfortably large margin will be expected go easy on its opponent, playing less aggressively, and replacing star players with their backups. Against the Titans, the Patriots found themselves 45-0 up at half time, after a breathtaking second quarter display that included five touchdowns. NFL etiquette would therefore require them to send their reserve quarterback out in place of three-time Superbowl winner Tom Brady, and to stick largely to running plays, thus saving much further embarrassment for the struggling Titans. Instead, the Patriots sent Brady out for the second half, and added a further touchdown before then easing up and sending the replacements in.
Admittedly, what criticism there has been has been subdued, but this is familiar territory for the Patriots. In their record-breaking 2007 season, a 52-7 victory over the Washington Redskins was criticised for the same reason, although 2007 was also the year of the “Spygate” affair, which confirmed the Patriots as the league’s most unpopular team, and meant that any chance to criticise the franchise would be seized upon.
It is nonetheless an oddity that in a professional league this is worthy of debate. Professional sport is a results-driven business, and no coach is more unsentimental and focused on winning than the Patriots’ Bill Belichick. Amateur and professional sportsmen in competitive fixtures around the world have suffered defeats by 100 points in rugby, 10 wickets in cricket, several goals in football, and so on, and although they may bristle at the indignity, would be far more insulted if their opponent appeared to take pity on them. Furthermore, goal or points difference are usually important when deciding league placings and so on.
In the end, this is one of the many cultural differences that separate North America from the rest of the sporting world, and the fascination with these differences is what draws many overseas fans into the NFL and its fellow American sports leagues.
Running up the score is a uniquely American controversy. In many sports at both amateur and professional levels, it is common for teams that are comfortably beating their opponents to continue to play at the same level, and continue to score. The only exception is perhaps in friendly games, where it might be in the best interests of the game to ease off on the losing team. Whilst a football team might start to string passes together, rather than press for another goal, the side will still take whatever opportunities comes its way.
In the United States and Canada however, a winning team that has a comfortably large margin will be expected go easy on its opponent, playing less aggressively, and replacing star players with their backups. Against the Titans, the Patriots found themselves 45-0 up at half time, after a breathtaking second quarter display that included five touchdowns. NFL etiquette would therefore require them to send their reserve quarterback out in place of three-time Superbowl winner Tom Brady, and to stick largely to running plays, thus saving much further embarrassment for the struggling Titans. Instead, the Patriots sent Brady out for the second half, and added a further touchdown before then easing up and sending the replacements in.
Admittedly, what criticism there has been has been subdued, but this is familiar territory for the Patriots. In their record-breaking 2007 season, a 52-7 victory over the Washington Redskins was criticised for the same reason, although 2007 was also the year of the “Spygate” affair, which confirmed the Patriots as the league’s most unpopular team, and meant that any chance to criticise the franchise would be seized upon.
It is nonetheless an oddity that in a professional league this is worthy of debate. Professional sport is a results-driven business, and no coach is more unsentimental and focused on winning than the Patriots’ Bill Belichick. Amateur and professional sportsmen in competitive fixtures around the world have suffered defeats by 100 points in rugby, 10 wickets in cricket, several goals in football, and so on, and although they may bristle at the indignity, would be far more insulted if their opponent appeared to take pity on them. Furthermore, goal or points difference are usually important when deciding league placings and so on.
In the end, this is one of the many cultural differences that separate North America from the rest of the sporting world, and the fascination with these differences is what draws many overseas fans into the NFL and its fellow American sports leagues.
Football: Chaos at Atlético
From The Guardian's website, a remarkable tale of how Atlético Madrid went through nine managers (or potential managers) in 24 hours. Liverpool fans who think that their club is badly run should take solace from the fact that on this evidence, it could be a lot worse.
Monday 19 October 2009
Cricket: Usain Bolt vs Chris Gayle
Judging from this footage from a recent charity match, Usain Bolt has more presence and effectiveness on the cricket pitch than many of the current West Indies team.
Friday 16 October 2009
NFL: Terrible Performances Producing Wins
Last Sunday, two of the NFL’s worst teams, the Cleveland Browns and the Buffalo Bills, played out a grim fixture, resulting in a 6-3 win for the Browns. Three field goals was poor value for the long-suffering fans of both franchises, and the match was so devoid of skilful play that NFL Network pundit Steve Mariucci was forced to turn to the performance of Cleveland’s punter, Dave Zastudil, to find something positive to discuss (incidentally, the reference to Stanford towards the end of the highlights is a reference to this legendary play).
What did catch the eye however, was the performance of Browns quarterback Derek Anderson, who threw only 17 passes, and amazingly, completed only two of them, as well as being intercepted once. This is normally the sort of performance that would get a quarterback benched, and were it not for the fact that Anderson had only just won the job after previous starter Brady Quinn suffered that fate at the hands of head coach Eric Mangini, he probably would have been. What is even more remarkable is that the Browns were able to win a game where their quarterback completed only two passes for 23 yards. Yes, Jamal Lewis rolled back the years to rush for over 100 yards, but this must be one of the worst performances by a winning quarterback in the modern history of the league, and one of the worst performances by any winning team in top-flight professional sport anywhere.
If anything, the result testifies to the ineptness of the Bills, whose quarterback, the under pressure Trent Edwards, completed 16 passes (a more normal number), threw for 152 yards, and whose side racked up 297 yards of total offense to Cleveland’s 174, yet still lost. With some terrible teams in the league this year (Oakland, Tampa Bay, St Louis to name three), one is left wondering whether this will not be the worst performance by a winning side this year, since sudden-death overtime makes tied games so rare (last year’s Philadelphia – Cincinnati tie being the first in seven years). Reports of games from other sports where a terrible performance resulted in a win are very welcome.
What did catch the eye however, was the performance of Browns quarterback Derek Anderson, who threw only 17 passes, and amazingly, completed only two of them, as well as being intercepted once. This is normally the sort of performance that would get a quarterback benched, and were it not for the fact that Anderson had only just won the job after previous starter Brady Quinn suffered that fate at the hands of head coach Eric Mangini, he probably would have been. What is even more remarkable is that the Browns were able to win a game where their quarterback completed only two passes for 23 yards. Yes, Jamal Lewis rolled back the years to rush for over 100 yards, but this must be one of the worst performances by a winning quarterback in the modern history of the league, and one of the worst performances by any winning team in top-flight professional sport anywhere.
If anything, the result testifies to the ineptness of the Bills, whose quarterback, the under pressure Trent Edwards, completed 16 passes (a more normal number), threw for 152 yards, and whose side racked up 297 yards of total offense to Cleveland’s 174, yet still lost. With some terrible teams in the league this year (Oakland, Tampa Bay, St Louis to name three), one is left wondering whether this will not be the worst performance by a winning side this year, since sudden-death overtime makes tied games so rare (last year’s Philadelphia – Cincinnati tie being the first in seven years). Reports of games from other sports where a terrible performance resulted in a win are very welcome.
Cricket: England's Squad for South Africa
Whilst most of England’s selections for the winter’s tour of South Africa were expected, there were a few that generated discussion. Although England won the Ashes, this was in spite of a lack of outstanding individual performance, and the team will find it hard to replicate that success without greater production. With a year until the next Ashes series in Australia, England need to identify some players who are going to be able to produce game breaking performances under pressure, and the credit the management earned by winning this summer has given them a little leeway with which to experiment. On the other hand, it is important not to fall into the classic English trap of being too Ashes-centric. A tour to South Africa is an end in itself, and will be a major test of Andrew Strauss’ England team.
The headlines went to the omission of Steve Harmison, but in many ways it is a surprise that he has lasted this long in the England side. Harmison’s best years were 2004-5,and since then he has achieved little in relation to his talent. He has a poor record outside of England, averaging 50.58 overseas since 2004, and he has always been a reluctant tourist. Any other bowler would garner far less attention, but because of the devastating way he bowled in 2004-5, and crucially, because of a lack of other genuinely fast bowlers, the selectors have kept coming back to him, such as this summer, when he did little, but displaced Graham Onions anyway. Unless he retires, his career will still not be over, and if he bowls well for Durham next year, his name will feature strongly in discussions for the 2010-11 Ashes.
It is this lack of pace bowling alternatives that has led to two interesting selections: Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood. Refugees from the disastrous 2006-7 tour, both started their international careers with great promise, but were ultimately too inconsistent. However, both had good seasons, and although England’s bowling attack is its strength, it remains rather one-paced, and the fear is that when the ball does not swing, Anderson, Onions and Sidebottom will struggle. Both players offer something different, and that raw ability is what Duncan Fletcher saw in them, and favoured over more consistent, but less talented county performers. Whether the intervening years have polished their rough edges remains to be seen, but theirs are talents that are worth a punt.
The other newsworthy test selection was that of Luke Wright. A reasonable one-day performer, Wright is an odd selection for the longer game, as he is not a test match bowler and seems unsuited as a batsman. Presumably he is cover for Stuart Broad, but in the event that the allrounder is injured, England would be better served by picking an extra batsman. Wright is therefore unlikely to feature much, but should an opportunity come his way, it will at least be a chance to see what he can do. Perhaps he is there to cover multiple positions, but it still seems an odd selection.
The final points of interest have been in the one-day squad, where Owais Shah has been omitted, along with Ravi Bopara, and Jonathan Trott has been included. The latter selection makes a lot of sense, Trott has a good county limited overs record and his nerveless hundred in the last Ashes test suggests an ideal temperament. Shah’s omission comes at an odd time. He had been on thin ice for some time, having underperformed since 2007. However, he came to life in the Champions Trophy, scoring 98 against South Africa and 44 against Sri Lanka. His weak fielding and running between the wickets make him a liability at times, and it is worth remembering that the selectors were forced to announce the Champions Trophy squad well before his poor performances against Australia this summer. It seems to be an equation with Shah: are the runs he scores intermittently worth his failures, and the runs that his fielding and erratic running cost the side. Clearly the selectors feel that they are not. This selection may bear the fingerprints of Andy Flower, who was the sort of industrious player unlikely to be impressed by Shah’s lack of all-round game. It may not be too late for Shah, but he will have to show a marked improvement in the next domestic season if he is to make the World Cup.
Finally, Ravi Bopara has been omitted, but this is no great surprise. After a difficult summer in both forms of the game, the Essex man needs a winter off and time to fix his technical flaws and digest his experiences. The careers of a number of Australian players, notably Damien Martyn, have shown that it is possible to come back from early disappointments, but there are concerns, notably expressed by Michael Atherton, that twice in his short test career, Bopara has been dropped after failing mentally. This winter could be the critical period in his career, if he can rebuild his game and his mindset, it could catapult him to bigger things. He would do well to turn to his mentor at Essex, Graham Gooch, who rebuilt his own career spectacularly after early failures.
The headlines went to the omission of Steve Harmison, but in many ways it is a surprise that he has lasted this long in the England side. Harmison’s best years were 2004-5,and since then he has achieved little in relation to his talent. He has a poor record outside of England, averaging 50.58 overseas since 2004, and he has always been a reluctant tourist. Any other bowler would garner far less attention, but because of the devastating way he bowled in 2004-5, and crucially, because of a lack of other genuinely fast bowlers, the selectors have kept coming back to him, such as this summer, when he did little, but displaced Graham Onions anyway. Unless he retires, his career will still not be over, and if he bowls well for Durham next year, his name will feature strongly in discussions for the 2010-11 Ashes.
It is this lack of pace bowling alternatives that has led to two interesting selections: Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood. Refugees from the disastrous 2006-7 tour, both started their international careers with great promise, but were ultimately too inconsistent. However, both had good seasons, and although England’s bowling attack is its strength, it remains rather one-paced, and the fear is that when the ball does not swing, Anderson, Onions and Sidebottom will struggle. Both players offer something different, and that raw ability is what Duncan Fletcher saw in them, and favoured over more consistent, but less talented county performers. Whether the intervening years have polished their rough edges remains to be seen, but theirs are talents that are worth a punt.
The other newsworthy test selection was that of Luke Wright. A reasonable one-day performer, Wright is an odd selection for the longer game, as he is not a test match bowler and seems unsuited as a batsman. Presumably he is cover for Stuart Broad, but in the event that the allrounder is injured, England would be better served by picking an extra batsman. Wright is therefore unlikely to feature much, but should an opportunity come his way, it will at least be a chance to see what he can do. Perhaps he is there to cover multiple positions, but it still seems an odd selection.
The final points of interest have been in the one-day squad, where Owais Shah has been omitted, along with Ravi Bopara, and Jonathan Trott has been included. The latter selection makes a lot of sense, Trott has a good county limited overs record and his nerveless hundred in the last Ashes test suggests an ideal temperament. Shah’s omission comes at an odd time. He had been on thin ice for some time, having underperformed since 2007. However, he came to life in the Champions Trophy, scoring 98 against South Africa and 44 against Sri Lanka. His weak fielding and running between the wickets make him a liability at times, and it is worth remembering that the selectors were forced to announce the Champions Trophy squad well before his poor performances against Australia this summer. It seems to be an equation with Shah: are the runs he scores intermittently worth his failures, and the runs that his fielding and erratic running cost the side. Clearly the selectors feel that they are not. This selection may bear the fingerprints of Andy Flower, who was the sort of industrious player unlikely to be impressed by Shah’s lack of all-round game. It may not be too late for Shah, but he will have to show a marked improvement in the next domestic season if he is to make the World Cup.
Finally, Ravi Bopara has been omitted, but this is no great surprise. After a difficult summer in both forms of the game, the Essex man needs a winter off and time to fix his technical flaws and digest his experiences. The careers of a number of Australian players, notably Damien Martyn, have shown that it is possible to come back from early disappointments, but there are concerns, notably expressed by Michael Atherton, that twice in his short test career, Bopara has been dropped after failing mentally. This winter could be the critical period in his career, if he can rebuild his game and his mindset, it could catapult him to bigger things. He would do well to turn to his mentor at Essex, Graham Gooch, who rebuilt his own career spectacularly after early failures.
Sunday 11 October 2009
Rugby: Borthwick's Captaincy
With the autumn internationals approaching, journalist Stephen Jones has questioned Martin Johnson’s continuing faith in Steve Borthwick as England captain, and his place in the second row. In doing so he has suggested a list of better candidates for the position, but has missed the point about those candidates and about Borthwick’s captaincy.
Steve Borthwick is neither a world-beater as a player or as a captain, but he is reliable and rarely looks out of his depth. A team should aspire to more from their captain than reliability, but right now there is a dearth of suitable candidates. The England team is in the middle of a generational shift, and although it would be nice to put the team in the hands of a dynamic young captain to take the team forward in the long run, in the manner of Will Carling in 1988 or Lawrence Dallaglio in 1997, none of the potential candidates are in a position to take on the role.
England is suffering from a lack of quality second rows at the moment. Nick Kennedy is promising, and Simon Shaw is outstanding, but Shaw is 36 years old and injured. Meanwhile Tom Palmer and Louis Deacon have not quite developed into the players that they promised to be, whilst Ben Kay’s decline since 2003 is one of the less remarked upon subplots of England’s demise since then, despite solid performances for Leicester last season.
Jones lists Phil Vickery, Tom Rees, Mike Tindall, Jonny Wilkinson, Nick Easter and James Haskell as better bets for the captaincy. All of those candidates are probably more talented than Borthwick, and in an ideal world would be strong contenders. However in reality, there are problems facing most of those listed.
Vickery, England’s captain in the 2007 World Cup probably only lost the job subsequently because his place in the side was under increasing pressure from Matt Stevens, and he was regularly being substituted for the Bath prop, including in the World Cup final. With Stevens now banned for two years, the Cornishman is again in a strong position. However, he is injury prone, and at 33, Johnson would need to be happy that he was going to make it to New Zealand in 2011. Nonetheless, he remains the best alternative to Borthwick.
Rees appears to have world-class talent and leadership qualities, but has consistently struggled with injuries, and his current layoff means that he will have missed all of England’s games in 2009. Should he put return to fitness and establish his England spot, he would be a bold pick to take the team forward, but until that point he remains out of the frame. Haskell, his former Wasps teammate, needs to establish himself ahead of Tom Croft, who significantly outplayed him last season.
Tindall and Wilkinson meanwhile, possess experience, leadership, and are world class players, but again, the spectre of injuries casts its shadow. It would be unwise to make either captain; Tindall is not guaranteed of a place in the side, and Wilkinson has not played for England since 2008. Many forget that his last run in the team came when he was dropped for Danny Cipriani, and it would be foolish to appoint a player who has proven unable to stay fit for more than a few games at a time.
Nick Easter is the last of Jones’ candidates. He seems likely to start in the autumn, has been first choice in his position for a couple of years now and has plenty of rugby and life experience. He also appears to be a strong leader at Harlequins. His captaincy experience at the professional level is limited, and the suspicion remains that a more talented athlete, such as Haskell, Luke Narraway or Jordan Crane may eventually supersede him, but he remains in pole position to start at number eight for the next twelve months at least.
There are other long term candidates: Dylan Hartley has started his captaincy tenure at Northampton well, but needs to win the hooker’s spot from Lee Mears and prove himself on the international stage. Andrew Sheridan is a guaranteed starter, and although he does not appear the captaincy type, Johnson himself proved that quiet, retiring personalities can be successful captains. To develop into a contender however, he needs to start dominating his opposite numbers, and making more of an impact around the field so he can lead by example, as Johnson did. Finally, Tom Croft emerged as a world class flanker last season, and if continues to grow into international rugby, he will warrant consideration, but for now, he needs to hold off Haskell and focus on his second season of international rugby.
Coming back to Borthwick, it is clear that of his rivals, only Vickery and Easter are credible alternatives. Should Vickery have a strong autumn and stay fit, he may make a better captain, with Easter close behind. For now however, Borthwick’s place in the side is not really under threat thanks to a lack of competition, so Johnson has, perhaps understandably, opted for stability. Once the team is more settled, things should change. For now however, Borthwick is England’s reality.
Steve Borthwick is neither a world-beater as a player or as a captain, but he is reliable and rarely looks out of his depth. A team should aspire to more from their captain than reliability, but right now there is a dearth of suitable candidates. The England team is in the middle of a generational shift, and although it would be nice to put the team in the hands of a dynamic young captain to take the team forward in the long run, in the manner of Will Carling in 1988 or Lawrence Dallaglio in 1997, none of the potential candidates are in a position to take on the role.
England is suffering from a lack of quality second rows at the moment. Nick Kennedy is promising, and Simon Shaw is outstanding, but Shaw is 36 years old and injured. Meanwhile Tom Palmer and Louis Deacon have not quite developed into the players that they promised to be, whilst Ben Kay’s decline since 2003 is one of the less remarked upon subplots of England’s demise since then, despite solid performances for Leicester last season.
Jones lists Phil Vickery, Tom Rees, Mike Tindall, Jonny Wilkinson, Nick Easter and James Haskell as better bets for the captaincy. All of those candidates are probably more talented than Borthwick, and in an ideal world would be strong contenders. However in reality, there are problems facing most of those listed.
Vickery, England’s captain in the 2007 World Cup probably only lost the job subsequently because his place in the side was under increasing pressure from Matt Stevens, and he was regularly being substituted for the Bath prop, including in the World Cup final. With Stevens now banned for two years, the Cornishman is again in a strong position. However, he is injury prone, and at 33, Johnson would need to be happy that he was going to make it to New Zealand in 2011. Nonetheless, he remains the best alternative to Borthwick.
Rees appears to have world-class talent and leadership qualities, but has consistently struggled with injuries, and his current layoff means that he will have missed all of England’s games in 2009. Should he put return to fitness and establish his England spot, he would be a bold pick to take the team forward, but until that point he remains out of the frame. Haskell, his former Wasps teammate, needs to establish himself ahead of Tom Croft, who significantly outplayed him last season.
Tindall and Wilkinson meanwhile, possess experience, leadership, and are world class players, but again, the spectre of injuries casts its shadow. It would be unwise to make either captain; Tindall is not guaranteed of a place in the side, and Wilkinson has not played for England since 2008. Many forget that his last run in the team came when he was dropped for Danny Cipriani, and it would be foolish to appoint a player who has proven unable to stay fit for more than a few games at a time.
Nick Easter is the last of Jones’ candidates. He seems likely to start in the autumn, has been first choice in his position for a couple of years now and has plenty of rugby and life experience. He also appears to be a strong leader at Harlequins. His captaincy experience at the professional level is limited, and the suspicion remains that a more talented athlete, such as Haskell, Luke Narraway or Jordan Crane may eventually supersede him, but he remains in pole position to start at number eight for the next twelve months at least.
There are other long term candidates: Dylan Hartley has started his captaincy tenure at Northampton well, but needs to win the hooker’s spot from Lee Mears and prove himself on the international stage. Andrew Sheridan is a guaranteed starter, and although he does not appear the captaincy type, Johnson himself proved that quiet, retiring personalities can be successful captains. To develop into a contender however, he needs to start dominating his opposite numbers, and making more of an impact around the field so he can lead by example, as Johnson did. Finally, Tom Croft emerged as a world class flanker last season, and if continues to grow into international rugby, he will warrant consideration, but for now, he needs to hold off Haskell and focus on his second season of international rugby.
Coming back to Borthwick, it is clear that of his rivals, only Vickery and Easter are credible alternatives. Should Vickery have a strong autumn and stay fit, he may make a better captain, with Easter close behind. For now however, Borthwick’s place in the side is not really under threat thanks to a lack of competition, so Johnson has, perhaps understandably, opted for stability. Once the team is more settled, things should change. For now however, Borthwick is England’s reality.
Friday 9 October 2009
Football: Appointing the Physio as Manager
An interesting footnote to today's news that John Barnes has been sacked as manager of Tranmere Rovers is that the board has appointed the team physiotherapist, Les Parry, as caretaker manager. This role is usually filled by a member of the coaching staff, such as the assistant manager or reserve team coach. Barnes' deputy, Jason McAteer has also been sacked, but the reserve team coach is still at the club, presumably along with other coaches.
Whilst this is clearly only a short-term appointment, it is somewhat novel that the board have appointed the physio rather than a professional coach. Presumably the appointment is based either on his familiarity with the personnel, or it is possible that he is well-regarded by the players, and has been chosen simply as a motivator and organiser. The reserve team coach, Shaun Garnett, is listed as his assistant, and would therefore presumably deal with the coaching side of affairs.
Arsenal's great manager of the 1960s and 70s, Bertie Mee, famously started out as the team physiotherapist, but otherwise few non-coaches have made the leap into management successfully. Ron Noades, a businessman and owner of Crystal Palace and Brentford, appointed himself as caretaker manager of the former and full time manager of the latter during the 1990s. He even won promotion for Brentford into Division Two as champions in 1999, earning himself the title of Division Three Manager of the Year in the process. However, it is otherwise a rarity, and Parry, who released an unsuccessful Christmas single in 2006, should make the most of his second moment in the limelight before it passes.
Whilst this is clearly only a short-term appointment, it is somewhat novel that the board have appointed the physio rather than a professional coach. Presumably the appointment is based either on his familiarity with the personnel, or it is possible that he is well-regarded by the players, and has been chosen simply as a motivator and organiser. The reserve team coach, Shaun Garnett, is listed as his assistant, and would therefore presumably deal with the coaching side of affairs.
Arsenal's great manager of the 1960s and 70s, Bertie Mee, famously started out as the team physiotherapist, but otherwise few non-coaches have made the leap into management successfully. Ron Noades, a businessman and owner of Crystal Palace and Brentford, appointed himself as caretaker manager of the former and full time manager of the latter during the 1990s. He even won promotion for Brentford into Division Two as champions in 1999, earning himself the title of Division Three Manager of the Year in the process. However, it is otherwise a rarity, and Parry, who released an unsuccessful Christmas single in 2006, should make the most of his second moment in the limelight before it passes.
Wednesday 7 October 2009
Olympics: New Sports Update
Following Monday's post about the likelihood of golf and rugby sevens being added to the Olympic Games, it seems that the decision is not quite the foregone conclusion that everyone seemed to think it might be. It seems that the IOC executive and golf's administrators still need to factor in the labyrinthine world of IOC politics, as well as the genuine concerns about how seriously the golf world will treat the games, that I blogged about on Monday. Perhaps unsuprisingly, it turns out that IOC members are not keen on being dictated to by the executive, and there is talk of a revolt.
I suspect this will turn out to be a false alarm and that golf will be admitted after the IOC members have made their point, but it would be nice to see the voters doing what they think best for the games, rather than what they are being encouraged to do by the executive, or rather than playing politics. If that means excluding golf (and even rugby) in a bid to maintain the Olympics' sense of occasion and to limit its size, then that may be no bad thing. The most important point is that the decision must be made for the right reasons, in the most informed way possible, and with the best intentions at heart.
I suspect this will turn out to be a false alarm and that golf will be admitted after the IOC members have made their point, but it would be nice to see the voters doing what they think best for the games, rather than what they are being encouraged to do by the executive, or rather than playing politics. If that means excluding golf (and even rugby) in a bid to maintain the Olympics' sense of occasion and to limit its size, then that may be no bad thing. The most important point is that the decision must be made for the right reasons, in the most informed way possible, and with the best intentions at heart.
Monday 5 October 2009
Olympics: New Sports for 2016
With the venue for the 2016 Olympic Games decided, the International Olympic Committee now turns its attention to whether or not to admit golf and rugby sevens in time for the Rio de Janeiro games, with a vote taking place on 9 October. Adding sports to the games is always a tricky decision. On the one hand, a sport must not be too small, but on the other hand, if a sport is too big, the Olympic Games may struggle for relevance alongside that sport’s major events.
There are two extremes that the IOC is constantly balancing: either the games should only be for ‘traditional’ Olympic sports where a medal is the pinnacle of achievement, or it should be an all-encompassing jamboree that welcomes as many credible international sports as possible. The modern sporting world is an international and financially driven one, and it seems that most sports are chasing the holy grail of Olympic status. Governing bodies around the world know that it brings kudos, support, and funding. This time around, softball, karate, roller sports and squash have all missed out. Meanwhile others such as darts and snooker covet future places in the games.
For golf and rugby, there are different questions. Golf is undoubtedly a huge international sport. The question is whether it is too big. Despite assurances from the Royal and Ancient Society that the top players will all attend, questions remain about the attitude of the top professionals. Whilst Tiger Woods may be keen, as he has nothing left to win in the traditional calendar, will other pros really favour the Olympics over the majors? Looking at tennis, a sport with a similar calendar and culture, top players often compete in the Olympics, but not always, and it is clearly taken less seriously than the grand slam events. Witness Beijing last year, where Andy Murray admitted to being underprepared because he was focusing on the US Open, whilst Andy Roddick preferred to play a tour event in Washington, despite being a real contender for a medal. This is the situation golf must avoid. It must also battle perception, as traditionalists on both sides will see this development as unnecessary, and there will be something strange about seeing golfers on the podium, although admittedly golf does have an Olympic history dating back to the early modern games.
For rugby there is a different challenge. Rugby sevens has integrated nicely into the Commonwealth games, but it is a sport primarily played in those nations. Is rugby international enough? Would sevens properly represent the sport? Finally, how would it be taken seriously in an already packed international rugby calendar? Rugby arguably does not need the Olympics, it has its own prestigious world cup, and sevens is largely regarded as a sideshow that excludes many of the world’s top 15-a-side players. However, there are two key counter-arguments. The first is that outside of the major rugby nations, the game lacks funding and publicity. Olympic inclusion would bring both of those to national teams who would gain exposure and access to central funding, thus expanding the game. Secondly, the IRB has committed to abandoning the sevens world cup in favour of the Olympics, thus helping to create space in the calendar, and making the Olympic medal the biggest prize in sevens. With the games taking place in the European rugby off-season, many top players would be available, although those from the Southern Hemisphere would need to be released from Tri-Nations duty. The fact remains however, that throughout the rugby world, the Olympics would not be the biggest prize in the overall game. A situation may arise similar to that in football, where the games are seen as an annoyance in many circles, although there is greater enthusiasm in Africa and South America than there is in Europe, with its crowded schedule and powerful club game. Inclusion may be good for rugby, but whether it is good for the Olympics is debatable.
Ultimately it is for the IOC to decide what is best for the Olympic games. For those who see football and tennis as being surplus to requirements because neither sport cherishes its involvement, this will seem an unnecessary expansion that will only dilute the Olympics. Arguably one of the selling points of the Olympic games is that it is a showpiece event for sports that do not otherwise always garner such attention. The marquee events are the athletics and swimming, and those are what the public associate with the games, whereas rugby and golf will always be associated with other tournaments. Would squash and karate not have fitted in better with the current portfolio of sports? For others however, it will make the games more relevant, and ensure the presence of even more of the world’s top sporting stars.
It seems a given that both sports will be voted in, as they have been recommended to the IOC by its own executive board, and only time will tell whether or not rugby and golf fit neatly into the Olympic family.
There are two extremes that the IOC is constantly balancing: either the games should only be for ‘traditional’ Olympic sports where a medal is the pinnacle of achievement, or it should be an all-encompassing jamboree that welcomes as many credible international sports as possible. The modern sporting world is an international and financially driven one, and it seems that most sports are chasing the holy grail of Olympic status. Governing bodies around the world know that it brings kudos, support, and funding. This time around, softball, karate, roller sports and squash have all missed out. Meanwhile others such as darts and snooker covet future places in the games.
For golf and rugby, there are different questions. Golf is undoubtedly a huge international sport. The question is whether it is too big. Despite assurances from the Royal and Ancient Society that the top players will all attend, questions remain about the attitude of the top professionals. Whilst Tiger Woods may be keen, as he has nothing left to win in the traditional calendar, will other pros really favour the Olympics over the majors? Looking at tennis, a sport with a similar calendar and culture, top players often compete in the Olympics, but not always, and it is clearly taken less seriously than the grand slam events. Witness Beijing last year, where Andy Murray admitted to being underprepared because he was focusing on the US Open, whilst Andy Roddick preferred to play a tour event in Washington, despite being a real contender for a medal. This is the situation golf must avoid. It must also battle perception, as traditionalists on both sides will see this development as unnecessary, and there will be something strange about seeing golfers on the podium, although admittedly golf does have an Olympic history dating back to the early modern games.
For rugby there is a different challenge. Rugby sevens has integrated nicely into the Commonwealth games, but it is a sport primarily played in those nations. Is rugby international enough? Would sevens properly represent the sport? Finally, how would it be taken seriously in an already packed international rugby calendar? Rugby arguably does not need the Olympics, it has its own prestigious world cup, and sevens is largely regarded as a sideshow that excludes many of the world’s top 15-a-side players. However, there are two key counter-arguments. The first is that outside of the major rugby nations, the game lacks funding and publicity. Olympic inclusion would bring both of those to national teams who would gain exposure and access to central funding, thus expanding the game. Secondly, the IRB has committed to abandoning the sevens world cup in favour of the Olympics, thus helping to create space in the calendar, and making the Olympic medal the biggest prize in sevens. With the games taking place in the European rugby off-season, many top players would be available, although those from the Southern Hemisphere would need to be released from Tri-Nations duty. The fact remains however, that throughout the rugby world, the Olympics would not be the biggest prize in the overall game. A situation may arise similar to that in football, where the games are seen as an annoyance in many circles, although there is greater enthusiasm in Africa and South America than there is in Europe, with its crowded schedule and powerful club game. Inclusion may be good for rugby, but whether it is good for the Olympics is debatable.
Ultimately it is for the IOC to decide what is best for the Olympic games. For those who see football and tennis as being surplus to requirements because neither sport cherishes its involvement, this will seem an unnecessary expansion that will only dilute the Olympics. Arguably one of the selling points of the Olympic games is that it is a showpiece event for sports that do not otherwise always garner such attention. The marquee events are the athletics and swimming, and those are what the public associate with the games, whereas rugby and golf will always be associated with other tournaments. Would squash and karate not have fitted in better with the current portfolio of sports? For others however, it will make the games more relevant, and ensure the presence of even more of the world’s top sporting stars.
It seems a given that both sports will be voted in, as they have been recommended to the IOC by its own executive board, and only time will tell whether or not rugby and golf fit neatly into the Olympic family.
Sunday 4 October 2009
Rugby: London Wasps 20 - 15 Northampton
A late defensive stand gave London Wasps their fourth win from five games this season despite a late Northampton fight back. In a game which promised much, but delivered little, only one try was scored, despite the wealth of attacking talent on both sides.
Wasps picked Danny Cipriani at fullback, bringing Dave Walder in at fly-half, and both players looked good. Walder’s boot provided the first 12 points of the game, whilst Cipriani frequently came into the line at first receiver and showed promising attacking intent. However, Wasps failed to turn their possession into tries, with the final pass letting them down at key moments. On the Northampton side, Shane Geraghty showed little of the potency that has brought him into England contention, and the visitors kicked too much ball away.
The only try of the game came when Wasps’ scrum-half, Joe Simpson, put a speculative chip in front of Chris Ashton, who could only watch as the ball bounced unkindly into Cipriani’s arms to score in the corner.
Wasps led 17-3 at half-time, and the game seemed to be nicely set for an action packed second half. Instead it turned into a tense affair. Wasps faded, their only meaningful attack in the half yielding a Walder drop-goal. Northampton were playing with more purpose, but organised Wasps defence limited the scoring to penalties from Geraghty, who had mixed fortunes with the boot. Late in the game, the cool-headed Bruce Reihana scored a well-struck long range penalty, to bring his side within five points, and set the stage for a tight finish. There was then pause for concern, as Cipriani’s replacement, Lachlan Mitchell, made a try-saving tackle on Chris Ashton, but in doing so suffered a serious head injury and was stretchered off after lying prone on the pitch for ten minutes. Thankfully post-match reports suggest that he will recover.
Subsequent phases of frenetic attack were rebuffed by the enthusiastic Wasps defence, and the visitors will be disappointed that a back line that has played with such invention in recent weeks seemed devoid of ideas, reverting repeatedly crashing the ball up, and time eventually ran out.
Both sides will be disappointed with their performance in this match, neither showed much attacking potency, and it was indicative of the way Wasps played that free-scoring Tom Varndell hardly touched the ball. Shaun Edwards will be pleased with the way his side defended, and at the win, but there is much to improve on. For Northampton, had Geraghty not missed a couple of kicks, it might have been a different story, but ultimately they have found that they are not the finished article yet.
Wasps picked Danny Cipriani at fullback, bringing Dave Walder in at fly-half, and both players looked good. Walder’s boot provided the first 12 points of the game, whilst Cipriani frequently came into the line at first receiver and showed promising attacking intent. However, Wasps failed to turn their possession into tries, with the final pass letting them down at key moments. On the Northampton side, Shane Geraghty showed little of the potency that has brought him into England contention, and the visitors kicked too much ball away.
The only try of the game came when Wasps’ scrum-half, Joe Simpson, put a speculative chip in front of Chris Ashton, who could only watch as the ball bounced unkindly into Cipriani’s arms to score in the corner.
Wasps led 17-3 at half-time, and the game seemed to be nicely set for an action packed second half. Instead it turned into a tense affair. Wasps faded, their only meaningful attack in the half yielding a Walder drop-goal. Northampton were playing with more purpose, but organised Wasps defence limited the scoring to penalties from Geraghty, who had mixed fortunes with the boot. Late in the game, the cool-headed Bruce Reihana scored a well-struck long range penalty, to bring his side within five points, and set the stage for a tight finish. There was then pause for concern, as Cipriani’s replacement, Lachlan Mitchell, made a try-saving tackle on Chris Ashton, but in doing so suffered a serious head injury and was stretchered off after lying prone on the pitch for ten minutes. Thankfully post-match reports suggest that he will recover.
Subsequent phases of frenetic attack were rebuffed by the enthusiastic Wasps defence, and the visitors will be disappointed that a back line that has played with such invention in recent weeks seemed devoid of ideas, reverting repeatedly crashing the ball up, and time eventually ran out.
Both sides will be disappointed with their performance in this match, neither showed much attacking potency, and it was indicative of the way Wasps played that free-scoring Tom Varndell hardly touched the ball. Shaun Edwards will be pleased with the way his side defended, and at the win, but there is much to improve on. For Northampton, had Geraghty not missed a couple of kicks, it might have been a different story, but ultimately they have found that they are not the finished article yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)