TV: Depression in Sport

Last night BBC1 screened an Inside Sport special on depression in sport. Featuring interviews with Marcus Trescothick, Neil Lennon, Frank Bruno, John Kirwan and Ronnie O’Sullivan, it was a revealing insight into the particular pressures that this condition places on professional sportsmen and women, and is well worth a watch. It can be viewed on the iPlayer until 2 December, or perhaps you can find it elsewhere online.

One of the things the programme highlighted was how attitudes have improved in just the last ten years, and this is good for everyone. Understanding of the issues involved can only improve the relationships between players and fans, players and coaches, and players and their fellow players, and this leads to a better standard of sport, a more welcoming culture, and most importantly, to more support for those in need of it.

Inside Sport is not perfect, and neither was this episode; some of the stories would not have been new to those who have closely followed the stories of Trescothick et al in recent years, and whilst the analysis touched on the deeper issues, it would have been nice to investigate them more closely. In general too, not all the reports in the programme’s existence have been so revealing. However, it has overall turned out to be a high quality programme, exploring some interesting stories.

An episode like this one shows the value of high quality investigative sports journalism a market saturated by the superficial, and highlights the niche that the show occupies. It is hard to see where else such a documentary would have been shown within the sports media.

The Worst Sports Kits in History

This week, Edinburgh Rugby unveiled a spectacular new kit to be worn in their Magners League and 1872 Cup match-ups against Glasgow, and it got me thinking about some of the worst sports kits of all time.

There are ten here, but dozens that I could have included. Whilst there’s no accounting for taste, there appear to be some universal rules about what makes a kit truly terrible: attempts to make kit that fans can wear as casual gear (they’re going to wear it anyway, what difference does it make?), luminous colours, brown, grey, all goalkeepers’ kits since 1990, colours that sports teams don’t usually wear (there’s a reason everyone opts for blue, red, black etc…), anything from the ‘70s, anything ‘modern’ or for the ‘youth’ market (or a marketing man’s idea of what that is).

Take a look at this list and suggest some shockers of your own.

Denver Broncos: 1960-62 (1962-96)

As a part of this year’s celebrations of 50 seasons since the American Football League began (originally a rival, it merged with the NFL in 1970), the original eight AFL teams have been wearing throwback uniforms in selected matches. Unfortunately, this has meant a renaissance for the hideous brown and mustard yellow Denver Broncos kit, which was so unloved that when it was ditched after two seasons, it was burned at a public bonfire.

The Broncos then changed to their ‘classic’ bright orange jerseys with powder blue helmets. Not a great look either, but at least it wasn’t brown. Is it coincidence that the Broncos only broke their Super Bowl duck in 1997 when they changed to navy blue? Probably. Still a wise move though.

Scotland rugby team: 1998-2000

In 1998 some bright spark decided to replace Scotland’s traditional white change strip with a bright orange one. Thankfully it didn’t last. This kit was so terrible, that hardly any pictures of it can be found on the internet. But try as they might, the Scottish RFU can't pretend it didn't happen.

Stade Francais: 2005-present

Stade President Max Guazzini has, to his credit, turned a lower league side into one of Europe’s biggest rugby clubs. However, he is also a shameless publicist. Since 2005, he has committed he club to a new shirt every year, often the work of fashion designers, and incorporating the brightest colours possible. It has worked, Stade’s kit regularly gets headlines around the rugby world, but it is a shame that their old jersey, navy blue with red lightning bolts, has been forgotten.

Manchester United: 1995-96

This infamous grey kit took the blame when United lost 3-1 to Southampton in 1995. The players claimed that they could not pick each other out from the crowd, resulting in a 3-0 deficit at half-time, when they changed to their third strip and pulled a goal back, but it was too little, too late. The fact that they usually play in front of thousands of fans all wearing replica kits, presumably making their red shirts hard to pick out, was never raised.

(Picture: Umbro/Flickr)








England football team: 1996

What is it with Umbro and grey kits? After the Manchester United debacle, they decided that what England fans wanted was a kit that would go well with jeans. Nevermind that England’s traditional red away kit was worn in the 1966 World Cup final. One semi-final defeat to Germany in Euro ’96 later, and red was reinstated.

(Picture: Umbro/Flickr)










New Zealand cricket team: 1980s

The 1980s, the early years of coloured kits in cricket. Each side needed a colour and an identity. New Zealand’s idea of an identity? Beige.

To be fair, it has enjoyed a renaissance as an ironic look for the Kiwi answer to the Barmy Army, the Beige Brigade, and the national side seemed to enjoy wearing beige as a one-off for a Twenty20 match in 2005, but for all concerned, I think it’s best left to the fans.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: 1976-1996

The now legendary ‘creamsicle’ uniforms were worn by the Buccaneers for the first twenty years of their existence. This period saw them produce the first winless season of the Super Bowl era, and it took them 26 games over two years before they won a game. Even the picture of a Buccaneer on the helmet looked more like a camp cavalier. This ignominious history earned them the nickname, ‘the Yuks’, which was not helped by their horrific uniforms. Like the Broncos, they changed their colours, and within a few years, won a Super Bowl.

What’s even more mystifying is that they brought the colours back this year for a game against Green Bay. Unlike the former AFL teams, who had a reason to be wearing throwback jerseys, the Buccaneers had none. That said, it did bring their first win of the season, maybe unsurprising, given that their opponents were presumably playing with their eyes closed.

Cameroon football team: 2004

First they tried sleeveless shirts in 2002, but FIFA banned them. Undeterred, Puma decided to push their luck and produced an all-in one kit for Cameroon’s 2004 African Cup of Nations campaign. FIFA, realising that this heinous crime against football was the most important issue that they had to face, and more threatening to the fabric of the game than controversies over drugs, club debt, the trafficking of young players or video technology, banned it again, and deducted points from Cameroon’s World Cup qualifying campaign. Although the points were later returned, never let it be said that FIFA don’t clamp down on the big problems in the modern game. Aesthetically, this kit is fine, but one that costs its side six points is not worth the trouble.

Goalkeepers: since 1990

Goalkeepers have a rough deal. Whilst the outfield players grab all the glory, they are pilloried for making one mistake. Meanwhile, those pesky outfielders also went and reserved all the good colours, leaving some shockers for their colleagues between the posts. England ‘keepers of the '90s fared especially badly, though Mexican goalie Jorge Campos is right up there with them.

Denver Nuggets: 1980s

US sports teams produced some shockers in the '70s and '80s, but this ticks my box for anything attempting to look ‘modern’.

Rugby: England 6 - 19 New Zealand

England rounded off their autumn internationals with a second defeat in three matches, although the visit of New Zealand to Twickenham was always the most likely fixture to bring a defeat.

Despite the comfortable margin of victory for the visitors, there was actually more for the English to take out of this game than either the defeat against Australia or the win over Argentina. The home side showed more attacking intent, did some good work in the set pieces and the contact area, mainly in the first half, and forced All Black errors, allowing them to build territory and possession. However, they committed far too many errors and offered little threat or invention inside the visitors’ 22, and a sub-par New Zealand side was far too comfortable in the final quarter.

The first half began with a crashing tackle by Matt Banahan, and the All Blacks briefly looked flustered, with the usually reliable Dan Carter missing two kicks at goal, and scuffing a kick for touch. Mils Muliaina thought he had scored a try in the corner after Dan Hipkiss failed to stop a run by Carter, but a last ditch tackle from Ugo Monye saved the day. England were also making mistakes however, and apart from a correctly disallowed Monye try following a knock-on, there was little threat, resulting in a 6-6 scoreline at the interval. It was encouraging for England that they were level, but they also needed to recognise that had Carter been kicking to his usual standard, they would have been behind.

In the second half, the home side showed similar industry, but despite finding themselves within five metres of the All Blacks’ try line on a couple of occasions, they had little idea of how to breach the defence, and their efforts were summed up when Jonny Wilkinson failed with a drop-goal attempt the first time that the ball came out to the backs, despite having men outside him. Meanwhile, the visitors began to exert some authority, and put the game beyond England with 20 minutes remaining when a well-worked move down the blindside led to Richie McCaw putting Jimmy Cowan over for a try with an intelligent pass.

A comfortable win for New Zealand, despite the All Blacks being far from their best. Their most impressive attribute was their defence, though the home side never really asked questions of it either. For England, Lewis Moody was again the standout, Simon Shaw brought much needed power to the pack, whilst Croft, Hodgson and Haskell also did many good things. Haskell however, was one of many England players guilty of mistakes at key moments, and the lack of precision and invention will worry Martin Johnson over Christmas. If England can build on this platform then there is hope for the Six Nations, but until they start scoring tries they will continue to lag behind their rivals. New Zealand meanwhile, also have much to work on after a year in which they lost four games, but they will feel happy with their defence, and the way that their young players are integrating with the veterans.

Rugby: England Player Ratings

A disappointing loss for England, with a few points of encouragement. There was a misheld belief that Australia were there for the taking, based on their recent poor record (partly a by-product of playing New Zealand and South Africa every week), and reports of discontent in their camp. However, they are a talented and resilient side, and were always going to be tough. Nonetheless, at home, against an inexperienced opponent, England should have done more, especially with all their possession in the first half.

The lack of cutting edge and the soft defensive performance is a concern, but there were positives to take from the game. Twelve months ago, this was a new England side, who appeared to be seriously off the pace in international rugby. In the Six Nations, they produced some improved performances, but progress was slow, and this was clearly going to be a lengthy process. England again appeared to have improved today, there was more attacking intent than they have shown in years, and they were able to string together good phases of play at times. There were also some positive individual performances. However, they are still some way off the pace, and the progress will have to speed up if they are to avoid an embarrassing autumn whitewash. They jury is still out on Martin Johnson’s regime, but there is enough there for fans to cling on to, if they can be patient. Johnson needs to beware however, that the patience will not last long.

Tim Payne – 6
Solid in the scrum and tackled well. Payne’s never going to be spectacular, but he did not let his side down.

Steve Thompson – 6
Good to see him back in the side, he threw and scrummaged well, could do with making more of an impact around the field like in his first incarnation, but a promising starting point.

David Wilson – 7
Impressive debut, scrummaged well, got around the field and made tackles.

Louis Deacon – 5
Quiet, needs to do more if he wants to keep out the likes of Lawes or Shaw.

Steve Borthwick – 6
Solid, but needs to be more of a presence around the field. Line-out work was good.

Lewis Moody – 7
Good return to the side, showed why he was so highly rated in the early years of his career before form and injuries overtook him. Lots of tackles and good work on the ground.

Tom Croft – 5
Quiet. Needs to recapture last season’s form and prove that his is a lasting talent. Good line-out work.

Jordan Crane – 6
Good positional play, made an impact around the field in the first half, but lacked dynamism when compared with Haskell, who replaced him.

Danny Care – 6
Good first half, when he was on track for a 7, let down by poor second half, which was a 5 at best before he was removed. First half was better than many English scrum-half performances of recent years, fired out quick passes and kept England moving in their good spells. In the second half, he regressed, spent too long organising his forwards, and was slow to get his hands on the ball.

Jonny Wilkinson – 8
England’s best player, rolled back the years and controlled everything that England did. Tackled bravely, kicked well, and showed that his underrated attacking skills, particularly his passing and running are sharper than they have been in years. Encouraging to see him play with such confidence. A few poor tactical kicks were the only blot on his copybook.

Shane Geraghty – 4
It was good to have a second fly-half at inside centre. Unfortunately however, he was poor, his passes were frequently too low or too high, he kicked badly and at the wrong time, especially his preoccupation with the chip and chase, which became predictable and was poorly executed. Wilkinson showed him how it should be done, selecting his moment and then producing a perfectly weighted chip, chase and offload. A couple of good breaks showed his potential, and he should play again next week, but must learn from this experience.

Dan Hipkiss – 6
Carried well when he was allowed to, and provided much needed muscle in midfield. Is reliant on those inside him to give him the right kind of ball if he is to make a bigger impact.

Matt Banahan – 7
Good all-round performance, did not look out of place, was a presence in attack and defence, but lack of serious attacking ball stopped him from showing his full potential.

Mark Cueto – 6
Not many chances, but showed a few glimpses of his ability. The entire back three was starved of good attacking ball. Poor tackling for Ashley-Cooper’s try.

Ugo Monye – 5
Positive in the early phases, when he had some attacking ball, and did not look entirely out of place at full-back, but was also to blame for the Ashley-Cooper score, and offered little threat running from deep.

Substitutes:

James Haskell – 7
Explosive when he came on, if he can show consistency, and play more rugby at number eight the starting job could be his.

Dylan Hartley – 7
Also explosive in the loose, did well in the set piece, his throwing was good. If he continues on this trajectory, he will be the starter soon.

Ayoola Erinle – 6
Overdue debut, dynamic when he came on, but one important handling error showed where he needs to improve. Deserves another look.

Courtney Lawes – 5
Little chance to do anything, seemed slightly off the pace, but now that his debut is out of the way, he can learn from the experience.

Paul Hodgson – 6
Improved things after Care’s poor second half outing. Snappy service, good substitution at the right time.

Rugby: Wales v New Zealand

Three quick observations on the Wales v New Zealand game that took place today. Same old story for the home side, in recent years they have specialised in running the All Blacks close, but have still not beaten them in 56 years.

1 – The state of the Millennium Stadium pitch. This has been a recurring theme since the stadium opened. The ground was cutting up terribly underfoot, players were consistently slipping over, especially when changing direction and scrummaging, robbing fans of the best attacking rugby. The stadium is a multi-purpose ground, but rugby is its number one function, and it is owned by the WRU. Whether it is to do with the weather in Cardiff, or the way the stadium is built does not matter, for a pitch to cut up that badly in an international is not acceptable.

2 – Refereeing. Whether or not the All Blacks got the rub of the green with refereeing decisions, Jonathan Davies correctly observed on the BBC that decisions tend to favour the side on top. Warren Gatland’s post-match comments were clearly calculated, as all his controversial remarks are, but as Davies alluded to, if the Welsh get forward momentum into the contact areas, decisions will follow. It is up to Wales to manage the referee as effectively as their opponents do. The referee did not have a bad game, and did not make many clear-cut mistakes, it was the 50-50 calls that went against Wales.

3 – Unnecessary controversy. The BBC has consistently high-quality rugby coverage in terms of presentation, commentators, pundits and analysis, but they have an unhealthy obsession with generating controversy, inevitably fuelled by their asking for the public’s views. Dan Carter’s high tackle on Martin Roberts should have been penalised, but nothing more than that. High tackles happen in rugby, sometimes they are reckless, occasionally they are vicious, but often they are just a miscalculation, as was the case here. The crowd booed as it occurred at a critical juncture, but after the game John Inverdale insisted on labouring the point, when the expert panel clearly did not see much worthy of discussion. The time would have been better spent picking apart the game with the expert rugby brains of Guscott, Davies and Marshall, all of whose analysis was excellent. Similarly, although Warren Gatland’s post-match comments were unprompted, they sparked an exercise in how much controversy could be generated from them. The producers need to realise that the rugby provides all the drama that the fans want, and there is no need to force things.

Tennis: Andre Agassi

The recent revelations in Andre Agassi’s autobiography have led to some sensational and emotive headlines. There is a lot of anger towards Agassi and the ATP in the media, specifically charges of incompetence towards the ATP for letting Agassi talk his way out of a failed drugs test, and of betrayal towards the player himself for taking crystal meth, lying, and only admitting to it ten years later in an apparent attempt to sell books.

Whether or not this anger exists outside of the media bubble is harder to tell. Agassi has always been one of the most popular players of recent times, far more so than his more successful contemporary Pete Sampras. The reason being that he is seen as having more character, humanity and flair than the ruthless and outwardly more withdrawn Sampras, a man with a far quieter personal life. Whilst the drugs confessions will undoubtedly tarnish his reputation in some eyes, many more will probably be forgiving, recognising that his flaws and honesty endeared him to them in the first place. Furthermore, recreational drugs do not damage the integrity of results as much as performance enhancing ones, which should preserve his reputation as a player.

Had this come out during his career, it would have been worse for his reputation, as he would have faced a ban, and then the prospect of playing whilst that stigma hung over his head. As it is, the controversial confessions are part of the regular post-retirement routine for many sportsmen and women, although this was a more dramatic confession than usual. The story of success, followed by a fall, and then redemption, has always been a powerful one.

What has been more interesting, and has perhaps resulted in more vitriol from the tennis press is Agassi’s claim to hate the sport “with a dark and secret passion”. In a way this is more disturbing for fans of any sport, who love their game and wish they had just some of the talent exhibited by the professionals. For fans, sport is something that offers pleasure and escapism, and they often struggle to understand those who have the privilege of playing professionally, but seem unappreciative. To hear a sportsman announce that he hated his sport feels like a betrayal and devalues fans’ cherished memories of his career. How can they vicariously enjoy his great moments, when he himself did not? That is why some have suggested that Agassi’s claims should have been kept private, that he damages the game by making them public, or even that he is being disingenuous in making them, that it is impossible to dislike something that he was so good at. Whatever the truth, the title of the book, “Open” makes it clear that Agassi feels that it is best shared.

Look a little deeper and it is not surprising that, if his claims are true, he hates tennis. For him, tennis is tied up with a pushy and aggressive father who drove him into the game. Tennis is not the only sport with pushy parents, but it seems particularly prone to them, perhaps inevitably, as alongside golf it is the most high profile individual sport in the world, with no team mates to diffuse attention away from the young player.

Then there is the endless international travel, not sightseeing and relaxed holidays, but long trips to cities where the player only sees the inside of the hotel, the taxi ride to the venue, and the tennis facility itself. There is the pressure: from fans, coaches, and most of all, the player themselves, the fear of the disappointment of losing. There are the huge sacrifices: the hours spent in the gym or on the practice court, the media commitments and drug tests. Above all, there is endless scrutiny on every shot, every word spoken, every action on and off the court. As a top player, Agassi had even less time off than other players, who would exit tournaments in the early rounds, whilst he would have more sponsors who would ask more of him, and would be more in demand from the media than the others. To fans this might all seem worthwhile, but over the course of more than 15 years, combined with a troubled relationship with the game thanks to his father, it is easy to see how it would take its toll.

This is not to judge whether is right to hate the game, or to tell everyone that he does, although he is entitled to think what he wants, but simply to acknowledge that when one inspects the facts, it is not as surprising as it first seems. A good article by Stuart Jeffries this week shows that Andre Agassi would not be the first sportsman to hate his sport, but be driven on by a love of winning. Perhaps in describing his relationship with tennis as hate, Agassi erred. Perhaps love/hate would be more apt. Hating the game and the way it consumed his life, loving the winning and the rewards, but ultimately, only the man himself knows.

NFL: Stat of the Day

As a brief follow up to my post from 16 October regarding a win for the Cleveland Browns despite the terrible performance of their quarterback, Derek Anderson, I bring you a statistic courtesy of ESPN:

"If every pass a quarterback attempts falls to the ground incomplete, his QB rating is 39.6. Derek Anderson's quarterback rating is 36.2."

Basically, I could get a better quarterback rating than Derek Anderson at the moment, simply by throwing the ball away the moment I took the snap, and this is a former Pro Bowler we're talking about (Anderson, not me).

The suspicion that backup and former starter Brady Quinn has either rubbed coach Eric Mangini up the wrong way, or that the Browns don't want to pay him whatever bonus he gets for playing a certain number of minutes this season grows and grows. Either that or Derek Anderson's got incriminating photos of members of the coaching staff.

Quinn saw some game time at the end of the recent defeat at Chicago, but speculation about whether or not he will start has fallen by the wayside in light of off-field upheavals in Cleveland this week.