Repercussions of the
Lance Armstrong story are still being felt, and will continue to be
so for some time, and one of the great questions to arise from the
affair is: how did he get away with it for so long?
Some answers can be
found in an article by Selena Roberts, 'The Influence Peddler', which
lays bare the level of Armstrong's political and financial influence,
and the extent to which he was willing and able to use it to get what
he wanted. It is a fascinating read, showing how no-one was safe from
Armstrong's bullying tactics, not even US Senator and former
presidential candidate, John Kerry. Perhaps what is most striking is
that this only appears to be a small sample of episodes in
Armstrong's career, and there are more questions to be asked about
how much political influence he was able to exert, whether it
accounts for the US Attorney for California suddenly dropping a case
against him in February.
Even now, after all the
revelations, this seems like only the tip of the iceberg, and
hopefully at some point, the comprehensive story of the Armstrong
tale will be told.
There's an excellent and heartbreaking article by Jill Lieber Steeg in the San Diego Union-Tribune about Junior Seau, the former NFL star who committed suicide earlier this year (part one and part two). What makes it stand out, amongst so much that was written after Seau's death, is that it is a carefully researched, fact-based piece, rather than conjecture.
Whether or not you are interested in the NFL, Seau's story is a poignant one, because it exposes the problems that retired sportsmen face, the things they lose when they retire: the structure to their days, the support network, the thrill of competition, the sense of purpose, the ability to earn money, the self-confidence. Then there's the need to live up to their public image, which seems to have weighed particularly heavily on Seau, and prevented him from asking for help, as well as the realisation that he had sacrificed family life for his career, and had no understanding of how to make amends for that that.
In May, the BBC aired Michael Vaughan's documentary, Sporting Heroes: After the Final Whistle, which attempted to deal with the same issues from a British perspective, but it was ultimately disappointing because rather than investigation and analysis, it offered a fairly soft series of anecdotal interviews with star names.
Lieber Steeg's article is far more incisive, and also raises the issue of the long term effects of head
injuries, a pressing topic in the NFL and across American sports at
the moment. It will be interesting to see whether or not Seau was
suffering from years of undiagnosed concussions, but it would only be another in the long line of problems that faced a man who was perceived as not only one of the best players in the NFL, but one of the best people.
Back in August, the
USADA announced that Lance Armstrong had been found guilty of doping
offences, and would be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles.
The verdict had been published, but the evidence had not, and the
investigation against Armstrong had something of a chequered history,
not least the failure of the Federal Drug Administration to bring a
prosecution, the leaks that had plagued the case, and public rows
over its conduct.
Armstrong continued to
claim that he was the victim of a conspiracy of former team mates,
envious at his success and bitter at their own convictions for
doping, and vindictive administrators, jealous of his fame and
fortune. As Corinthian Spirit argued at the time, despite it seeming
probable that the verdict was correct, the authorities had not helped
their own case, muddying the waters by announcing a verdict without
the evidence. Would cycling fans ever know for certain what went on
during the Armstrong era?
This changed today,
when the USADA published a 1000 page dossier, documenting its
evidence. The bulk of it remains circumstantial, but it is
overwhelming in terms of how comprehensive it is. Eleven former team
mates have gone on the record in great detail, along with numerous
other witnesses. Many of the witnesses corroborate each other, and
the USADA's verdict that there was a highly organised doping
conspiracy surrounding the Texan is proven to be more than a flight
of fancy. One of the witnesses is Tyler Hamilton, a former team mate,
whose recent book 'The Secret Race' has been damning. Another is George Hincapie, one of Armstrong's closest colleagues and more reliable domestiques. His testimony is noteworthy because of how long he worked with Armstrong, and how loyal he was to his team leader.
The levels of
subterfuge and intrigue required to stay ahead of the testers are
remarkable, and must have been exhausting. They make for fascinating
reading, as does the testimony about Armstrong's character, he comes
across as domineering and unpleasant, a bully who was allowed to do
as he wished for years. Publicly, he is still playing the victim, but
this is now even more irrelevant than before.
The facts will take
some time to digest, and there will be repercussions for months and
years to come, particularly at the UCI, who face allegations that
they covered up a failed drugs test in 2001. However, there can be no
more questions about the man himself, and about how dirty that era of
cycling was, and this should provide the closure that allows the
sport to move on.
Articles from The Telegraph and Guardian that pick out
extracts can be found here and here.
Europe's Ryder Cup
comeback brings back memories of other great golfing moments, notably
the USA's identical feat in 1999. It also brings back memories from
other sports. Here are five
classic non-golfing comebacks:
The greatest rugby
match of all time? The All Blacks were favourites for the tournament,
whilst France had been largely unimpressive, reaching the semi-final
despite not playing any of the other big guns, but looked pumped-up
from the start, belting out the Marseillaise and scoring an early
try. However New Zealand exerted their control, and France's
inability to tackle Jonah Lomu left them 24-10 down. Then Christophe
Lamaison kicked two drop goals, and the French sparked into life,
seizing the momentum as only they can. Time and time again they flew
forward, scoring three tries and 33 unanswered points, while the
shell-shocked New Zealanders never regained their composure, only
scoring again when it was too late. Unpredictable as ever, one week
later, an emotionally spent French team was unable to conjure up the
same magic, losing the final to Australia.
For all their domestic
dominance in the nineties, Manchester United had failed in Europe.
Finally reaching the Champions League final, they looked poor without
the suspended Paul Scholes and Roy Keane, and trailed Bayern 1-0 as
the match entered injury time. The German bench was already
celebrating, when a United corner caused chaos in the Bayern penalty
area. The United players looked as panicked as Bayern's but Ryan
Giggs' scuffed shot found its way to Teddy Sheringham, who equalised.
Munich were stunned, and seemed unable to react when, moments later,
another corner was flicked on by Sheringham for Ole Gunnar Solskjær
to score the winner. With 90 minutes up, the game seemed lost, yet
United were champions, combining with the league title and FA Cup
wins to complete a treble. Alex Ferguson's post-match comments said
it all: “football, bloody hell.”
Carrying the weight of
86 years of failure, the 2004 Red Sox went 3-0 down to their bitter
rivals. No team in major league history had come from 3-0 down
in the playoffs to take it to a seventh game, let alone won the
series. Entering the final inning of game four, the Red Sox were
losing, and an 87th year of hurt seemed inevitable. Then
Dave Roberts stole a base, and scored the tying run. It took until a
twelfth inning in the early hours of the morning for David Ortiz to
hit the winner. Boston then went on a run of dramatic wins, each an epic in its own right. The highlight was Curt Schilling, pitching in
game six despite the blood oozing out of his surgically repaired
ankle and through his sock. Completing a 4-3 series victory in Yankee
Stadium seemed to exorcise 86 years of demons, and a week later the
Red Sox won the World Series, lifting the curse of the Bambino.
After a dismal start to
the series led to Ian Botham's resignation as captain, England found
themselves in trouble against their old enemies. Asked to follow on
227 runs behind, bookmakers famously offered odds of 500/1 on an
England victory, but carefree batting from Botham and inspired
bowling from Bob Willis secured a historic win, the first by a team
following on since the 1894. In 2001, India pulled off the same
feat, again versus Australia, no less remarkable, and to date, only
the third such win.
Milan had won the
tournament two years prior, and finished second in Serie A, whilst
Liverpool had struggled through a difficult season, finishing outside
the top four. Three-nil up at half time, Milan were already
celebrating in the dressing room. Rafael Benitez changed his
formation, adding an extra man in midfield, and Liverpool responded
with three goals in the first fifteen minutes of the half. The
Italian side still had chances, but were too flustered to take them,
whilst Jerzy Dudek was having the game of his life in the Liverpool
goal. Despite experience of winning a shoot-out in the 2003 final,
Milan crumbled when it went to penalties this time, scoring only two.
Dudek's save from Shevchenko secured Liverpool's fifth title and
first since 1984.
Humiliated in the first test, and losing at half time in the second, Australia's rugby minds
took control, whilst their more abrasive characters put the Lions off
their game. Many argue the series turned on Nathan Grey's cynical
elbow to Richard Hill's face, which removed the Lions' best player.
The death of Steve Sabol, President and co-founder, with his father Ed, of NFL Films,
provides an apt moment to consider the one of the most successful
marriages between sport and media. No league documents and
mythologises itself like the NFL does. If Ed Sabol was a genius for the idea, Steve was the artistic genius who drove that idea forwards
for 50 years.
Seeing the league's
history in incredible detail has led to not only a greater
understanding of the game, but it has immersed fans in the world of
the NFL, and has undoubtedly helped the league's appeal. Imagine
being able to hear what Alf Ramsey shouted to his players from the
touchline, or what Bill Shankly said in his team talks. Those
memories are only available to the few who were present, but in the
NFL, documentaries like America's Game allow anyone to see Vince Lombardi or Bill Walsh run training sessions or shout in-game
instructions.
In an era when many
live sports broadcasts were not recorded for posterity, NFL Films
created a perfect record of the league's modern era, in contrast with
other competitions around the world. Footage of the greatest
individual performance in the history of the NBA, Wilt Chamberlain's
100 point game in 1962, does not exist, but every significant moment
in NFL history since that same year that has been captured.
This remarkable archive
allowed Steve Sabol and his colleagues to consistently produce
revealing and insightful programming in quantities that other sports
could not match. The detailed in-game footage has allowed pundits
(for example on NFL Playbook) to provide in-depth technical analysis,
that has led to an informed fanbase.
However, the output of
NFL Films is not simply a record. Technical achievements aside, its
biggest legacy is the creation of league's legend. Creative use of
music, narration, and camera angles help not just replay matches, but tell stories. These techniques are standard today, but began with NFL
Films. The use of film, rather than videotape, gives the action a
cinematic quality, and the all-round effect is to make the NFL
iconic.
If all this sounds
self-important and overblown, that is also sometimes true, as it is
of most sports broadcasting, but Sabol's work was not without a sense of humour.
What is most surprising
about NFL Films is that more have not copied them. Today there are a
few similar ventures, but none with the level of access, depth of
archive footage, or artistic outlook. Few sports have the
understanding of their own history that the NFL does. The lack of a
quality record, and the lack of quality storytelling across other
sports is part of the problem, and shows just how revolutionary and
comprehensive Steve Sabol's achievements were.
Seven months after
Super Bowl XLVI, the NFL returns, as the New York Giants, dramatic
winners that night in Indianapolis, kick the season off tonight
against divisional rivals the Dallas Cowboys.
As ever, the NFL is
difficult to predict, as parity measures mean that talent is spread
around, and the playoff system ensures that the end of season is
always surprising. Twelve of the 32 teams have a realistic shot at
the title, and six more will feel that they are genuine contenders,
albeit that they are probably outside shots at this stage.
Contenders: New England
Patriots, New York Giants, Dallas Cowboys, Philadelphia Eagles,
Baltimore Ravens, Pittsburgh Steelers, Chicago Bears, Green Bay
Packers, New Orleans Saints, Atlanta Falcons, Houston Texans, San
Francisco 49ers.
Outsiders: New York
Jets, Detroit Lions, Carolina Panthers, San Diego Chargers, Kansas
City Chiefs, Denver Broncos.
If 2011 was hard to
predict because of the lockout that deprived teams of valuable
offseason time to install systems and work with rookies, this year it
feels like there are even more unknown factors, not least the number
of new faces. There are ten first or second year quarterbacks
starting in 2012, of whom only two (Carolina's Cam Newton and
Cincinnati's Andy Dalton) have significant playing time under their
belts. Seven teams have new head coaches. Most are unlikely to make
the playoffs, though Romeo Crennell's Kansas City Chiefs could win a
mediocre division if he continues where he left off as interim coach
last year, and Greg Schiano's Tampa Bay Buccaneers could be a
surprise wild card if his disciplinarian approach galvanises a
talented roster in the manner of Jim Harbaugh in San Francisco.
Even the established
teams have question marks. Thanks to the bounty scandal, the New
Orleans Saints are without head coach Sean Payton for the season and
interim head coach Joe Vitt for half. The New England Patriots and
Green Bay Packers dominated the 2011 regular season by virtue of
their high-powered offenses, but ranked 31st and 32nd
respectively on defense. Both have new players on that side of the
ball, and if they produce right away, it might be enough to take them
to the Super Bowl. The reigning champions will start strong, but it
is easy to forget that the Giants were only 9-7 last year, and have
less weapons, whilst the problems on the offensive line and in the
secondary remain unresolved. Expect them to struggle to beat the
Eagles for a place in the playoffs.
The Houston Texans were
one of 2011's best teams after years of false dawns. Had quarterback
Matt Schaub not been injured, they might have progressed to the Super
Bowl. With Schaub fit again, they are a fashionable pick to get to
there this year. However, they have had a difficult offseason, losing
the right side of their offensive line, pass-rusher Mario Williams,
receiver Jacoby Jones, and tight end Joel Dreessen. This will make it
harder for them in 2012, especially without the element of surprise,
but being in a weak AFC South makes them a probable playoff team, and
once there, anything can happen.
In the NFC, the 49ers
are a similarly fashionable pick after their run to the championship
game last year. One of the NFL's best defences has managed to retain
all 11 starters, whilst on offense they have added Randy Moss, Mario
Manningham and Brandon Jacobs. Despite this, they too may struggle to
repeat their feats from a year ago. No-one is going to be caught by
surprise this year, and well as Alex Smith played in 2011, questions
remain about his ability to get the ball to his receivers. If he
cannot capitalise on the presence of his new deep threats, difficult
characters like Moss and Jacobs may begin to agitate, the fans will
get on Smith's back, and Jim Harbaugh will face difficult choices.
Then there is the
perennial impact of injuries. Michael Vick and Matthew Stafford both
have poor track records with fitness, and injury to either would
derail their teams. The Bears looked like contenders last year until
Jay Cutler and Matt Forte went down, whilst the Ravens start the
season without defensive star Terrell Suggs, and the Steelers have
problems on the offensive line.
Who then, will cast
these questions aside and win in New Orleans in February?
Unsurprisingly, the two most complete outfits appear to be Green Bay
and New England, as they were the two best teams in the 2011 regular
season, and the Patriots went to the Super Bowl. If they can make
stops on defense, it is hard to bet against either, although it is
rare for both top seeds to make it through. Nonetheless, the AFC is
weak this year, whilst the Packers have a point to prove after last
year's playoff failure, so Corinthian Spirit's pick for the Super
Bowl is for the Packers to beat the Patriots in another thriller
(there are no straightforward Super Bowl victories these days).
At the other end of the
scale, the race for next year's number one overall draft pick is
probably between the Arizona Cardinals, Oakland Raiders, Indianapolis
Colts and Jacksonville Jaguars. The Colts and Raiders have two of the
weakest rosters in the league, whilst the Cardinals have confusion at
quarterback, and the Jaguars' Blaine Gabbert looked like a rabbit in
the headlights last year. It probably comes down to the Raiders and
Colts, with a very real possibility that Indianapolis could be
picking at number one for the second year in a row.
Regardless of these
predictions, there are no dull moments in the NFL, and there are
plenty of other storylines to keep the fans entertained between now
and February. Will Peyton Manning be back to his best? How much of
Tim Tebow will we see? Which teams will be inexplicably bad, or
surprisingly good? The answers are only hours away.
Over at The Science of Sport blog, there an excellent breakdown of Oscar Pistorius' critical comments about his defeat by Alan Oliveira in the men's T44 200m. Based on this analysis (by a South African blog, no less), it seems that Pistorius was using flawed logic when he made his claims about the unfairness of Oliveira's stride length.
"So, a simple count shows that Pistorius has longer strides than Alan, and they are consistently longer -
on the bend, and in the straight, for those who are wondering. It's
Oliveira who "can't compete with Oscar's stride length". His faster
speed, then, is the result of faster leg movement, because speed, as you
will appreciate, is the result of stride length and stride rate."
It's an excellent and very detailed read, and worth looking at before diving into the debate that Pistorius has started.
A lifetime ban and the
vacation of seven consecutive Tour de France titles is the apparent sad conclusion to the Lance Armstrong story, after today's
announcement that he would not contest the US Anti-Doping Authority's
case against him. It is an odd decision for a man previously defined
by his refusal to quit. Despite his protestations that he is innocent
and simply refusing to engage with biased proceedings, this decision
has largely been greeted as either a tacit admission of guilt, or a final desperation play to ensure that the evidence will never be
heard publicly, allowing him to continue professing his innocence.
This is an
unsatisfactory outcome. Despite the USADA case, it remains hard to
take a clear position on Armstrong. The circumstantial case against
him is strong, but has not been subjected to
independent scrutiny, and as he points out, there is little physical evidence. The basis of the verdict was an aborted Federal Drug Administration prosecution that came from an investigator with a
controversial track record. The suggestion that the testimony against
him was gathered through offers of immunity to other implicated
riders, the way that details of the case seem to have been
selectively leaked, and the fact that none of the evidence faced
any third-party examination before judgement was passed, means that
the USADA has arguably harmed its case in the court of public opinion
with the way that it has conducted itself.
Armstrong's supporters
will continue to defend him, and the rest will condemn him, but it
remains impossible to make a conclusive judgement, which is why
today's decision, which robs us of the chance to have the case examined during the arbitration process, means that we are no closer to the truth than before.
UPDATE: The debate is raging on, but the USADA are exptected to publish their decision in the next couple of weeks, that will apparently contain evidence, and more should come out once the cases against other individuals are resolved.
A young fan waves a Union Flag at the Olympic Women's 10k Swim in Hyde Park
The
reaction to Great Britain's success in the London 2012 medal table has been euphoric. After the disappointment of Atlanta 1996 (one gold
medal, 36thoverall), top ten finishes in Sydney (11 golds, 10th)
and Athens (nine golds, 10th),
were seen as great successes, but the performances in Beijing (19 golds, fourth) and London (29 golds, third), have taken Team GB to
new heights. The achievements of Mo Farah, Jessica Ennis and their
team mates have been a joy to behold, but should not be allowed to
spoil future Olympic accomplishments for the public either.
Host nation success is
a well-documented phenomenon, and usually begins four years prior, as
funding has already been improved in anticipation of the home games.
This goes some way to explaining British success in Beijing, but the
roots of that performance go back to the steady improvement after
Atlanta, when the introduction of lottery funding coincided with
national humiliation, and a recognition that the sporting landscape
had changed since the end of the amateur era, requiring a more
professional outlook from administrators. Factor in the increased
funding that then arrived after London's successful bid in 2005, and
the advantage of home crowds and conditions, and Team GB's
performance is less surprising.
Britain has not seen
this level of success since the days when far fewer nations took
part. However, every team in every sport has its ceiling, Team GB
cannot compete with China or the United States due to population size
and funding, so third is the highest realistic place available.
Without home conditions and support, it will be harder to find a
competitive advantage. Meanwhile the chasing pack includes more
populous nations, many of them emerging into the economic maturity
necessary for Olympic success. As a fascinating article by
Grantland's Tyler
Cowen and Kevin Grier
explains:
“If a country is made up of subsistence
farmers, it is not going to have much athletic infrastructure,
government or private support, or even enough well-nourished citizens
to excel in sports on the global stage... So, being rich in raw
materials (people) and having the wealth to develop them are the main
economic determinants of Olympic success ”
The chasing pack can, for these purposes, be
divided into groups.
The sleeping giants: Brazil, host of the 2016
games, has one of the fastest-growing major economies in the world,
and the number of Brazilians who will have access to sports
infrastructure is only going to grow. Several nations, including
India, are at different stages of this process.
The former powerhouses: those such as Russia
who once dominated, covet that status again, and have the national
will to ensure the prerequisite levels of funding are in place.
The specialists: nations that are unlikely to
challenge across multiple sports, but which focus their attention on
specific areas, allowing them to punch above their weight, for
example Kenya in long distance running, or Bulgaria (highlighted by
Cowen and Grier) in weight-lifting, wrestling and shooting, which
have provided 32 of their 51 gold medals to date.
The first two groups will all have their
eyes on Britain's third place, and the third group will be aiming for
top ten finishes. Economic and population growth in the UK and other
developed nations is slowing in relation to these challengers.
Combined with the increased number of Olympic nations since the
splintering of Eastern Europe, the end of the era of boycotts, and
the rise in interest in countries with no real Olympic tradition, and
the spread of medals is only going to become more diverse.
What does this mean for public perception of
Team GB? Setting aside the argument that the medal table is somewhat
artificial, as is the idea of an Olympic team, since what Chris Hoy
does in the velodrome has no bearing on what Anthony Joshua does in
the ring, London 2012 was probably the high water mark for the
British team. The government has promised to maintain current levels
of funding through 2016, but there are no long term guarantees.
The public reaction to Team GB is reminiscent
of that towards the England rugby and cricket teams in 2003 and 2005.
In the short term, both benefited from the increased attention, but
when results declined, it meant greater scrutiny of their failings
than before. Will there be a backlash when Britain inevitably drops
down the medal table? Athletes performing to the best of their
abilities may no longer be feted, but unfavourably compared to their
2012 predecessors. Falling out of nightclubs a sign of malaise,
rather than well-deserved letting off of steam. The intense public
disappointment at Australia's tenth place finish in London
illustrates the dangers of raised expectations.
What is the solution? The British Olympic
Association and other organising bodies must continue to seek new
competitive advantages, but those are hard to find and harder to
maintain, so perhaps the onus is instead on the media and the public
to enjoy this success while it lasts, be nostalgic about it when it
passes, but not to greet that passing with anger and disappointment.
So long as the Olympians of 2016, 2020 and
beyond perform to a level commensurate with Britain's position in the
world, 2012 need not become a millstone around their necks. Cherish
this moment, and if Team GB returns to its positions from Athens and
Sydney, those performances were once cause for celebration, and in an
increasingly competitive Olympic world, would deserve to be
celebrated again. London 2012 was a once in a lifetime moment for the
British, not just as hosts, but also because of the performance of
their team. Enjoy it while it lasts, but don't let it become cause
for future disappointment.
The men's final atWimbledon may have been a chance to see one of the greatest players
of all time chase a record-equalling victory by taking on a home
favourite with a winning record in head-to-head match ups, but it was
also a chance for the BBC's coverage to do some unashamed crowd
watching and celebrity spotting.
For as long as
television cameras have had the range to capture faces in the crowd,
broadcasters have picked out spectators at sporting events, both
famous and not, with the non-famous used to illustrate the atmosphere
inside the arena, and the famous used to add glamour. Sunday's final
took it to a new level though, with the director cutting to the
famous (and occasionally the not so famous) faces so quickly after
each point, that we could see their live reactions, as opposed to a
replay a few seconds later.
The responsibility of
the broadcaster is to show the game first, and the BBC did not miss
any of the action, but by cutting away so often and so quickly,
viewers were often denied the chance to see how Roger Federer and
Andy Murray reacted, what their body language was like after each
point. Letting the picture dwell on the court for a moment or two
allows the viewer to digest what they have just seen. By instantly
cutting away to a reaction shot, the director is distracting and
detracting from the experience.
That is not to say that
viewers are not interested in seeing who is present, and not just for
the gossip. Knowing who is in attendance helps to get a sense of the
event, and showing the David Cameron, Boris Johnson and the
Middletons is not unreasonable a couple of times per set.
However, it became so
frequent during this final, that it began to feel voyeuristic and
uncomfortable, as it did for the close-ups of the players' families
and coaches. Again, there is some merit in seeing how they are
reacting, but when almost every point is followed by Judy Murray or
her son's girlfriend, it begins to feel less like a valid
journalistic choice, and more like an invasion of privacy. Moreover,
it quickly became apparent that none of these people were showing
much reaction to the match. They were cheering and clapping, but
nothing unusually demonstrative. The BBC was not showing anything
that enhanced the public's understanding of the final or the
atmosphere.
There is also something
seedy in the way that crowd shots are selected. The coverage of Euro
2012, produced in-house by UEFA, became famous for its preoccupation
with attractive female fans. Meanwhile how often did the BBC zoom in
on the boyfriends and husbands of the top female players, compared to
the wives and girlfriends of the male players?
The Euro 2012 coverage
was also tarnished by the revelation that the producers had been
pre-recording reaction shots to insert into the coverage and present
them as live. When Mario Balotelli scored against Germany in the
semi-final, one of the defining images was of a German fan in tears.
Yet she had been recorded 45 minutes earlier, crying at the national
anthem. This sets a dangerous precedent, a broadcaster such as UEFA,
that is also the organiser of the event, has a vested interest in
presenting a positive image of the tournament.
This entire
preoccupation with showing how the crowd is reacting, stems from the
need to convey the atmosphere of the live event to fans at home.
However, broadcasters are ignoring the sounds of the fans, and that's
what really conveys atmosphere. The odd shot of the fans is one
thing, but when images of fans, celebrities and family members become
so frequent that they are detracting from the coverage of the sport
itself, then it is time to make a change.
If Sunday's Euro 2012 final helped Spain cast of their unwarranted 'boring' tag, it also
proved that responsibility for any dull matches earlier in the
tournament lay with their opponents. Many bemoaned the level of
entertainment on offer during Spain's quarter and semi-final wins
over France and Portugal, yet as noted by Corinthian Spirit yesterday, it was those teams' decision to sit deep and play with men
behind the ball that made it difficult for Spain to play the more
direct game that many were hoping for. Once Portugal went on the
attack in extra time of the semi-final, Spain found that the pitch
had opened up for them and responded accordingly.
Instead of setting out
to defend, as Italian sides of the past would have done, and as
Spain's other opponents in this tournament have done, Italy attacked,
trying to play the more open, creative game that served them so well
against Germany. This created space for the Spanish to operate in,
and they were able to create more scoring opportunities than in
previous rounds, resulting in four goals.
That said, this
new-found aggression was not entirely a response to Italian tactics.
The champions set out to play more aggressively than in previous
rounds, attempting more shots from long range, and making more
forward runs from midfield and fullback. Despite the selection of
Fabregas, the Barcelona midfielder effectively played as an out and
out centre forward, staying high up the pitch and making runs into
the box, unlike his earlier appearances in the tournament when he
played as a false nine and dropped into midfield (for more tactical
analysis, see the excellent Zonal Marking blog).
Not only was Italy's
defence overwhelmed, but thanks to Vicente del Bosque denied Andrea
Pirlo the space to operate that Germany and England had given him,
thanks to the tactical master stroke of using Iniesta and Silva to
squeeze the midfield when defending, allowing Xavi to push up and
press the Italian playmaker. Cesare Prandelli's team was left unable
to create clear cut chances, and Spain's domination was secured.
Before the final was
even over, the plaudits for the Spanish performance were flooding in,
but many were coupled with the question as to why they could not
produce this performance earlier in the competition. Their
performance justified a little of the criticism, as they showed what
they're capable of when they press forward, but even Spain can only
do what the opposition allow them to do, and previously in this
tournament, they have not been given space to work in, resulting in
long periods of playing for possession and the accusations of being
boring. But if yesterday's final illustrates anything, it is that
whilst, they could have been more aggressive earlier in the
tournament, they were working with what they had, and that their
opponents had two choices: defend deep and be boring, or attack and
be exciting, but either way, the result is the same.
Spain are the reigning
world and European champions, the best international team so far this
century, and possibly the best for twenty years, have spent the
run-up to Sunday's final, their third in three tournaments, defending
their style of play from the charge of being boring.
Regardless of whether
or not they are, the backlash was inevitable. Spain have been the
best side in the world for four years, and there is always a reaction
against success, especially in Britain where the underdog is king,
but this is not just a debate that is taking place in the British
press. Two years ago, tiki-taka football was envied and admired, now
it is seen in some quarters as stifling and negative.
The charges are not
completely without merit, Spain have had 68 percent possession during
Euro 2012, but the fewest attempts on goal of any of the four
semi-finalists. Their style of play creates few chances, instead of
going for a killer blow, they often overlook opportunities to play a
final ball into the box, preferring to pass backwards or sideways and
maintain possession, waiting for a clear-cut chance to come along.
Football watchers tend to value ambition as highly as any other
quality, and this apparent lack of it has contributed to their
alienation.
What the accusation
also shows, are the short memories of many fans and journalists who
watch football. The Spanish are far removed from the long ball teams
that featured heavily in English football in the 80s and early 90s,
teams coached by George Graham, Howard Wilkinson and Graham Taylor,
or even the route one tactics employed by England in the second half
of their quarter-final match with Italy seven days ago. In that
match, England's most frequent pass combination was Hart to Carroll,
and as a result, England's attack was not only highly ineffective,
but also incredibly dull. The excitement in that match for English
fans was that England were involved, not that it was a good game. The
Spanish game involves some of the most skilful footballers in the
world playing a technically demanding brand of passing football,
whilst winning consistently. The only thing that's boring there is
their success. Contrast that with the teams coached by Sam Allardyce,
where long ball tactics, men behind the ball and a reliance on set
pieces are the foundations of his game plan. Describing Spain as
dull, whilst teams like these are in recent living memory seems
forgetful at best, and the football world is in for a shock when
Allardyce's West Ham return to the Premiership next season.
A similar accusation is
often levelled at Jose Mourinho's teams, but his teams still score
plenty of goals, and are playing skilful football with the ball on
the floor, whilst his former charges at Chelsea are alleged to have
parked the bus in the Champions' League last season, but they
outscored Barcelona 3-2 over two legs in the semi-final. Those who
watch the game have been spoiled by 20 years of Champions' League
football, worldwide coverage of the top domestic leagues, and for
English fans, a diet of end-to-end, high scoring football, that has
perhaps diluted appreciation for some of the game's finer arts.
It is true that Spain
have not played in any classic matches so far in Euro 2012, but that
does not mean that they are not a classic team. Pete Sampras was one
of the greatest tennis players of all time, but he was sometimes
labelled as boring because of the relentless and one-sided nature of
many of the big matches he played in, whereas other, less successful
stars, who could not destroy opponents like he could, played in what
are regarded as great finals, because their imperfections allowed for
a closer, more unpredictable result, such as the 2001
Ivanisevic-Rafter
Wimbledon final.
Spain's opponents
should be apportioned with at least half of the blame for any dull
matches, not just because of their inability to challenge the world
champions, but because of their refusal to try. If the quarter and
semi-finals were unexciting, blame the Portuguese and the French for
playing with men behind the ball. Look at what happened when Portugal
began to attack the Spanish in extra time, the game opened up, and
Spain started to play at a greater tempo and with more direct intent
than before.
The argument over the
level of excitement that one can get from watching Spain play, comes
down to what the viewer wants to get from them. Appreciation for the
fine arts of the game, outplaying and dominating an opponent, or
playing in an incident packed and close fixture, filled with
imperfections and mistakes. Both have their merits, but do we really
want a football culture where a team is criticised for playing a
passing game that keep the ball on the floor and relies on skill and
technique?
With the series already
lost, England face South Africa in the third and final test match of
their series this Saturday. After two defeats, Stuart Lancaster must
be sick of valiant losing efforts, and will be looking to end the
tour on a win. Here are three things his side must do, if they are to
win in Port Elizabeth.
Cut out the Mistakes
England have not given
themselves a chance to get into a winning position in the first two
matches thanks to mistakes at key moments. These are inevitable for a
new and inexperienced side, but players who fail to learn from their
mistakes rarely last long in international rugby. Four minutes into
the second test, the England front row failed to secure possession at
a five metre scrum. The ball found its way to the feet of flanker Tom
Johnson, who failed to react before it squirted out and was pounced
on by Willem Alberts to score the opening try. England cannot gift
their opponents opportunities like this in test rugby, the margins
are too fine. Similarly, there have been too many missed tackles,
which means that the English defence is always scrambling to catch up
with play.
Improve in attack
Stuart Lancaster's team
has shown more intent to attack with the ball in hand than in the
Martin Johnson era, but there is still a long way to go. English
players often seem unsure about what to do at key moments, and
although the amount of aimless kicking has been reduced, there are
still traces of the previous regime's conservatism. South Africa's
final try last Saturday came from a misdirected and poorly chosen
kick from Jonathan Joseph. The centre, making only his second
appearance, failed to notice that no-one was in position to chase the
kick and instead of retaining possession, he aimed his kick straight
down the throat of JP Pietersen, who set up the try. Reverting to
Toby Flood at fly-half was a positive step, and he was more assertive than in the past, but England's players still need a clearer idea of
what they are going to do when they are inside the opposition 22, and
need to be more precise when they do it.
Start fast
Like the 2009 Lions,
England were slow out of the blocks last Saturday, and found
themselves two scores down before they had had any significant
possession This ultimately doomed the Lions, and it has doomed
England in this series. Whether this was due to young players being
overwhelmed by the moment, the intensity of the Springboks, or the
effects of altitude, Lancaster and his team must diagnose this
problem and solve it before the third test. A team cannot afford to
give head starts to an opponent as powerful as the South African
side.
The most striking item
in the programme was how little we still know about what went on in
that period. Journalist Neil Manthorp mentions a series of bank
accounts that were allegedly linked to many prominent cricketing
figures, yet the investigation into those accounts was shut down
after Cronje's death. These accounts had been previously mentioned in
a television documentary, 'The Captain and The Bookmaker', made by
political journalist Peter Oborne. This film was also critical of the
report by the King Commission, which had investigated Cronje's crimes
in the immediate aftermath, accusing it of being insubstantial.
Both programmes
interview Marlon Aronstam, the bookmaker behind the infamous 'leather
jacket test match' between South Africa and England in 2000. One
thing that Oborne's documentary gets out of him is the suggestion of
an ongoing relationship between Cronje and the bookie after that test
match, but no details are forthcoming, nor is this elaborated on in
the 5 Live documentary.
Aronstam's testimony is
clearly difficult to trust, but what is alarming is the notion that
the authorities only scratched the surface. Will this investigation ever be resurrected? The suggestion that dozens of other
major cricketers were involved in match fixing but got away with
it, would undermine an entire decade's worth of international
matches. Perhaps most worrying for the game in the future is the
thought that whatever bookmakers or gamblers were involved in these
accounts were never identified publicly, leaving them free to continue
their efforts.
This is, of course,
pure speculation, based on an investigation that was terminated. But
unless it is proven that those mysterious bank accounts are a myth,
or were unrelated to match fixing, the doubt will always linger. That
is perhaps Cronje's greatest crime against cricket: creating a
nagging suspicion, that seems unlikely to be lifted any time soon.
Corinthian Spirit is back (sadly not in pog form). To celebrate, here's the first in what may turn into an occasional series of recommended sports films.
Currently available on the BBC iPlayer for five more days, is the 2009 film Sugar. The story of a young Dominican baseball player trying to make it to the major leagues, Sugar is bittersweet and largely free of the clichés of the genre. Though the titular character thinks he's chasing sporting success, the film is more about loneliness, alienation and the search for a place in the world, as well as the contrast between different ways of pursuing the American dream.
Though not perfect, the film has a gentle pace and naturalistic style, as well as a melancholy tone, which makes it stand out from the usual pomp and self-importance of the average 'triumph over adversity' sporting dramas. Thanks to some beautiful cinematography, the film is genuinely cinematic, but the directors (Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck) pull off the difficult trick of making the United States, in its many different guises (multicultural urban jungle, picture postcard countryside, neon-lit diner), appear simultaneously romantic and foreign, illustrating why Sugar feels so lost, just when he should be finding success. This is also due to the performance of Algenis Perez Soto, who totally inhabits Sugar, with his confusing mix of hopes and fears, and growing unease at his surroundings. Soto has yet to appear on screen since, and whether he is capable of matching this performance in the future, or whether this was the one role he was born to play, remains to be seen.
Sugar is light on sporting action, but aside from its universal themes, it offers a glimpse into the world behind the world we know, and it should be easy to draw parallels between this story of a young sportsman alone in a foreign land, and any number of other sports. In particular, football fans used to seeing African players plying their trade in Europe, might see the similarity.
