NFL: Steve Sabol and NFL Films

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.

NFL: New season but no easy answers

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 31^st and 32^nd 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.

Paralympics: Science vs Pistorius' claims

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.

Cycling: No clear outcome in the Lance Armstrong saga

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.

London 2012: Enjoy Team GB's success while it lasts, but don't be disappointed when it doesn't

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, 36^thoverall), top ten finishes in Sydney (11 golds, 10^th) and Athens (nine golds, 10^th), 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Sport on TV: Celebrity preoccupation puts BBC at fault

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.

Euro 2012: Spain prove not to be so boring after all

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.