If you get the chance, listen again to David Mitchell joining Aggers for A view from the Boundary at lunch on Test Match Special yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lr08x/Test_Match_Special_18_07_2009/
The interview begins around 2:21 into the show.
Mitchell – of Peep Show fame – was interesting when asked about his personal life and profession, but brilliantly intelligent and insightful when talking cricket, as only the kind of ‘Part-time sports fan’ I was describing the other week can be. He didn’t fill me with too much confidence early on, admitting ‘I was frightened of the ball’ as a cricketer himself.
But I found myself wanting to yell at the radio ‘yes, exactly!’ on numerous occasions, as he, almost nonchalantly, explored the quiet truths of watching the sport. He laughed at how ludicrous it was that his flatmate begged him to turn off the TV because him watching it affected England’s performance in 2005. It’s absurd to even think that might be the case, but I’ve gone through several spells of believing my actions influence what happens on the pitch, and I think a lot of people feel the same. Mitchell reminded me what the outside world must think of us demented fanatics.
He was fascinating when he spoke about the character of certain cricket players, admitting he loved seeing Ricky Ponting get angry. He spoke about watching Graham Gooch bat as England captain, it's best to quote it: ‘There were times when he looked so exhausted at the crease scoring run after run, almost as if he couldn’t face getting out because then he would have to re-approach the whole problem of how an earth he was going to bowl the other team out. I loved the contrast between the down-beat demeanour and all these runs being scored. He didn’t look like he was going to smash a bowling attack around the field, and then he was quietly doing so, with a facial expression as if he hadn’t noticed that he was.’ These are the wonderful observations only those with a certain distance from the action can make. The way in which sport allows you an unparalleled insight into the characters who play is one of the greatest pleasures of spectating. Think of Paul Collingwood’s relentless stubbornness or Kevin Pietersen’s inner demons. More to come on that soon in this blog.
Mitchell dabbled further into psychological analysis to say ‘There’s a defensiveness to England’s approach… We’ve tried not to lose too often – maybe that’s a part of our whole national psyche.’
Mitchell and Webb’s shows contain several sketches based around sport, and one listener pulled him up on his hypocrisy in referring to the England cricket side as ‘we’ having chastised football fans for doing just that. Keeping with the comic side of sport, Mitchell added: ‘One of the most endearing and comic things in cricket is when tail-enders have to bat to save games. Seldom in professional sport do you see someone having, at the highest level, to do something that they’re not really very good at. Other sports would benefit immensely if they got that element in. Hitting a ball with the bat is not something they were put on the earth to do, batting is not their strong point – and yet they are having to do against the best bowling in the world, and the stakes are incredibly high. And when they succeed, it’s the best underdog succeeding in sport you can get.’
It made me think of the almost unique multi-disciplinary nature of cricket, a sport in which you have to do two, or three, things, very different things. Or the drop goal penalty contest which settled last year’s Heineken Cup semi-final, with Cardiff Blues flanker Martyn Williams – ironically one of very few forwards to have scored a drop goal in open play – the unlucky villain who missed. The occasion raised fresh controversy over whether a shoot-out was the way to settle a drawn tie. Balancing the fact that putting top sportsmen way outside their comfort zone is highly entertaining with the notion that drop goals are not a fair way to decide the all-round game of rugby is a difficult proposition.
My mate Alex Richman wrote a blog entry recently entitled ‘We all love laughing at losers’. http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/sport/3040 Typically entertaining stuff, but I don’t really agree. As Tim Henman and Jimmy White testify, we love our losers. There may, again, be something essentially British about supporting, and later consoling, the plucky underdog that Mitchell speaks of. And finding the equivalent of the 'endearing' tail-ender in modern sports where we no longer find affection and association with the players - most notably football - may be the way we can regain the love of the game.
If you have a lot of spare time and have finished listening to Mitchell, don’t track down this lunchtime’s TMS audio. The guest was Rolf Harris. What a plonker.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
England hold on for draw in Ashes first test
We got away with it, just. But, amidst relief that the draw was secured, we shouldn't forget some significant England shortcomings in the first test. The first one: we gave away 19 wickets, and gave away really is the term, on a placid wicket. KP's gone down as the scapegoat, but can you remember more than three England wickets that were unavoidable, where the ball was 'just too good'? The facts: In 211.5 overs, across both innings, England lost 19 wickets. In 181 overs, Australia lost only 6.
The tail-enders may have stolen the headlines, but it was Paul Collingwood who saved the match for England. He batted for nearly six hours, scoring 74 off 245 balls. Perhaps a result of his limited-overs captaincy, he took responsibility for his wicket, and his side, with rare bravery. When he got out, he was visibly gutted, as he thought that one lapse had cost England the first test. Collingwood is not brilliant, but attritional, obdurate. He'd be a great Aussie.
One of the great things about Test cricket is the way that momentum can swing back and forth on numerous occasions. It can go one side’s way for two days, and then just one strike – bang – a wicket, even a boundary or two, and the game’s going the other way. Talk about an Ashes series. 5 Tests, and after securing that draw in the first, England are on the front foot. The back-to-back set-up of these first Two tests allows England to capitalise, starting tomorrow.
Australia's failure to finish off England in Cardiff on Monday is a damming reflection of the fallibilities in Ricky Ponting's captaincy. Ponting, as a captain, not a batsman, lacks the killer instinct. Michael Vaughan had that sniff of opportunity, of the movement to be aggressive with his bowlers and his field. It's too early to know if Andrew Strauss has it, but he'd do well not to copy his Australian counterpart. Ponting twice let England off the hook, at 70-5 and again when Panesar came to the wicket. Monty, possessing a Test batting average of 5.33, survived for 35 balls to bring England home. For some bizarre reason, Ponting partnered Nathan Hauritz with part-time off-spinner Marcus North. Monty understands spin. Why not send in Mitchell Johnson and Peter Siddle to use his ankles as target practice? It would have only taken one ball that came in a little bit too quick, one LBW, and Australia would have been one up.
The age of the all-rounder has begun. Between them, England and Australia only had the single real one - Andrew Flintoff - before the Ashes begun, but many more stood up over five days in Cardiff. Ponting trusted batsmen North's off-spin to take that final wicket, and Katich and Clarke had a go with the ball too. For England, Paul Collingwood - who excels in the third discipline, fielding - took Brad Haddin's wicket with his medium-pacers, whilst Freddie looks more comfortable with the bat than he has done in a while, on his way back to being a genuine all-rounder, rather than a bowler who bats. Graeme Swann scored 47 not out and 31, Stuart Broad was disappointed with 17 and 14 and James Anderson notched up 26 and 21. England's 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 can all bowl and bat then. Such multidisciplinary adeptness is becoming a feature of twenty-first century sport. Rugby league has been full of identikit 6'2", 14 stone plus clones for every position now, but union is following suit. Gethin Jenkins is the finest prop in the Northern Hemisphere because he rucks like a back row, and Mike Phillips the finest scrum half because he can tackle and break tackles well enough to be trusted at centre. Duncan Fletcher, in his time as England head coach, taught each bowler that he had a responsibility with the bat too. You have to take all 10 wickets to get England out nowadays, as Australia are all too aware.
Monty Panesar should be dropped. First up, he has failed to replicate his new-found maturity with the bat when doing his day job, bowling. Figures of 1-115 tell a story of a man who keeps on rolling out the same delivery, failing in the essential demand of making batsmen uncomfortable. But, just as important, dropping the Barmy Army's cult hero would send a powerful message in a series where the phoney war is nearly as important as the real thing. Taking heed of Michael Vaughan's admission that seeing Australia (that's Australia) celebrate a draw (yes, a draw) at Old Trafford in 2005 made his team realise how close they were to doing something special, England didn't over-celebrate their rescued test in Cardiff. It also can't be bad news that we're already under Ricky Ponting's skin. The Australian captain is a genius with the bat, but has pyschological weaknesses that can be exploited. Dropping Panesar for the second test would show that there's no room for sentiment in the England camp. We mean business.
Check this lot out for a 6-a-side cricket side: Justin Langer, Matthew Hayden, Damien Martyn, Adam Gilchrist, Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne. Not bad eh? Why do I group them together? Because they were wearing the baggy green in the 2005 Ashes series, and aren't here four years on. (I, like all other Englishmen, am still pretending 2006-07 didn't happen!) Australia arrived in 2005 as a side near the peak of their powers, comfortably the best test side in the world, and having won in India in 2004, with their main men enjoying continued success towards their twilight years. Somehow, England dragged themselves upto - and even beyond - the tourists' level. Four years on and I'm worried England - admittedly, a side who have endured considerable turmoil off the field in the last 12 months, but been reasonably settled on it - being pulled down to the Australians' - an inexperienced side who lost a home test series to South Africa over the winter - level.
Can a set of 22 (rising towards 26 by the end of the series) who don't come close to the 2005 bunch produce the same levels of sporting drama, if not excellence? Thankfully, it seems they can.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Protecting our part-time sports fans
Want to head down to your local tennis court for a game? You'll be lucky. It's the week after Wimbledon and all over the country, part-time tennis fans are taking their British flags off their cars, dusting down their tennis rackets for the first time since this time last year. 'Big serve from Roddick.' 'Backhand crosscourt from Murray...' 'And he wins the point with a smash!'
The same way that Wimbledon has punctuated my midsummers since childhood, The World Snooker Championship at the Crucible became a springtime fixture, and a great excuse for staying up late on that Bank Holiday Monday. In year six, dreaming that I could replicate the men in the tuxedos, I set up a school snooker tournament, on my primary school's tiny pool table. By the time we got round to playing, the drama at the Crucible had faded into distant memory and nobody was interested in playing. I only had to win two matches to win, against snooker players who must have been even worse than myself.
But it's not so much in the playing as in the armchair spectating that real part-time sports fans excel. You know the kind - the kind that mispronounce 'Fernando Torres' and tell you that 'it's really all about the way they retrieve the kick off.' Fan, we often forget, is short for fanatic. That they are not. Sporting events saturating terrestrial TV is their all-important medium, allowing them to become two-week experts on Andy Murray's return and Stephen Hendry's safety shot.
I’ll come down off my high horse for a second, and admit that I really only qualify as a full-time football fan. I guess I’m more weekend dad with rugby union, tennis, cricket – I never stop caring, I talk the talk when the Six Nations come around, but am not in the pub for Northampton – Sale on Tuesday evening.
In fact, I envy these part-time sports fans a lot. They get the exciting bits without having to go through all the drudgery in between. But, as Nick Hornby so thrillingly, nail-smack-on-the-head, described: those beautiful climactic moments are much better if you’ve gone through the drudgery to get there; you’ve put in the time, deserved it.
You can also learn a lot from them – we ran a feature on ‘The Score’ – our student radio Saturday afternoon sports show – called ‘Girls answer sport’s biggest questions’. Ignoring accusations of sexism, we found that the girls we got into the studio, with very little knowledge of sport - and therefore free from preconception and bias - cut through the crap and made some pretty insightful comments on goal-line and other refereeing technology, drug taking in sport and the like.
We should value them, protect them even. The 'protected' sports list - or more correctly, the list of sporting events reserved for free-to-air television, under the remit of the Culture Secretary, is hugely significant. There are currently 10 events on the A-list, those too important to be restricted to subscription television, ranging from the Olympics to the Rugby League Challenge Cup Final. In 1998, when the list was last renewed, home cricket test matches dropped from the A to the B-list, meaning they could be bid for by subscription broadcasters, as long as highlights were shown on terrestrial. Fortunately, for the 2005 Ashes, Channel 4 bid high enough. My memories of the greatest series therefore include watching in free periods at school and getting home to see the climactic stages on TV. I remember the Channel 4 coverage as top notch - but then again I would: the cricket was brilliant, and we won.
The last time the 'protected' sports list made the headlines was September of last year, when only the highlights of England's World Cup qualifier in Croatia were available on terrestrial, as Setanta showed the game live. It was England's best result since the thrashing of Germany in 2001, Theo Walcott scoring a hat-trick for Fabio Capello's boys in a 4-1 win. Perhaps a good omen for their cricketing counterparts, whose exploits against the Aussies in this summer's Ashes will be available only on Sky. Of course, we didn't care when the same was true in the series down under 2006-2007, but that was because it was winter and we lost, heavily. For us terrestrial viewers, Five's highlights every evening at 7.15pm are as good as it gets for the 2009 Ashes. And my tractor's only got FM radio, so I can't even listen to Test Match Special!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Promising' is the word to describe England's first day of the 2009 Ashes series. 336-7 is just about par, as England's batsmen got in, and then got out. I would be pretty happy if I was Andrews Flower or Strauss, certainly much happier than if one batsmen had made half of that total on his own. Bopara, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior, Flintoff and Strauss himself all got between 30 and 70, showing - with slightly differing comfort levels - that they are in good touch. They lost their wickets - and Pietersen is the prime culprit for a ridiculous sweep-shot - because of a lack of care. Strauss can now sit down with his run-scorers and tell them, as well as Alastair Cook, whose dismissal for 10 was more worrying, that they need to take responsibility, treasure their wicket and start putting in the centuries, the match-winning 150s, 200s. For me, partnerships are more important than individual scores in winning matches though, and today showed the beginnings of two which should prove to be imperative if England are to win the little urn back. Pietersen and Collingwood, 4 and 5, steadied the ship in batting from lunch to tea and added 138. Prior and Flintoff, 6 and 7, added 86 more when they were together in the middle. Prior looked the most fluent of all of England's batsmen - which is great news. Especially after watching the Twenty20, he knows as much as anyone else that he's no superstar behind the stumps, but the more runs he gets, the more his confidence as a wicketkeeper will grow. Having him at 6 also has the advantage of giving Freddie the licence to go for his shots at 7. The openers will need to join the party in the second innings, so Ravi Bopara can come to the middle with the score at least at the 100 mark. Bopara, batting at the pivotal number 3 position, will now his first-Ashes-test nerves behind him, and looks set to score big. He will have gained from surviving - initially - a thorough interrogation by Peter Siddle, who has looked the pick of the Aussie bowlers. Before Bopara was out of single figures, Siddle planted one down short and straight, bouncing hard to hit the batsman hard under the chin. 'New boy, this is the Ashes, you know.'
The same way that Wimbledon has punctuated my midsummers since childhood, The World Snooker Championship at the Crucible became a springtime fixture, and a great excuse for staying up late on that Bank Holiday Monday. In year six, dreaming that I could replicate the men in the tuxedos, I set up a school snooker tournament, on my primary school's tiny pool table. By the time we got round to playing, the drama at the Crucible had faded into distant memory and nobody was interested in playing. I only had to win two matches to win, against snooker players who must have been even worse than myself.
But it's not so much in the playing as in the armchair spectating that real part-time sports fans excel. You know the kind - the kind that mispronounce 'Fernando Torres' and tell you that 'it's really all about the way they retrieve the kick off.' Fan, we often forget, is short for fanatic. That they are not. Sporting events saturating terrestrial TV is their all-important medium, allowing them to become two-week experts on Andy Murray's return and Stephen Hendry's safety shot.
I’ll come down off my high horse for a second, and admit that I really only qualify as a full-time football fan. I guess I’m more weekend dad with rugby union, tennis, cricket – I never stop caring, I talk the talk when the Six Nations come around, but am not in the pub for Northampton – Sale on Tuesday evening.
In fact, I envy these part-time sports fans a lot. They get the exciting bits without having to go through all the drudgery in between. But, as Nick Hornby so thrillingly, nail-smack-on-the-head, described: those beautiful climactic moments are much better if you’ve gone through the drudgery to get there; you’ve put in the time, deserved it.
You can also learn a lot from them – we ran a feature on ‘The Score’ – our student radio Saturday afternoon sports show – called ‘Girls answer sport’s biggest questions’. Ignoring accusations of sexism, we found that the girls we got into the studio, with very little knowledge of sport - and therefore free from preconception and bias - cut through the crap and made some pretty insightful comments on goal-line and other refereeing technology, drug taking in sport and the like.
We should value them, protect them even. The 'protected' sports list - or more correctly, the list of sporting events reserved for free-to-air television, under the remit of the Culture Secretary, is hugely significant. There are currently 10 events on the A-list, those too important to be restricted to subscription television, ranging from the Olympics to the Rugby League Challenge Cup Final. In 1998, when the list was last renewed, home cricket test matches dropped from the A to the B-list, meaning they could be bid for by subscription broadcasters, as long as highlights were shown on terrestrial. Fortunately, for the 2005 Ashes, Channel 4 bid high enough. My memories of the greatest series therefore include watching in free periods at school and getting home to see the climactic stages on TV. I remember the Channel 4 coverage as top notch - but then again I would: the cricket was brilliant, and we won.
The last time the 'protected' sports list made the headlines was September of last year, when only the highlights of England's World Cup qualifier in Croatia were available on terrestrial, as Setanta showed the game live. It was England's best result since the thrashing of Germany in 2001, Theo Walcott scoring a hat-trick for Fabio Capello's boys in a 4-1 win. Perhaps a good omen for their cricketing counterparts, whose exploits against the Aussies in this summer's Ashes will be available only on Sky. Of course, we didn't care when the same was true in the series down under 2006-2007, but that was because it was winter and we lost, heavily. For us terrestrial viewers, Five's highlights every evening at 7.15pm are as good as it gets for the 2009 Ashes. And my tractor's only got FM radio, so I can't even listen to Test Match Special!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Promising' is the word to describe England's first day of the 2009 Ashes series. 336-7 is just about par, as England's batsmen got in, and then got out. I would be pretty happy if I was Andrews Flower or Strauss, certainly much happier than if one batsmen had made half of that total on his own. Bopara, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior, Flintoff and Strauss himself all got between 30 and 70, showing - with slightly differing comfort levels - that they are in good touch. They lost their wickets - and Pietersen is the prime culprit for a ridiculous sweep-shot - because of a lack of care. Strauss can now sit down with his run-scorers and tell them, as well as Alastair Cook, whose dismissal for 10 was more worrying, that they need to take responsibility, treasure their wicket and start putting in the centuries, the match-winning 150s, 200s. For me, partnerships are more important than individual scores in winning matches though, and today showed the beginnings of two which should prove to be imperative if England are to win the little urn back. Pietersen and Collingwood, 4 and 5, steadied the ship in batting from lunch to tea and added 138. Prior and Flintoff, 6 and 7, added 86 more when they were together in the middle. Prior looked the most fluent of all of England's batsmen - which is great news. Especially after watching the Twenty20, he knows as much as anyone else that he's no superstar behind the stumps, but the more runs he gets, the more his confidence as a wicketkeeper will grow. Having him at 6 also has the advantage of giving Freddie the licence to go for his shots at 7. The openers will need to join the party in the second innings, so Ravi Bopara can come to the middle with the score at least at the 100 mark. Bopara, batting at the pivotal number 3 position, will now his first-Ashes-test nerves behind him, and looks set to score big. He will have gained from surviving - initially - a thorough interrogation by Peter Siddle, who has looked the pick of the Aussie bowlers. Before Bopara was out of single figures, Siddle planted one down short and straight, bouncing hard to hit the batsman hard under the chin. 'New boy, this is the Ashes, you know.'
Lions Tour Review
The Lions salvaged some pride in avoiding a series whitewash at the hands of World Champions South Africa with a defiant 28-9 win in the final test in Johannesburg.
The recalled Shane Williams capitalised on fine breaks by Jamie Heaslip and Riki Flutey to grab a first-half brace and put the Lions in control, and wing partner Ugo Monye’s interception touchdown put the game beyond a much-changed Springbok side.
South Africa coach Peter de Villiers changed ten players from the team who secured series victory last weekend, the replacements unable to break down the Lions’ defensive barrier. Many of Ian McGeechan’s changes were enforced – injuries to both first-choice centres and props allowing Flutey his Lions test debut, as well as a shot at redemption for veteran Phil Vickery.
The Lions won the series 74-63 on aggregate, or by 7-5 in tries scored. The Lions played all the rugby against the World Champions, who wanted to get the ball off the pitch and exploit the set piece as much as possible. The rugby was thrilling at times, although perhaps the drama reached higher plains than the quality of play. The Springboks won the first two matches, however, because the Lions came up well short at the basics; indiscipline let them down. The Lions' credibility was more than maintained in 2009, but they must make sure that they don't become the Barbarians, a touring novelty known for daring, expansive rugby, with professionalism less important. Ensuring a slightly longer tour, with the squad spending longer together before the serious business really gets underway, in Australia 2013 is a promising first step.
The Lions first test fightback, and third test vanquishing of the Springboks, were both achieved with the majority of the South Africans' main men off the park. The World Champions came up well short when it came to strength in depth, their replacements a good level short. It was said before the tour, and at several points within it, that the Lions were lacking in truly world class players, Brian O'Driscoll aside. I don't think is the worrying thing - a lack of alternatives to the first choice test selections, from the four home nations combined, lest we forget, is far more striking. Mike Phillips played every second, Andy Powell was no competition for Heaslip at Number 8, and things might have turned out a lot better if the second choice fly-half, Ronan O'Gara, had never made it onto the pitch.
Man of tour:
The barnstorming Jamie Roberts. The 22-year-old Welshman wrote his name all over the No. 12 test jersey in the warm-up games and formed such a formidable midfield partnership with Brian O'Driscoll in the first game against the Springboks that he was man-marked in the second. Proof that bish-bash-bosh can be stunningly effective in the modern game, and now a recognised world class talent.
'That lad's a bit special':
Ireland full back Rob Kearney's solid warm-up displays went almost completely unnoticed, so nailed on was Lee Byrne for the test No.15. Byrne was forced off injured early in the first test however, and Kearney excelled in his place. Stunningly cool both receiving and following his own high balls, and finished his try intelligently in the second test. 23, but looks like he's been playing at the very highest level for years. Always looks like he has time - the sign of a top class player.
Golden oldie:
Simon Shaw. Brought into the side for the second test to add a bit of beef to the scrum - receiving his first Lions cap on his third tour - and was outstanding, deservedly winning man of the match. Well on his way towards 36, surely the England lock can't be there in four years time...
The Denmark at Euro 92 award:
The Danes didn't qualify, but replaced Yugoslavia at the last minute, and went on to win it. The athletic Leicester Tigers flanker Tom Croft was surprisingly absent from the original tour party but was called up when Alan Quinlan was banned for gouging. Went straight into the test team and scored two tries. Simple. Ian McGeechan and co. are lucky not to have had to explain why he wasn't picked in the first place.
The Darren Fletcher award for enhancing reputation through absence: (sorry for the football theme, I must be missing it)
Fletcher has been a dogsbody in the Manchester United midfield for years, but then got sent off in the Champions League semi-final, Barca's Xavi and Iniesta ran rings around Carrick, Anderson and co. in the final, and Fletcher has been heralded as the finest hard-tackling midfield err ever?
It wasn't that long ago that The Times' Stephen Jones said he'd leave Brian O'Driscoll out of the test team, and pick Tom Shanklin instead. The Welshman's shoulder surgery was quickly forgotten, though, as O'Driscoll formed an impressive centre partnership with Jamie Roberts. So, just about goes to Jerry Flannery. The Irishman was the clear choice for test hooker before he was ruled out with an elbow injury. Lee Mears and Matthew Rees weren't good enough, and Ross Ford was only called up to bolster the Scottish numbers, to...3.
Future captain:
I'll take a punt on Jamie Heaslip. The Irish Number 8 was one of very few to start all three tests. He held his own relatively quietly in the first two, but did what he does best - running in straight lines, through whatever's in front of him - for the full eighty minutes in the third. Will be the cornerstone of the Irish team for the next few years, and right at the heart of an Irish-dominated Lions team 2013 (Stephen Ferris is a great prospect, choose from this lot for outside backs - Fitzgerald, Bowe, Kearney, Earls, and Leinster and Munster continuing to progress in the Heineken Cup). Will be 29 when the Lions reach Australia - the same age Paul O'Connell was this time.
Best quote:
Phil Vickery – 'You know you have had a bad game when your mum, your missus and your sister text to say they still love you!'
The recalled Shane Williams capitalised on fine breaks by Jamie Heaslip and Riki Flutey to grab a first-half brace and put the Lions in control, and wing partner Ugo Monye’s interception touchdown put the game beyond a much-changed Springbok side.
South Africa coach Peter de Villiers changed ten players from the team who secured series victory last weekend, the replacements unable to break down the Lions’ defensive barrier. Many of Ian McGeechan’s changes were enforced – injuries to both first-choice centres and props allowing Flutey his Lions test debut, as well as a shot at redemption for veteran Phil Vickery.
The Lions won the series 74-63 on aggregate, or by 7-5 in tries scored. The Lions played all the rugby against the World Champions, who wanted to get the ball off the pitch and exploit the set piece as much as possible. The rugby was thrilling at times, although perhaps the drama reached higher plains than the quality of play. The Springboks won the first two matches, however, because the Lions came up well short at the basics; indiscipline let them down. The Lions' credibility was more than maintained in 2009, but they must make sure that they don't become the Barbarians, a touring novelty known for daring, expansive rugby, with professionalism less important. Ensuring a slightly longer tour, with the squad spending longer together before the serious business really gets underway, in Australia 2013 is a promising first step.
The Lions first test fightback, and third test vanquishing of the Springboks, were both achieved with the majority of the South Africans' main men off the park. The World Champions came up well short when it came to strength in depth, their replacements a good level short. It was said before the tour, and at several points within it, that the Lions were lacking in truly world class players, Brian O'Driscoll aside. I don't think is the worrying thing - a lack of alternatives to the first choice test selections, from the four home nations combined, lest we forget, is far more striking. Mike Phillips played every second, Andy Powell was no competition for Heaslip at Number 8, and things might have turned out a lot better if the second choice fly-half, Ronan O'Gara, had never made it onto the pitch.
Man of tour:
The barnstorming Jamie Roberts. The 22-year-old Welshman wrote his name all over the No. 12 test jersey in the warm-up games and formed such a formidable midfield partnership with Brian O'Driscoll in the first game against the Springboks that he was man-marked in the second. Proof that bish-bash-bosh can be stunningly effective in the modern game, and now a recognised world class talent.
'That lad's a bit special':
Ireland full back Rob Kearney's solid warm-up displays went almost completely unnoticed, so nailed on was Lee Byrne for the test No.15. Byrne was forced off injured early in the first test however, and Kearney excelled in his place. Stunningly cool both receiving and following his own high balls, and finished his try intelligently in the second test. 23, but looks like he's been playing at the very highest level for years. Always looks like he has time - the sign of a top class player.
Golden oldie:
Simon Shaw. Brought into the side for the second test to add a bit of beef to the scrum - receiving his first Lions cap on his third tour - and was outstanding, deservedly winning man of the match. Well on his way towards 36, surely the England lock can't be there in four years time...
The Denmark at Euro 92 award:
The Danes didn't qualify, but replaced Yugoslavia at the last minute, and went on to win it. The athletic Leicester Tigers flanker Tom Croft was surprisingly absent from the original tour party but was called up when Alan Quinlan was banned for gouging. Went straight into the test team and scored two tries. Simple. Ian McGeechan and co. are lucky not to have had to explain why he wasn't picked in the first place.
The Darren Fletcher award for enhancing reputation through absence: (sorry for the football theme, I must be missing it)
Fletcher has been a dogsbody in the Manchester United midfield for years, but then got sent off in the Champions League semi-final, Barca's Xavi and Iniesta ran rings around Carrick, Anderson and co. in the final, and Fletcher has been heralded as the finest hard-tackling midfield err ever?
It wasn't that long ago that The Times' Stephen Jones said he'd leave Brian O'Driscoll out of the test team, and pick Tom Shanklin instead. The Welshman's shoulder surgery was quickly forgotten, though, as O'Driscoll formed an impressive centre partnership with Jamie Roberts. So, just about goes to Jerry Flannery. The Irishman was the clear choice for test hooker before he was ruled out with an elbow injury. Lee Mears and Matthew Rees weren't good enough, and Ross Ford was only called up to bolster the Scottish numbers, to...3.
Future captain:
I'll take a punt on Jamie Heaslip. The Irish Number 8 was one of very few to start all three tests. He held his own relatively quietly in the first two, but did what he does best - running in straight lines, through whatever's in front of him - for the full eighty minutes in the third. Will be the cornerstone of the Irish team for the next few years, and right at the heart of an Irish-dominated Lions team 2013 (Stephen Ferris is a great prospect, choose from this lot for outside backs - Fitzgerald, Bowe, Kearney, Earls, and Leinster and Munster continuing to progress in the Heineken Cup). Will be 29 when the Lions reach Australia - the same age Paul O'Connell was this time.
Best quote:
Phil Vickery – 'You know you have had a bad game when your mum, your missus and your sister text to say they still love you!'
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Federer's 15th Slam - Where it was won and lost
Roger Federer overtook Pete Sampras' record for Grand Slam titles with a 5-7 7-6 (8-6) 7-6 (7-5) 3-6 16-14 over Andy Roddick in the Wimbledon final on Sunday.
Roddick was a desperately unlucky loser. It was the American sixth seed who played the tennis on Sunday. Federer was a long way from his best, struggling, as Tim Henman repeated from the commentary box, to see and connect with the ball properly. The Swiss, unwilling to attack the ball early on during rallies, provided a display of counter-attacking effectiveness, if not the accustomed sublimity. Time and again, he waited for Roddick to take the initiative and attack, then picked him off.
It was an epic final, yet never really caught alight in terms of quality, largely because of the dominance of both players' serves. Roddick's serving prowess is plain for all to see, and to only be broken once by Roger Federer in five sets of tennis - to make it even more painful, the very final game of the match, his 15th service game of the deciding set - is testament to the level of tennis the underdog played. Federer's serve is an often underrated part of his game, however. It is his service accuracy and variety which is the key, opposed to Roddick's sheer power. The now six-time Wimbledon champion served 50 aces in total, the number of service winners improving into the fifth set as the American tired. Roddick runs hard every match he plays, but lacks acceleration and agility. He began to try and guess where Federer's serves were going in the fifth set, too often outwitted.
At 5-5 in the first set, Federer forced four break points on the Roddick serve, but the American survived and, as is so often the case after a player puts so much effort into breaking serve, the Swiss' own serve faltered, Roddick taking the set 7-5.
Roddick remained marginally the better play throughout the second set, storming to 6-2 in the tiebreak. The American seemed to assume the set was in the bag, carelessly allowing his opponent back in, before he shanked an easy backhand volley well wide. Federer won 6 points in a row to level the match. You don't see Federer fist-pumping in those situations, but displaying a strong, quiet determination.
Roddick picked himself up after that disappointment to level-peg in the third set, but the Swiss played a superb tiebreak to push himself infront. Roddick's 'breaker record is sensational, but Federer finds new levels under the greatest pressure. You wonder why he can't play at that level throughout - I bet he couldn't tell you himself. It's something subconscious that only the very best sportsmen have.
Roddick wouldn't lie down though, breaking Federer's serve for the second time in the third game of the fourth set, and serving out to make it two sets all.
The fifth set was epic, well over an hour long. Roddick had two nearly-Championship-points on Federer's serve at 8-8, but the Swiss again held strong under pressure and relentless aces allowed him to put pressure on Roddick. Serving first in the decider was a huge advantage for Federer, who, all the way through from 5-4, knew he was only four swings of the racket away from victory. Two mishits from the American at 13-12 allowed Federer to finally break serve and make history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serena Williams' 'Are you looking at my titles?' t-shirt caused a bit of a buzz on the final weekend of Wimbledon. The younger of the Williams sisters now holds three of the four Grand Slam titles - US and Australian Opens and now Wimbledon - but will remain World No.2. The problems with women's tennis run a lot deeper than the bizarre ranking system on the WTA Tour, however. Wimbledon 2009 displayed a stunning gulf between the Williams sisters and the rest of the women's game, in which there is a startlingly lack of both top-level quality and depth. Only Russian Elena Dementieva tested the Americans, Serena surviving a match point to come through in their 2 hour 48 minute semi-final. On the other side of the draw, Venus, comfortably seen off by her little sister in the final, spanked World No.1 Dinara Safina 6-1 6-0. One game won by the World No.1. Embarassing for Safina and the women's game.
Roddick was a desperately unlucky loser. It was the American sixth seed who played the tennis on Sunday. Federer was a long way from his best, struggling, as Tim Henman repeated from the commentary box, to see and connect with the ball properly. The Swiss, unwilling to attack the ball early on during rallies, provided a display of counter-attacking effectiveness, if not the accustomed sublimity. Time and again, he waited for Roddick to take the initiative and attack, then picked him off.
It was an epic final, yet never really caught alight in terms of quality, largely because of the dominance of both players' serves. Roddick's serving prowess is plain for all to see, and to only be broken once by Roger Federer in five sets of tennis - to make it even more painful, the very final game of the match, his 15th service game of the deciding set - is testament to the level of tennis the underdog played. Federer's serve is an often underrated part of his game, however. It is his service accuracy and variety which is the key, opposed to Roddick's sheer power. The now six-time Wimbledon champion served 50 aces in total, the number of service winners improving into the fifth set as the American tired. Roddick runs hard every match he plays, but lacks acceleration and agility. He began to try and guess where Federer's serves were going in the fifth set, too often outwitted.
At 5-5 in the first set, Federer forced four break points on the Roddick serve, but the American survived and, as is so often the case after a player puts so much effort into breaking serve, the Swiss' own serve faltered, Roddick taking the set 7-5.
Roddick remained marginally the better play throughout the second set, storming to 6-2 in the tiebreak. The American seemed to assume the set was in the bag, carelessly allowing his opponent back in, before he shanked an easy backhand volley well wide. Federer won 6 points in a row to level the match. You don't see Federer fist-pumping in those situations, but displaying a strong, quiet determination.
Roddick picked himself up after that disappointment to level-peg in the third set, but the Swiss played a superb tiebreak to push himself infront. Roddick's 'breaker record is sensational, but Federer finds new levels under the greatest pressure. You wonder why he can't play at that level throughout - I bet he couldn't tell you himself. It's something subconscious that only the very best sportsmen have.
Roddick wouldn't lie down though, breaking Federer's serve for the second time in the third game of the fourth set, and serving out to make it two sets all.
The fifth set was epic, well over an hour long. Roddick had two nearly-Championship-points on Federer's serve at 8-8, but the Swiss again held strong under pressure and relentless aces allowed him to put pressure on Roddick. Serving first in the decider was a huge advantage for Federer, who, all the way through from 5-4, knew he was only four swings of the racket away from victory. Two mishits from the American at 13-12 allowed Federer to finally break serve and make history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serena Williams' 'Are you looking at my titles?' t-shirt caused a bit of a buzz on the final weekend of Wimbledon. The younger of the Williams sisters now holds three of the four Grand Slam titles - US and Australian Opens and now Wimbledon - but will remain World No.2. The problems with women's tennis run a lot deeper than the bizarre ranking system on the WTA Tour, however. Wimbledon 2009 displayed a stunning gulf between the Williams sisters and the rest of the women's game, in which there is a startlingly lack of both top-level quality and depth. Only Russian Elena Dementieva tested the Americans, Serena surviving a match point to come through in their 2 hour 48 minute semi-final. On the other side of the draw, Venus, comfortably seen off by her little sister in the final, spanked World No.1 Dinara Safina 6-1 6-0. One game won by the World No.1. Embarassing for Safina and the women's game.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Wimbledon Men's Singles Final 2009
First, an apology: I wrote off, a couple of weeks ago in this blog, Lleyton Hewitt. I shouldn't have. The gritty Aussie, popularly dubbed 'the streetfighter', enjoyed a terrific Wimbledon. He beat fifth-seed Martin del Petro in the first week, before back-to-back five setters in the fourth round and quarter-finals. He fought back from two sets down to beat Radek Stepanek - a game that demonstrated the power of momentum on a tennis court, as Hewitt, who'd lost the second set 6-2, broke twice to lead the third set 4-0, and continued on the front foot to win the decider 6-2. Coupled with no shortage of ability was an extraordinary will to win. Perhaps stronger, a will not to lose.
Hewitt was defeated in the last eight though, by Andy Roddick - another man who I've repeatedly written off, out loud, in the past few years. We should hate the All-American after he knocked out the best challenger for a British Men's Singles title for 73 years (sorry Tim), but I can't help but admire him.
A-Rod reached World No.1 after winning the US Open - his only Grand Slam title - in 2003. Unfortunately, that was as good as it got for Roddick, beaten by Roger Federer in 2004 and 2005 Wimbledon finals, and dropping outside the top 10 after the 2006 Australian Open. A succession of injuries pegged him back further, before the fightback began. With the help of his wife Brooklyn and new coach from December 2008, Larry Stefanki, he rebuilt himself both physically and mentally. Today he plays in his third Wimbledon final.
The man with the biggest, and best, serve in the world, Roddick allowed himself to become two-dimensional after 2003, taking playing to your strengths a little too far. He didn't think enough. Big serve, big forehand. That looked like it was going to be enough in the 2004 final. Roddick served sublimely as he won the first set 6-4 and went a break up in the second. Then the rain came down. I don't know what Federer got up to during the rain break, but when he came back, he knew where Roddick's serve was going. The American is a player of habit, adjusting his baggy shirt between every point and bouncing the ball repeatedly between serves. Perhaps Roger cracked the code.
Largely thanks to Stefanki's influence, Roddick's game has become more rounded and sophisticated, without losing those two big weapons. His backhand has improved massively - no longer just a slice to stay in the point and wait for a forehand to come along - and he demonstrated a real comfort at the net in beating Andy Murray in the semi-final. But as much as the American got his game plan right, the Brit got it wrong. Murray made only 45% of first serves during the first set, to Roddick's impressive 75%. There's not a chance Federer will do the same. Murray also played really passively, deciding that the longer the points went on the better. Federer will want to take control of points. Roddick needs to keep up those serve percentages and continue to mix-up his game by approaching the net regularly. Murray did pass him repeatedly though, when he was given the option of cross-court or down the line by Roddick's approach shots. Why not approach down the middle, giving very little angle for the pass?
Everyone was talking about Murray and his chances in the final on Friday, the Centre Court crowd showing their partisan support for the Scot. Roddick has since revealed, with a chuckle, that he pretended shouts of 'Go on Andy!' were for him. Today, everyone's talking about Federer's 15th record-breaking slam title, and the Swiss is always hugely popular at SW19. But the underdog American will love it. I say: 'Go on Andy!' I reckon he owes us one.
Hewitt was defeated in the last eight though, by Andy Roddick - another man who I've repeatedly written off, out loud, in the past few years. We should hate the All-American after he knocked out the best challenger for a British Men's Singles title for 73 years (sorry Tim), but I can't help but admire him.
A-Rod reached World No.1 after winning the US Open - his only Grand Slam title - in 2003. Unfortunately, that was as good as it got for Roddick, beaten by Roger Federer in 2004 and 2005 Wimbledon finals, and dropping outside the top 10 after the 2006 Australian Open. A succession of injuries pegged him back further, before the fightback began. With the help of his wife Brooklyn and new coach from December 2008, Larry Stefanki, he rebuilt himself both physically and mentally. Today he plays in his third Wimbledon final.
The man with the biggest, and best, serve in the world, Roddick allowed himself to become two-dimensional after 2003, taking playing to your strengths a little too far. He didn't think enough. Big serve, big forehand. That looked like it was going to be enough in the 2004 final. Roddick served sublimely as he won the first set 6-4 and went a break up in the second. Then the rain came down. I don't know what Federer got up to during the rain break, but when he came back, he knew where Roddick's serve was going. The American is a player of habit, adjusting his baggy shirt between every point and bouncing the ball repeatedly between serves. Perhaps Roger cracked the code.
Largely thanks to Stefanki's influence, Roddick's game has become more rounded and sophisticated, without losing those two big weapons. His backhand has improved massively - no longer just a slice to stay in the point and wait for a forehand to come along - and he demonstrated a real comfort at the net in beating Andy Murray in the semi-final. But as much as the American got his game plan right, the Brit got it wrong. Murray made only 45% of first serves during the first set, to Roddick's impressive 75%. There's not a chance Federer will do the same. Murray also played really passively, deciding that the longer the points went on the better. Federer will want to take control of points. Roddick needs to keep up those serve percentages and continue to mix-up his game by approaching the net regularly. Murray did pass him repeatedly though, when he was given the option of cross-court or down the line by Roddick's approach shots. Why not approach down the middle, giving very little angle for the pass?
Everyone was talking about Murray and his chances in the final on Friday, the Centre Court crowd showing their partisan support for the Scot. Roddick has since revealed, with a chuckle, that he pretended shouts of 'Go on Andy!' were for him. Today, everyone's talking about Federer's 15th record-breaking slam title, and the Swiss is always hugely popular at SW19. But the underdog American will love it. I say: 'Go on Andy!' I reckon he owes us one.
Sporting weather
It always amazes me how Britain, and the British, flounder so spectacularly with a little bit of adverse weather. 'Snow blizzard' (think a light sprinkling) in the winter or 'heat wave' (a couple of degrees' rise) in the summer and you hear all the stats about number of school and work days missed, with significant financial consequences.
Sporting events are perhaps the weather's biggest victim. The oldest tennis tournament in the world - The Championships, Wimbledon - has famously suffered atthe hands of midsummer rain showers since 1877. But not anymore. Centre Court's new £80 million retractable roof got its competitive debut on Monday night. Of course, Sod's Law dictated that The All England Club was unable to show off its new toy as the first week remained dry. Amelie Mauresmo and Dinara Safina were the first to play under the roof just before 5pm, but even the meeting of former champion and World No.1 was only a warm-up for the main event. Andy Murray's fourth-round five-set victory over Stanislas Wawrinka- the Swiss nineteenth seed who I predicted as a tricky opponent - was aWimbledon classic. The first match ever played entirely under the roof was also the latest ever finish to a Wimbledon contest as Murray, battered inthe first set, won through 6-3 in the decider. 12.6 million watched on the BBC, as the young Scot re-awoke the passionate vicissitudes of the Tim Henman days. He had been making things look a little too easy at times.
Murray afterwards moaned about the humidity of an indoor Centre Court, whilst the purists mourned the end of the rain breaks that were as much a part of Wimbledon folklore as strawberries and cream. Players had to play the weather as well as their opponent - as Tim Henman found out in his 2001 semi-final with Goran Ivanisevic. Annoyances for spectators ranged from a whole day holding your expensive tickets without seeing any play, to the sound of Cliff Richard singing.
Of course, not too much has really changed. Of the 20 grass courts at Wimbledon, covers stayed on on 19 of them on Monday evening. The big cover over Centre does seem to have provided a 'go on then, if you think you're hard enough' to the weather gods, resulting in a sunny fortnight. Michael Eavis from Worthy Farm down in Somerset may be ringing to thank the Wimbledon staff for keeping the rain away from his Glastonbury festival too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watching a new sport unfold and take shape is a very rare privilege. It's one that twenty-first century sports fans have enjoyed over the past six years with Twenty20 cricket. Since the first Twenty20 Cup matches were played, in England, in June 2003, the new sport has progressed massively in the popular glare. And it is a new sport. New target audiences, new entertainment techniques, and most interestingly, new, innovative playing techniques.
During work experience with sports journalist Mark Baldwin, I went to the County Ground, Chelmsford, 2nd July 2004, to see the day/night Twenty20 between Essex and Hampshire. It was only the second season of the new format in Britain, and many players on both sides were making their Twenty20 debuts. Essex posted 135, 7.5 an over off the 18 they were restricted to. I remember Mark saying to me that it was a very getable score, the Hampshire batsmen just needed to make sure they got in, before they could start launching the big shots. Nobody had told the away side that though, the Hampshire batsmen trying to hit everything without consolidating. They found themselves 36 for 5 and 95 all out after 15 overs, seemingly completely lost with the subtleties of the new game. Despite this, I continued to hold the belief that Twenty20 was a bit lopsided, essentially a batsman's game. But this summer's World Twenty20 - a competition which marked the coming to full maturity of the shortened format - showed me a balanced game. Ingenuitive bowling is far more complex than just keeping the run rate down, highlighted by Umar Gul's standout 5 for 6 against New Zealand. Successful teams were characterised by consistently sharp fielding, speckled with touches of radical brilliance. Looking at the short game's influence on its longer, traditional counterparts - which of course, should not be the sole way of judging Twenty20's success - and the return of fielding as cricket's third discipline, in need of similar attention as the batting and bowling, can only be good news. With the summer ahead, it also augers well that the Aussies suck at the shorter game!
So, with the IPL and World competitions behind it, how had Twenty20 at home progressed by 2009? We went along to the Riverside to see Durham - Lancashire last Friday. Looking forward to seeing Freddie - who had hit 93 off 41 balls the day before - showing he was fit to take on Australia, and Harmy trying to rejuvenate his Ashes chances with a strong display. But we didn't see any cricket, only some cheerleaders. It rained.
Sporting events are perhaps the weather's biggest victim. The oldest tennis tournament in the world - The Championships, Wimbledon - has famously suffered atthe hands of midsummer rain showers since 1877. But not anymore. Centre Court's new £80 million retractable roof got its competitive debut on Monday night. Of course, Sod's Law dictated that The All England Club was unable to show off its new toy as the first week remained dry. Amelie Mauresmo and Dinara Safina were the first to play under the roof just before 5pm, but even the meeting of former champion and World No.1 was only a warm-up for the main event. Andy Murray's fourth-round five-set victory over Stanislas Wawrinka- the Swiss nineteenth seed who I predicted as a tricky opponent - was aWimbledon classic. The first match ever played entirely under the roof was also the latest ever finish to a Wimbledon contest as Murray, battered inthe first set, won through 6-3 in the decider. 12.6 million watched on the BBC, as the young Scot re-awoke the passionate vicissitudes of the Tim Henman days. He had been making things look a little too easy at times.
Murray afterwards moaned about the humidity of an indoor Centre Court, whilst the purists mourned the end of the rain breaks that were as much a part of Wimbledon folklore as strawberries and cream. Players had to play the weather as well as their opponent - as Tim Henman found out in his 2001 semi-final with Goran Ivanisevic. Annoyances for spectators ranged from a whole day holding your expensive tickets without seeing any play, to the sound of Cliff Richard singing.
Of course, not too much has really changed. Of the 20 grass courts at Wimbledon, covers stayed on on 19 of them on Monday evening. The big cover over Centre does seem to have provided a 'go on then, if you think you're hard enough' to the weather gods, resulting in a sunny fortnight. Michael Eavis from Worthy Farm down in Somerset may be ringing to thank the Wimbledon staff for keeping the rain away from his Glastonbury festival too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watching a new sport unfold and take shape is a very rare privilege. It's one that twenty-first century sports fans have enjoyed over the past six years with Twenty20 cricket. Since the first Twenty20 Cup matches were played, in England, in June 2003, the new sport has progressed massively in the popular glare. And it is a new sport. New target audiences, new entertainment techniques, and most interestingly, new, innovative playing techniques.
During work experience with sports journalist Mark Baldwin, I went to the County Ground, Chelmsford, 2nd July 2004, to see the day/night Twenty20 between Essex and Hampshire. It was only the second season of the new format in Britain, and many players on both sides were making their Twenty20 debuts. Essex posted 135, 7.5 an over off the 18 they were restricted to. I remember Mark saying to me that it was a very getable score, the Hampshire batsmen just needed to make sure they got in, before they could start launching the big shots. Nobody had told the away side that though, the Hampshire batsmen trying to hit everything without consolidating. They found themselves 36 for 5 and 95 all out after 15 overs, seemingly completely lost with the subtleties of the new game. Despite this, I continued to hold the belief that Twenty20 was a bit lopsided, essentially a batsman's game. But this summer's World Twenty20 - a competition which marked the coming to full maturity of the shortened format - showed me a balanced game. Ingenuitive bowling is far more complex than just keeping the run rate down, highlighted by Umar Gul's standout 5 for 6 against New Zealand. Successful teams were characterised by consistently sharp fielding, speckled with touches of radical brilliance. Looking at the short game's influence on its longer, traditional counterparts - which of course, should not be the sole way of judging Twenty20's success - and the return of fielding as cricket's third discipline, in need of similar attention as the batting and bowling, can only be good news. With the summer ahead, it also augers well that the Aussies suck at the shorter game!
So, with the IPL and World competitions behind it, how had Twenty20 at home progressed by 2009? We went along to the Riverside to see Durham - Lancashire last Friday. Looking forward to seeing Freddie - who had hit 93 off 41 balls the day before - showing he was fit to take on Australia, and Harmy trying to rejuvenate his Ashes chances with a strong display. But we didn't see any cricket, only some cheerleaders. It rained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
