Monday, February 20, 2006

Paddy's Sports View 20th February 2006


As published in the "Bahrain Tribune"


When I attend football matches I usually sit in a seat that is roughly half way up one of the side stands and as close to the half way line as possible. This vantage point gives a view of the game from which the whole pitch can be seen and it allows you to see all the moves in the game clearly. When television cameras cover a match this is the position of the main camera, and it is also where the media sit. But last weekend I decided to abandon my usual position and sit on the touchline at White Hart Lane for Tottenham’s game against Wigan – and what a very different perspective of the match this gave. I was in the very front row of the lowest tier of the stand within a metre or so of the side line and the corner flag. When the action was close by I could almost touch the players and could certainly hear what they said to one another, and to the referee. When Spurs Egyptian international Mido was booked (right in front of me) he showed that he has mastered the English language (or a colourful part of it) very well since moving to Tottenham.

Sitting in a seat like the one that I had on Sunday you get no feel at all for the overall pattern of play, but you do see, of course, one or two incidents very clearly. You realise much more than you do in a more remote seat, just how frantic is the pace of the modern game. A player receiving a pass has a fraction of a second to kill the ball decide what to do with it and complete the move and it is remarkable to watch this from very close to the action. I suppose that these skills are taken for granted at the top in football but they are none the less impressive for this. There were two goals at the end that I was closest to and in each case the goal had been scored before I even realised that it was a possibility the pace was so quick. It is said that eye witnesses who are close to an accident often give completely contradictory reports of what they think that they have seen, and it is the same in sport. You can be too close to the action.

The other difference in sitting in a seat so close to the pitch is that you feel much nearer to the other spectators as well. At White Hart Lane the noisiest supporters amongst the home fans sit in the lower tier of the South stand which was right next to where I was sitting. The word “fan” is short for “fanatic” and that word is certainly apposite for this group. They chanted right through the match led by a man with a large drum which he banged rhythmically all the time, and they were fully emotionally engaged for the full ninety minutes. The chants were rather disappointingly witless but at least they were not too insulting either - which will have pleased the club officials who put a message in the programme condemning offensive chanting. The referee (a black man) was roundly abused for many of his decisions and his parentage was occasionally questioned but thankfully none of this abuse was racially motivated. Spurs have an ongoing campaign which deplores racism in football and it seems to be effective. Less welcome is the fact that although the ground is an all-seater stadium the group of fans in the lower South stand ignore the rules about saying seated for most of the match. This is something that the stewards struggle to control (although they try) and is regrettable, not least on safety grounds.

Attending a football match and sitting in the sort of seat that I was in on Sunday is as much a social, even tribal, experience as it is a sporting. As with all tribes there are rituals which you have to obey and certain behavioural norms are required. One of the chants is “stand up if you hate the Arsenal” which triggers a pavlovian response from those in earshot. Quite what my grandfather, who was a regular spectator at both Spurs and at the Arsenal in the 1930s (and supported both teams), would have thought of this I wonder. He certainly wouldn’t have stood up when asked to – and in his honourable memory nor did I!

Monday, February 13, 2006

Paddy's Sports View 13th February 2006


From the "Bahrain Tribune"


The England cricket team has arrived in India to prepare for a three Test match and seven One Day International series. The first Test begins in Nagpur on 1st March. If we discount the matches against the minnows of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe then England has played eleven Test matches since January 2005, winning only three and India has played nine, also winning just three of them. Quite how that makes the two sides to be vying with one another for the accolade of second best Test side in the world behind Australia some may question. Admittedly England over that period has famously regained the Ashes whilst India’s only series win was against Sri Lanka who have slumped to next to bottom in the ICC’s rankings (minnows excluded). But all of this won’t count for much when the two teams square up for the first Test. Expect a fierce and fascinating challenge between two very good sides and look forward to some intriguing contests within the contests between some of the star players.

India has not played England since The Oval in September 2002 when the series was drawn. Only three of the England side in that match will line up at Nagpur (Trescothick, Vaughan and Hoggard) whilst India will probably have seven if they pick the same side as lost their last Test in Karachi (Laxman, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Kumble and Khan) or eight if room is also found for Harbhajan Singh.

Harbhajan, of course, has not taken a wicket in his last three Test match innings in which he has bowled 81 overs but I would be astonished if he does not regain his Test place against England and I would expect that his spin partnership with Kumble to be the main bowling weapon for India (as it was in 2002 when they took 26 wickets between them in four matches on wickets much less favourable to spin than will be the case at home).

England prospered last summer despite facing the genius of Shane Warne and if they can master India’s spin attack in this series there is no reason why they should not get back in winning ways next month. The England batting line up is formidable and whilst they disappointed against a wholehearted Pakistan side last November they will be keen to get back into form against India. There is a good balance in the England batting line up with Michael Vaughan, Andrew Strauss and Ian Bell capable of playing anchor roles to allow the strokemakers (Trescothick, Pietersen, Flintoff and Geraint Jones) to entertain. Aside from the spinners England need to be wary of Pathan (who they will not have seen before) and Khan - but if they bat to their potential England should be able to post decent totals to give their bowlers room to attack.


For the first time since Trent Bridge in August last year England will have the excellent Simon Jones in the team to bowl alongside Harmison, Flintoff and Hoggard. This is the best fast bowling attack in world cricket and was the key to England’s Ashes success. Jones was missed in Pakistan and his return will give England a big lift. India’s strength is their world class batting line up (Dravid, Sehwag, Tendulkar and Laxman) and the battle between these stars and England’s fast bowlers is eagerly awaited. India’s batsmen do not need to lose much sleep over England’s spin bowing threat. With Giles injured England will choose from three spinners, Udal, Panesar and Blackwell of whom only Udal has played a Test match (three wickets for 277 runs in three matches).

So the two key questions in the series are how well India cope with England’s fast bowling strike force and how well England’s batsmen cope with the Indian spinners. In the last Test match to be played at Nagpur, in October 2004, India were bowled out for 185 and 200 by McGrath and Gillespie who took fourteen wickets between them in a match that was more of a struggle for the spinners of both sides (even Shane Warne) . A similar wicket on 1st March would suit England nicely!

No student of cricket sensibly makes predictions when India play with their off the field dramas usually proving as much colour as the on the field performances. But talent they certainly do not lack and their Australian coach will have a few personal points to prove against the Poms. Should be fun!

Monday, February 06, 2006

Paddy's Sports View 6th February 2006


As published in the "Bahrain Tribune"


If ever there was a good example of the truth of the aphorism “Who dares wins” it was at the Dubai Desert Classic last Sunday. Tiger Woods had not been hitting the ball well off the tee all week, by his own imperious standards. His driver was not working as well as it should with too many very wayward drives getting him in trouble. True the Tiger’s short game was as solid as ever and he usually managed to recover from a bad drive with his short irons and this kept him in the hunt for a win. Reaching the 17th hole in the final round Woods was one of three or four players in with a chance. This hole is a short Par 4 (359 yards with a dog leg to the right) and for a player of Woods power the green is reachable off the tee, but it is a risky shot as Woods had already found out to his cost in previous rounds. The cautious thing to do would have been to play safe with a solid drive down the centre of the fairway, followed by an approach which would give a decent chance of a birdie. But this was not what Woods chose to do. Out came the driver and this time the contact was sweet. The ball landed on the front of the green and two putts later the Tiger had his birdie.

Some would argue that Woods bravery was cushioned by the fact that he had already pocketed a cool $3million in Dubai appearance money alone and that, therefore, he had nothing to lose by a spot of daring-do. To say this underestimates just how much the Tiger still has the urge to win. That he can command mega dollars just by turning up is a fact which he puts out of his mind when he is on the course where he has a single-minded obsession to win. When he plays a poor shot (as happened quite often last week) he doesn’t shrug his shoulders and smile but he glowers with anger and often indulges in a bit of mild club abuse as well. He is driven to succeed every time he plays not to add to the gold in his personal vault, but simply to prove again that he is the best. At Dubai he had failed twice in his previous visits and it hurt. In 2001 he had a double bogey on the final hole which cost him a win, and he had to be coaxed out of the locket room to appear at the presentation ceremony so great was his disappointment. But this year the Tiger put all that right without really, by his own admission, playing well. But he fought, and he scrambled and he dared…and he won.

Whilst Tiger Woods and Mark O’Meara (the only other American in the field) were playing in Dubai the rest of the PGA Tour were in Phoenix competing for the FBR (Phoenix) Open. Now this tournament is popular with fans and has a long history - but what a shame that it clashed with the Desert Classic. There are no less than 56 events on the PGA tour this year which means that players on the tour certainly have no need to travel if they don’t want to. Indeed it is likely that for most Americans on the Tour their only foray across the pond will be to the (British) “Open Championship” at Hoylake in July or (if they are lucky) to the Ryder Cup in Ireland in September. Most American golf fans, and even many professional golfers, are woefully ignorant of golf tournaments outside of North America (other than the “Open”) and little progress has been made in recent times to getting a more unified international professional golf calendar.

The Dubai Desert Classic is unquestionably one of the finest events in the golfing year anywhere in the world. The organisation, the course and the usually strong field make it an event that all the pros on the European Tour want to win. Surely the time is now ripe, especially given the publicity that the Tiger’s win will have generated, to recognise the Classic’s success by enhancing its status. The PGA Tour could help this by avoiding scheduling a top American event at the same time and by giving the Classic a higher profile in the media. And to have a couple of dozen players from the PGA Tour in Dubai next year might give American/Middle East relations a bit of a much needed boost as well!

Monday, January 30, 2006

Paddy's Sports View 30th January 2006



As published in the "Bahrain Tribune"


This is the time of the year in Formula one when the phoney war is underway with “new cars” being rolled out for the media at high profile events. The sponsors love it, of course, as the press and TV usually show the new cars with the sponsors’ logos prominently on display! But we haven’t in the past learned much about what is really going on. This year, however, we do at least have cars that will be radically different from the 2005 models because the car technical regulations have changed with the most significant alteration being that engines size has been reduced from the previous 3-litre V10s to 2.4-litre V8s. The FIA says that the aim is to “reduce costs and improve safety” and that this is “likely to add around three to five seconds to lap times at most circuits”.

All the teams will have been working hard to in the short time that they have available between the end of last season (16th October 2005) and the first event of the 2006 season in Bahrain on March 12th. For Ferrari it is no exaggeration to say that this is a crunch season and that a good start is essential. It is difficult to learn much from the Scuderia’ s public pronouncements but Michael Schumacher was realistic when he said that whilst his initial impressions of the new car are positive there is much work still to do before the first race. In 2005 Ferrari was overtaken by both Renault and McLaren but whether the principal cause of this loss of competitiveness was their problems with the Bridgestone tyres, or whether there was a more comprehensive slippage technically is still not clear. There is also (whisper it softly) the probability that Schumacher is not quite the driver he was, certainly when compared with Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen who are respectively, thirteen years and eleven years younger than the German maestro.

Formula one is by far the world’s most complex sport – not just the technical rules but the “sporting regulations” (a mere 35 pages) can be a minefield through which the teams must pick their way in order to ensure that they comply. I would not be surprised if the extent of the changes this year means that we have some early disputes and even disqualifications as some teams try and get an edge by interpreting the regulations in their own ways. Ferrari’s experience might be a telling factor here and their cosy relationship with the sport’s administrators may help as well. Certainly Ferrari has nothing to complain about in respect of both the timing and the nature of the 2006 rule changes. In particular the fact that in race tyre changes will again be permitted this year favours Ferrari and will have helped Bridgestone get their tyre package more competitive for this year.

All things are never equal in Formula one; there are too many variables at play for the overall performance of the top teams to be predictably similar. The margins between success and failure are so minute that one team’s car can be the equal of another’s in all respects except for one. This is where the “driver factor” plays a crucial part and where, in the past, Michael Schumacher has made the difference. He has won races and even championships in a car that was sometimes not (quite) the fastest or the most reliable, and he has performed better than anyone else in difficult race conditions - especially when the circuit is wet. But last year even he could not find a way to compete with Renault and their brilliant driver Alonso and it must be the Spaniard who is again the favourite this year. But never write Schumacher off. The best driver of all time was first world champion at the age of 25 in 1994 and it does seem that he still has the self belief that he can still hack it with the new much younger stars. History suggests that age need not be a barrier (Alain Prost was 38 when he won his last championship and Nigel Mansell a year older when he won his in 1992). If the Ferraris are the technical equal of the McLarens and the Renaults this year we will have that most delicious of sporting contests between a “good old ‘un” and a couple of “good young ‘uns”, a mouth-watering prospect!

Monday, January 23, 2006

Paddy's Sports View 23rd January 2006


As published in the "Bahrain Tribune


There is an established tradition that the major international sporting tournaments take place at four yearly intervals. This no doubt originally stemmed from the modern Olympic Games which (since 1908) have been celebrated every four years (except when wars have intervened). The first football World Cup was in 1930 and has also followed the four year gap principle, as has been the case for Rugby, and Cricket has also now settled into this pattern. Other international tournaments fit in with these schedules (in Football, for example, the European Championship) which means that sports fans will have at least one big tournament every year and also that the organisers of these huge sporting festivals have time to get everything in place. But there is nothing cast in stone about a quadrennial pattern for sport and it may be that for cricket it is time for a change.

This column has commented on the problems that the International Cricket Council (ICC) is currently having with Indian cricket, problems which, it is fair to say, are mostly of their own making. One of the things that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is concerned about is the ICC’s percieved need to fit in an “ICC Champions Trophy” whenever it can. This “Turkey of a tournament” (as Wisden has called it) has been beset with problems from the start and it is not surprising that the Indians want to get rid of it for good. They are right to do so.

The BCCI’ s main gripe with the ICC is that not only are they being forced to play too many meaningless matches against weak opposition but also that they are expected to commit their One Day team to largely worthless tournaments (like the Champions trophy) at the ICC’s behest. The BCCI wants more control over their own fixture list, an ambition that most of the top cricket nations will share.

On one thing, however, the ICC is right and that is that there does need to be a structure to international cricket fixtures. Not the structure that they currently have in place, for sure, but some sort of structure. For Test matches there is a need to achieve a balance between the money spinning series (such as the “Ashes” and other series in England against the top nations, the India v Pakistan matches and the Border-Gavaskar trophy) and those Test matches which do not generate huge revenues (most of the rest). And, of course, there is a need to have the big money One Day matches in some sort of arrangement which, whilst establishing a regular schedule for contest between the top nations (e.g. India v Australia), also allows the smaller nations the chance to play against the best.

The ICC’s affection for the “Champions Trophy” is because this tournament is their only significant source of revenue (which comes mainly from sponsorship) other than the Cricket World Cup (also the ICC’s property). So to continue to finance their development programmes (not least the planned cricket academy in Dubai) they need to keep the cash coming in. How can they do this and also re-establish an effective working relationship with the BCCI and other national cricket boards? Well they could start by rethinking the scheduling of the Cricket World Cup.

If the cricket world thinks out of the box for a moment then they should see that there is nothing sacrosanct about the quadrennial programme for the World Cup. Just because other sports follow this schedule that, in itself, is not a reason for cricket to do so. If the “Champions Trophy” is abolished, as surely it must be, then why not play the World Cup more frequently? Every two years would be too often and devalue the tournament, but why not schedule it to take place every three years? From the ICC’s commercial perspective this would mean that over time they would increase their revenues substantially and sponsors would be delighted that their brands are on display at a meaningful tournament more frequently. The smaller nations would welcome the chance to compete at the top level on a more regular basis. And public interest would be held because the World Cup clearly matters, whereas other more artificial tournaments matter less. It would also mean that the tournament came round to all the main cricket nations rather more frequently than at present.

Monday, January 16, 2006

Paddy's Sports View 16th January 2006


As published in the "Bahrain Tribune"



Theo Walcott is a young footballer presently playing for the English club Southampton who is seen as having extraordinary promise. Like the teenage star Wayne Rooney before him Walcott will be a multi millionaire well before he comes of age in two years time. Indeed his financial future will be secure long before he has actually achieved anything in the game as the big clubs (with Arsenal the favourite) compete with one another to sign him. The deal they offer will comprise a huge transfer fee to be paid to Southampton and a salary package for the young man which will ensure that he need never worry about money for the rest of his life (even if his football promise is not a reality when he has to perform at the highest level).

It would be churlish not to wish Theo Walcott well. But I can't help feeling that rewards should somehow be based on performance rather than potential. Remember that Henry Ford once said that you "Can't build a reputation on what you are going to do". Promise has to be fulfilled to be a reality. The same debate could be made around another British sports star the Formula one drive Jensen Button. Button is rich beyond the dreams of avarice and yet these riches have been acquired not because he has been a great driver, but because teams managers think that he might one day be one. Remember that Button, now in his sixth season in Formula one, has yet to win a Grand Prix!

Perhaps I have an over puritanical view that reward in life should be a reflection of achievement. In the world of professional golf, for example, where there certainly have been some examples of players who have got rich on promise rather than success, in the main pros have to work very hard (and be very good) to achieve the mega money being thrown at Walcott or Button. If you look at the prize money at an average PGA event you will see huge prizes for the top five or six finishers. But go down the list and you will notice that even if you make the cut in most events you are not really even guaranteed a prize that will cover your costs. Play badly in any one week and you don't earn anything. The journeymen pros on the big tours in the USA and Europe can make a decent living out of the game, but they usually need one or two top five finishes every year to prosper. The same applies in professional cricket. Play regularly in an international side and you will make good money (and if you are an icon like Tendulkar, Lara, Warne or Flintoff very good money indeed). But your average pro in the County or the State game is likely to be paid very modestly indeed - they really do often play for the love of the game, not its rewards.

It is naïve to think that in the world of today's professional sport money matters are not all pervasive. Too often the actions of sporting administrators, competitors and teams are in stark contrast with the moral principles of the sport. In recent times we have had the illegality of drug abuse, match fixing and cheating in too many case to mention. And we have also seen too often unbecoming on the field of play behaviour by multi-millionaire stars (abuse of opponents, challenges of officials). But when we charge these miscreants with bringing their sports into disrepute (which they do) should we not also be looking at the actions of those who allow conditions to be created within whom these abuses can occur? Many sports have created reward systems which involve so much money that, whilst this does not excuse inappropriate behaviour by players, it does explain it.

Rewards should be more closely linked to performance, rather than promise, and the penalties applied to those who break the rules should be more stringent than sometimes they are. And those who administer sport should behave rather better themselves! Then we might have a world in which sports and sportsmen would set a better example to young people than that set by a foul-mouthed millionaire teenage footballer, a perfomance-enhancing drug taking athlete or a cheating cricketer claiming a catch when the ball has grounded.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Paddy's Sports View 9th January 2006

As published in the "Bahrain Tribune"



I am not sure whether those clever people who study human DNA have found the sporting gene, but I am sure that it exists. It is that part of every individual’s genetic make up which determines their sporting prowess and, like most aspects of human ability, it is present to a greater or lesser extent in all of us. I have been thinking about this phenomenon recently in relation to the game of golf (and my continued pathetic attempts to reach even a respectable level of proficiency). I have come to the conclusion that it is all very unfair because those lucky people who have the gene can apply it to almost any sport. So good cricketers and tennis players are almost always good golfers and so (rather less logically) are good footballers. And those of us of more modest sporting abilities are modest at every sport we try - if only (we think) we good be good at just one sport that would be fine! But whether it is golf club, cricket bat, tennis racquet of football we can’t really hack with any of them!





Will, an old school friend of mine, has the sporting gene in abundance – he was effortlessly good at every sport he tried. I saw him again after a gap of many years quite recently at a corporate golf day. Now Will has always been a bit of an eccentric with what, I think, we now politely refer to as an “alternative lifestyle”. He is rather good at not conforming and it is always amusing to see what his latest minor rebellion against convention will be. At the golf day, held at rather a snooty Home Counties golf club, Will arrived in the car park astride a large and very noisy Harley-Davidson! Now the quick thinking amongst you will notice a potential problem with this mode of transport – it is not ideal for carrying your golf clubs! Whilst the remainder of us were unloading our clubs, trolleys and other equipment from the boots of our saloon cars we noticed that Will had a rather dirty canvas bag slung over his shoulders on the bike. On closer inspection the bag contained a putter, a wooden driver of uncertain vintage, a wedge and a couple of other ancient irons with hickory shafts. They were all about fifty years old, or more.


On the first tee three of us took a few practice swings with our state of the art Callaways, Taylors and Pings before hitting drives of varying degrees of ordinariness down the fairway (or in my case into the rough). Will then took his ancient driver from his grubby little bag and hit a drive of unerring accuracy two hundred and seventy yards down the fairway which he then followed with an exquisite wedge shot hit high into a bright blue sky from which it descended 6 feet away from the hole for a birdie.

The moral of this tale, of course, is that in golf talent will always out and the equipment doesn’t really matter that much if you have talent in abundance. This fact doesn’t stop even the top professionals from trying new equipment which might give them an extra yard or two or help them cope better with a touch of jitters on the green. But most pros could regularly break par with a bag of clubs like my friend Will’s and with an old rubber-core ball. This brings me to the subject of golf ball technology and the detrimental effect that advances are having on the professional game.

In 1980 the leading driver on the PGA tour hit the ball an average of 274 yards. In 2005 the top driver averaged 319 yards with money leader Tiger Woods in second place with 316 yards. The golf ball is, of course, only one of the factors in this increase but it is increasingly becoming one of the most important. Manufacturers now have a far greater understanding of golf-ball aerodynamics than in the past and they are able to use this knowledge, combined with new materials and manufacturing methods, to make balls which go further and further. Good news for the good amateur perhaps (although for the hacker like me it could mean only that my ball goes further into the rough). But is this really desirable in professional golf where golf courses regularly have to be lengthened to cope with these changes?

Monday, January 02, 2006

Paddy's Sports View 2nd January 2006


As published in "The Bahrain Tribune"

I am unlikely to be an apologist for, or a natural supporter of, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) described in the 2005 Wisden as one of the “worst [cricket] administrators in the world”. But with the departure of Jagmohan Dalmiya and the accession to power of Sharad Pawar and Lalit Modi it does seem that the Indian cricket scene is changing very rapidly. One of the consequences of this is that the International Cricket Council (ICC) will be in for a hard time as the BCCI flexes its muscles and challenges their authority. This can only be a good thing.

The substantive issue which has raised the temperature between the BCCI and the ICC is the international fixture list; the BCCI wants greater control of when and where the Indian team plays. They want fewer meaningless fixtures against the minnows of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and more lucrative matches against the top cricket nations. Bilateral talks have already taken place with Cricket Australia and are planned with the English Cricket Board and others.

To understand the underlying factors behind these developments we need to comprehend why the ICC is worried, it is all about power and money! Although superficially the ICC is all powerful in world cricket in reality this power is built on very shaky foundations. In essence the ICC owns the Cricket World Cup, but very little else. Virtually all of the ICC’s income is generated from sponsorship of the World Cup which is why they keep such a tight control of this tournament and its exploitation. It is also why the ICC promotes other events to try and augment the income stream from the World Cup. These events have been unmitigated failures. The ICC Champions Trophy was described by Wisden as a “Turkey of a tournament” and as one of the “Great Sporting Fiascos of our time”. Similarly the ICC’s other event, the so-called “Super Series” involving Australia and a Rest of the World team, was a disaster with poor crowds and lousy one-sided cricket.

The ICC’s other big idea is their “Test Championship” and “One Day Championship” tables. These tables purport to show the rankings of all the international teams in Test matches and One Day cricket, but it is only the ICC who sees these tables as anything other than mildly interesting. When England played Australia last summer they were not playing to improve their positions in the ICC’s table, they were playing for the Ashes. Similarly when India plays Pakistan later this month it will not be the effect of the results on their position in the championship tables that will be uppermost in the teams minds! Any table of this sort is going to be arbitrary - change the rules and you change the positions. The tables are not valueless, but they are a consequence of results not the driver of them. The ICC’s affection for its tables is partly because they seek to make sponsorship money from them and partly because it allows them to try and dictate fixture schedules. And this is the nub of the problem between the ICC and the Indian Board.

The BCCI in its new guise has realised just how powerful a product Indian cricket is. Lalit Modi has called it the “number one sports brand in the world” and the “number one sponsored team across all sports”. Given this they want control over when and where India plays and they don’t want the ICC interfering by trying to make them play meaningless fixtures against weaker teams at inconvenient times and with low income generation potential. There are risks inherent in what the BCCI is trying to do, not least the danger of lower interest Test cricket being pushed aside to allow more and more One Day Internationals to be played, but the BCCI has a strong case. Last year India played 21 ODIs but of these a ludicrous 10 were against Sri Lanka and a further 5 were against Zimbabwe and New Zealand in the meaningless Triangular series in Zimbabwe. Not one ODI was played against Australia, Pakistan or England over the whole year. Indeed India has not played World Champions Australia in an ODI for nearly two years (apart from one rained-off exhibition match in Holland). This is clearly absurd and something that the BCCI is determined to put right and if they take on and beat the ICC on this issue quite a few of us will cheer!

Monday, December 26, 2005

Paddy's Sports View 26th December 2005


As published in the "Bahrain Tribune"


It was the American genius and iconoclast R. Buckminster Fuller who said “Those who play with the devil's toys will be brought by degrees to wield his sword” and whilst it was not Formula one that was in his sights when he said it, it might well have been. The growth of modern F1 has been built on the devils toy of tobacco sponsorship and there were few more vocal defenders of the rights of the tobacco giants to promote their brands than the leaders of the sport. It is no exaggeration to say that the commercial basis of Formula one, and the billionaire wealth of its presiding spirit Bernie Ecclestone, has been mostly built on the willingness of tobacco company sponsors to allocate almost unlimited funds to the sport. But this is changing as legislation gradually takes its grip and this is one of the reasons (but not the only one) that the future of the sport is so uncertain.

When the Formula one circus begins its long 2006 trek in Bahrain in March all the participants will know that the future of the sport is cloudy, to say the least. Federation Internationale Automobile (FIA) President Max Mosley has recently bemoaned the fact that it is extremely difficult to reach any agreement with all the Team owners as to the future of the sport once current arrangements expire at the end of the 2007 season. The difficulties are directly attributable to the disappearance of tobacco company sponsors and the opportunity that this has given to the motor manufacturers to tighten their grip on the sport. When the tobacco giants ruled the roost their business case was predicated on the fact that other brand promotion outlets were being increasingly closed to them. Nobody, not even the motor manufacturers, could compete with that sort of money. Ten years ago, for example, all of the main teams in the world championship (Williams, McLaren, Jordan, Ferrari, and Benetton) were backed by tobacco dollars. The involvement of car companies was only as the supplier of engines, not as prime sponsor. In the 2006 season five of teams are in business overtly to promote a motor manufacturers brand (Mercedes, BMW, Renault, Honda and Toyota) and the independents are in decline. From ten years ago only McLaren and Williams remain, and it is clear that the former is more and more a works Mercedes team. Ferrari, as ever, remains a special case!

In many ways you might think that the increasing involvement of motor manufacturers in F1 has to be good for the sport, after all those with very long memories will go back to the days when most of the teams were car companies, albeit rather special ones (Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Maserati, Mercedes, Lancia…). The difference is that today the sport is so international and so visible that it is primarily a vehicle (no pun indented) for the big car companies to promote their brands. And the funds that they allocate to this almost defy belief. Some of the constructors have budgets in excess of $400 million for 2006 and this is the sort of money that is not sustainable in the longer term and which is a huge barrier to entry to new teams. Whilst the new “Midland” team may also have plenty of money from its Russian owners they, and the other remaining independents (Williams, Red Bull and 'Super Aguri') have little chance of securing many points in 2006.

The FIA is struggling to sign up teams to their preliminary proposals for a new agreement to take effect from the 2008 season largely because the motor manufacturer teams won’t play ball and continue to threaten to set up their own championship. Recent events have shown that the propensity of these car company teams to throw money after success has not declined. Fernando Alonso did not leave Renault for any other reason than that he was, quite literally, made a financial offer that he could not refuse (and who could blame him?).

The position of Ferrari amongst all these power struggles is interesting. They are signatories to the FIA’s proposals, and this suggests that they are not really willing to continue to provide unlimited funding. In recent years Ferrari has been the best financed F1 team, but their owners (Fiat) get no brand value from Ferrari’s presence and the economics of allocating F1 costs to their luxury Ferrari car brand don’t stack up. Like the independents it is in Ferrari’s interest to have a rather leaner F1 model in the future.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Sports review of the year 2005

As published in the "Bahrain Tribune"


We sometimes forget that every sportsman or woman who earns a living as a professional is quite exceptionally good at their sport. Even the humblest of journeymen pros on the PGA tour, or the man who “just” plays cricket for his county or state, or the footballer in the lower divisions of a league is hugely talented by the standards of ordinary mortals. Watching Arsenal versus Chelsea last weekend it was no surprise that every player on the park could trap the ball with ease and pass the ball thirty or forty metres with precision – that’s the bare minimum of what they have to be able to do to be a paid footballer! But to take them into the super star category (and every player at Highbury was certainly in that league) they have to have much more than the “basic” skills. So as I look back through 2005 and review the five sporting stars who shone most brightly during the year it is always those with that something extra which stand out.

Valentino Rossi
In 2005, at the age of 26, Valentino Rossi became the MotoGP World Champion for the sixth successive year proving beyond doubt that he is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, rider of a motorcycle that the world has ever seen. Rossi does things that other riders just don’t do. He uses his brakes in situations where if other riders did the same they would fall off their machines. He shifts his balance on his Yamaha quite differently from other riders to coax that tiny bit of extra grip or speed that makes the difference. Indeed he and his motorcycle are one unit at all times and this relationship owes more to the Arts than it does to Science. You could not do a scientific model of Rossi’s skills because they transcend the mundane input/output mechanics that science requires. Rossi is Mozart, not Newton.

Fernando Alonso
When Fernando Alonso won a Grand Prix for the first time in 2003 he was only just 22 years old, an almost Valentino Rossi like precocity. And like Rossi it was soon clear that Alonso was a driver with that extra quality that was likely to place him amongst that small number of Formula one greats. But for Alonso to succeed ahead of Schumacher, or Raikkonen or Montoya in 2005 he had to have a reliable and quick vehicle on which to perform. When Renault delivered such a car there was, literally, no holding the young Spaniard back. Alonso was on the podium for an astonishing fifteen of this year’s nineteen Grands Prix and he won seven of them. We will have an opportunity to see the extent to which Alonso, like Rossi, has the innate ability to succeed whatever the team when he moves to McLaren in the 2007 Formula one season. The news that Alonso is deserting Renault, who gave him his championship opportunity, is surprising and it will also place Alonso under pressure during the 2006 season. If he retains his world championship despite the understandable coldness that might be present in the Renault garage it will be an even greater achievement than his 2005 win.

Andrew Flintoff
When Andrew Flintoff first burst on the cricket scene at international level in 1998 it was obvious that here was an all round cricketer of exceptional natural talent. But it took quite a time for him to break through and many of his early England appearances were characterised by short cameo innings and the occasional wicket taking delivery, but not by any consistency or sign that he had a real cricket brain. He also found it difficult to keep fit and injury free and (as the Australians called it) “tubbed up like a pot of lard”. But over the last couple of years “Freddie”, under Duncan Fletcher’s guidance and Michael Vaughan’s leadership has become the outstanding all-rounder in world cricket. 2005 was his Annus Mirabilis and it is no hyperbole to say that without him England would not have regained the Ashes. For all his fame and sudden fortune Flintoff is a man who is more than just a sporting star and the dominant image of the year has to be his consoling of Brett Lee at Edgbaston when England had just snatched a remarkable victory from the Aussies grasp.

Annika Sorenstam
Sorenstam had an almost Rossi like run of success in 2005 winning an astonishing eleven of the twenty-one tournaments she entered in 2005, including two majors. This was twice the win percentage of Tiger Woods in the same year (and the Tiger had one of his best ever years!). Any golfer will know that tournament victories at any level are rare and even the very best golfers would be happy with (say) two in any one season. To win eleven in the increasingly competitive world of Women’s golf is extraordinary. This success puts into context young Michelle Wie about whom much of the golfing hype has been this year. Wie is good, but has yet to really compete for victory in any tournament and she would perhaps be well advised to look at the remarkable Sorenstam for inspiration.

Daniel Carter

The New Zealand rugby fly half shares with my other players of the year that unique ability to do things that others cannot do, however hard they try. Like Rossi caressing his motorcycle Carter moves with a grace and a power that leaves others standing forlornly in his wake. Whereas other formidable All Blacks like Jonah Lomu or Tana Umaga have relied substantially on their bulk to slice open defences Carter moves his 97 kilos with the elegance of a ballroom dancer. He plays in a fine team, which helps of course, but Carter was the inspiring force which made the All Blacks unstoppable throughout the year and which also made them my sports “Team of the Year”.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Paddy's Sports View 12th December 2005


As published in the "Bahrain Tribune"

A few years ago I was lucky enough to be at a charity golf event where the two main participants were Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player. They both signed a golf cap for me which I proudly wear in the forlorn hope that some of their magic will rub off on me (it hasn’t, of course!). On those occasions when you do rub shoulders with the sporting greats (overused word, but not for these two) you get a chance to try and spot what it is that makes them different and with Nicklaus, in particular, what struck me was his powers of concentration. The event itself didn’t matter that much, but when he was at play Jack never for one moment let his concentration wander – he was focused all the time. Match that with a sublime talent to strike the ball cleanly and an absolute determination to win and you have the recipe for success.

When Jack Nicklaus walked down the 18th hole at St Andrews for the last time this year at the Open Championship there was genuine warmth in the farewell he received from everyone there. It was 35 years since his first Open win at this historic course when, at the age of 30, he was perhaps at his peak and, whilst he may walk a little more stiffly these days, and he is not the “Golden Bear” of old, he can still play a bit. If that was the nostalgic moment to savour from the 2005 golf year the main golfing story was the “comeback” of Tiger Woods. For the Tiger all things are relative and I suppose that by his imperious standards 2005 has to be seen as a return to form after a couple of lean years. He dominated the PGA tour (six victories, including major wins at the Masters Tournament and The Open Championship) and seemed back to his very best. Woods has now won 10 majors which puts him third in the all time list behind Nicklaus (18) and Hagan (11). The other Major winners this year (Mickelson at the PGA and Michael Campbell at the US Open) are also world class (unlike one of two of the “One Win wonders” of recent years). Campbell followed his first big win for a while with another at the World Match Play later in the year - a welcome and deserved return to form for this most talented of players. Expect more from the young New Zealander in 2006.

For Ernie Els the year was blighted by a knee injury that he picked up in July and he was out of competitive golf for much of the season. But once Ernie was fit again it didn’t take him too long to get back into winning ways and his win in the Dunhill in South Africa last week shows that he is swinging well again. It was the year for comebacks, and Colin Montgomerie was another who got back to form in style. If Jack Nicklaus is a master of concentration then Monty is the master of intensity. He has a face which always betrays his feelings and his thoughts and can there ever have been a more intense character at the top of professional golf? His successes this year (which led to a win in the European order of merit for the eighth time) have carried him into the world’s top ten at the age of 42, a remarkable achievement. Wearing your heart on your sleeve, as Montgomerie always has, does not always make you popular but there is no doubt that if Monty could somehow win that elusive first Major victory in 2006 it would be a very popular win indeed both amongst his fans and amongst his fellow professionals.

There was a symbolism about St Andrews this year with Jack Nicklaus playing his last tournament and Tiger Woods in unbeatable from. The mantle of champion had perhaps already been passed from Jack’s tight grasp but this year we began to see the title of the “Greatest” being passed as well. Woods elegantly referred to Nicklaus as the “Greatest” after the tournament, but it is now quite clear that the Tiger himself is not far behind. In 2006 we can expect that Woods, Els, Mickelson, Singh and (I think) Campbell will lead they money list and I hope to see these Major winners joined, if not by Montgomerie, then by young turks like Luke Donald or Sergio Garcia. The golfing year ahead looks full of promise.

Monday, December 05, 2005

Paddy's Sports View 5th December 2005


As published in the "Bahrain Tribune"



At the end of the third day in the first Test match between Pakistan and England at Multan the home side had clawed their way back into a match that seemed to be slipping away from them. Although at 125-2 in their second innings they still trailed England by 19 runs there was hope that they could bat well on the third day and perhaps get into a position to cause England some trouble in their second innings on a crumbling pitch. When the night watchman was out early the next morning the stage was set for Pakistan’s captain Inzamam-ul-Haq and he did not let his team down. He supported Salman Butt in a stand of 135, scoring 72 priceless runs off 172 balls. It was a Captain’s innings, and it set up an unlikely win for Pakistan. And Inzy continued to lead by example in the next two Tests to help Pakistan deservedly win the series.

When fine batsman become Captain in can sometimes affect the quality of their batting. Michael Vaughan is a case in point. In the 31 Test matches he played for England before he became Captain he averaged 51. In the 33 Test matches he has played as Captain he averages 36. Vaughan is a very good captain indeed, but his batting has suffered. Inzamam is the reverse. In the 88 Test he played before he became Captain he averaged just under 50. In the 16 matches he has played since being made Captain permanently in October 2003 he averages 63. He clearly relishes the challenge and, more surprisingly, has not let the cares of leadership trouble him at the crease.

Shortly before Inzy became Captain I wrote “Can there be a more enigmatic, brilliant, troubled player in any sport than the extraordinary Pakistani batsman Inzamam-ul-Haq? To paraphrase Lowell “three-fifths of him is genius and two-fifths sheer clown” and when you go to watch him play you are never sure whether it will be clown or genius that you will see”. Inzy’s performances in the 2003 Cricket World Cup (scores of 6; 4; 0; 0; 6 and 3) had been so dire that he was left out of Pakistan’s team for the England tour and one wondered whether he would ever play International cricket again. But the Pakistan selectors brought him back and soon made him Captain – it was an inspired move which took a while to blossom, but is now paying dividends.

Inzy has now Captained Pakistan to five wins and one draw in his last six Tests as Captain. Pakistan’s only recent Test defeat was against the West Indies in May when Younis Khan led the side when Inzy was injured. From the reaction of the players throughout the England series it is clear that they all revere their Captain and will do all they can to work hard for him. Even the mercurial Shoaib Akhtar and the “show pony” Shahid Afridi perform well under Inzy’s command. Even more importantly the young players who are new to the side like Salman Butt and Kamran Akmal have really progressed and look fixtures in the side.

That quite late in his career Inzamam has proved to be a skilled leader is a surprise, but that he has established himself as one of Pakistan’s all time great batsmen is not. He is more than just an “anchor man” (although he certainly can hold an innings together and he bats well with the tail). Inzy has the ability to change his style and approach in keeping with the circumstances and now that he is Captain you suspect that he takes this responsibility particular seriously. The ultimate test lies ahead when India visits Pakistan in January. There is always unpredictability about Pakistani cricket which makes fools of forecasters. That used to be the case with Inzamam-ul-Haq as well - which Inzy would come out to play? But the mature Inzamam, as proud Captain of his national side with a series win against Australia’s recent conquerors under his belt, is a different prospect. The Test series versus India will make compelling viewing, and with India in some disarray at the moment Pakistan are favourites. A convincing home series win against India might even put the recent celebrations after beating England in the shade!

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Old Trafford Ashes Test match

As published in "The Emirates Evening Post"

Old Trafford Ashes Test
By
Paddy Briggs


Day One

After the frantic pace of the First Test at Lord’s, and the unequalled excitement of the Second Test at Edgbaston, we were back to something like normal Test cricket at Old Trafford yesterday. Modern Test cricket, that is – not the sort of grinding stuff that we used to see. There was an Ashes Test on the same ground 41 years ago when Australia scored 253-2 on the first day, and that was pretty swift for those times. Today’s Test cricket is played at a far faster pace and although England’s 341 off 89 overs at 3.83 an over was slower than we have been accustomed to in this series, it was still entertaining stuff.

The Old Trafford wicket looked firm and true, with a bit of bounce, and it was a good toss for Michael Vaughan to win. That Glenn McGrath was fit to play was a surprise, and it seemed to be a justified risk for Australia to play him as he was soon in the groove. Indeed he was extremely unlucky to finish the day wicketless with Trescothick being dropped by Gilchrist and later beating and clean bowling Vaughan, but off a no ball. Brett Lee, who spent two nights in hospital with his knee infection, was also declared fit and with 3-58 was the pick of the Aussie attack. Gillespie had another woeful day and conceded 89 runs in his 15 overs, and Shane Warne (for once) toiled a little on a pitch which offered him little assistance. Warne’s delight when he became the first bowler to take 600 Test wickets when he got Trescothick caught behind was justified and it was also good to see the knowledgeable and generous Old Trafford crowd give him a standing ovation.

If England could have selected two prizes to take from the day at the start it would have been the return to form of Vaughan and the coming of age of Bell. Both happened and, most importantly, Vaughan played as well as he did when he scored 633 runs at an average of 63.3 during the 2002-03 Ashes series. Vaughan’s overall record against the Australians is rather weird. He has been dismissed eleven times for 160 runs (average 14.5 top score 41), but in his other four innings he has scored 177; 145; 183 and now 166. He certainly looked back to his best yesterday and he will be disappointed to have mishooked a full toss from the part time bowler Katich down Glenn McGrath’s throat - a tame dismissal. Kevin Pietersen also mishooked and was caught in the same way near the close of play and he may need to limit his shot making a bit in such circumstances in future. Bell, on the other hand, was circumspect through most of the day, although a couple of lusty boundaries off Warne showed his attacking ability. He played the sort of innings that England have missed since Thorpe left the side - 59 runs off 146 balls – and he, unlike Pietersen, he will start again tomorrow.

If England can add another hundred or so tomorrow and reach a total of 450 plus then they can put Australia under pressure. But with the weather (as always at Manchester) a little uncertain, and the pitch still playing well, the outcome of this Test match might just be that rare thing a draw – but there is a long way to go.



Day Two

The true test of greatness of any player or team is not seen when they keep on winning and carry all before them on a roll, when they are in adversity. We saw how the Australians did this at Edgbaston and so nearly pulled off a sensational victory, so anyone who is ruling them out of the Old Trafford Test would be well advised to keep quiet for a day or two! But the looks on the faces of the Aussie team (shown towards the end of the day’s play on the big screen at the ground) showed how unfamiliar the “backs to the wall” situation that they now find themselves in is to most of them. At 210-7 Australia are 234 runs behind England and 35 runs short of avoiding the possibility of a follow-on.

In the run up to this Test we had the saga of Lee’s knee infection and McGrath’s recovery from his ankle problem and whilst both bowled heroically they could have done with support from Jason Gillespie in England’s innings, support which was sadly absent. A three pronged pace attack comprising two recently injured players and one dolefully out of form was hit for 300 of England’s 444. Contrast this with the performance of England’s four pronged attack all of whom were fit and raring to go. Surely the form of at least two of the four would be good and so it proved with Flintoff (as ever) - and Simon Jones sharing four of the seven Aussie wickets that fell. Significantly it was Ashley Giles who took the other three and it looks as if the pitch suits him nicely! He has 3-66 in 21 overs so far and, for once in his life, his performance can be spoken of in the same breath as that of Shane Warne (4-99 in 33.2 overs). Giles’s ball which bowled Damien Martyn was one that even the great man would have been proud of.

For Michael Vaughan the fact that he has four quality pace bowlers in his side will be a crucial factor if he does have the opportunity to force the follow on. Certainly his attack will be fresh in the morning and with the weather still a bit iffy he may ask Australia to bat again if he gets the chance. If this happens it will be Australia’s first follow-on for an amazing 17 years! If not, I don’t think that Vaughan will be too unhappy because a lead of around 200 should be sufficient to provide England with a platform from which to set Australia a very tough total to get in the fourth innings on a crumbling pitch and with Giles bowling well.

But cricket’s history is illuminated by improbable recoveries from dire circumstances (Headingley 1981 and Calcutta 2001 for example). So I’m making no predictions!

Day Three

Only 14 overs were possible at a very damp Old Trafford, but they could prove to be the most important overs of this match. Australia added fifty runs without losing a wicket, and they saved the follow on. A missed stumping and a dropped catch by Geraint Jones (both from Warne) have cost England dearly. With the confident Warne still at the crease, and in sight of his first Test century, the Aussies could significantly close the gap with England’s first innings on Sunday morning. If they can narrow the gap to what it was at Edgbaston (99 runs), which would mean a total of 345, there would be some real nerves when England come out to bat again. Can Warne and the numbers 9, 10 and 11 again add another 80 runs or so? Don’t bet against it.

Those who know Shane Warne well always attest to the brilliance of his cricketing brain. That he would be on the team sheet of the “All-time-great XI” for his unique bowling talent goes without saying. But his batting and his all round feel for the game, combined with his ebullient self-confidence, make him a more than valuable team member in other respects as well. Had his private life been a little more conventional he would probably have been Australia’s captain after Steve Waugh, but then a “conventional Warne” is not really very likely. Few would begrudge him a hundred tomorrow, providing, that is, that England can still get a lead of at least 150!

If we have two full days (the weather forecast suggests that we might) there is still time for a result in this match. England will be desperate to avoid the nail biter of Edgbaston so will be looking to set Australia at least 350 in their second innings and also leave themselves enough time to bowl them out a second time. Early wickets tomorrow, a lead of 150 and then two good session scoring around 200 runs could set England up to make inroads before the close. But Australia will be unlikely to accommodate them in this ambition and we can expect a further sting from the tail with Warne relishing the possibility of being the fourth cricketer in history to score a hundred and take ten wickets in a match (the others were Alan Davidson; Ian Botham and Imran Khan).

Day Four

One of the reasons that Test matches presents the ultimate cricket challenge is the need for Captains constantly to be reassessing their options throughout the match, especially in the field. In a one day match you pretty much know who you will bowl and when and what your field placings will be. There is some room for innovation and for conjuring up the odd surprise, but not much. In Test cricket there are few restrictions on the Captain and within the Laws of the game he can pretty much bowl who he like and when he like and place his fielders where he likes. This adds greatly to the interest that the game creates and, in modern times certainly, creates an absorbing spectacle when the two sies are evenly matched.

In the Old Trafford Ashes Test, which enters its final day tomorrow, I would award most of the captaincy prizes to Michael Vaughan who has not only led from the front with his wonderful batting in the England first innings but also showed an originality both in his filed placings and in his handling of his bowling attack that has set him ahead of Australia’s Ricky Ponting. There is also the small matter of leadership and here Vaughan also has the edge. Obviously it does help if you are playing well, as England have throughout this match, but when the heads fall it is up to the captain to try and get them up again, and Ponting is struggling to do this. When Steve Waugh led Australia there was not the slightest doubt who was in charge on and off the field. Ponting is a little less authoritative and not quite as driven as Waugh (who is?) and this has perhaps frustrated some of the old pros in the Australian team. And, Clarke and Katich apart, they are all old pros in the Australian team! So although the tabloid stories of a rift between Ponting and Shane Warne are probably greatly exaggerated there is a sense that all is not quite what it might be in the Australian camp. This shows itself on the field with sloppy fielding and at times wayward bowling, and it has shown up as well in the Aussie batting where the main contribution in recent innings has come from Warne and the tail rather than from the front line batsmen.

If Australia is to force a draw( or an improbable win) at Old Trafford tomorrow then it must come from the top line batsmen who have in the main underperformed in the Ashes series to date. It is worth reminding ourselves that five of Australia’s top six in the order in the first innings of this match (Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn and Gilchrist) are in the top 17 in the ICC world Test rankings – but these players scored only 122 runs between them. It was only Shane Warne’s marvellous 90 and the back up he received from Gillespie that gave Australia a half respectable total of 301.England built on the lead of 142 with some skilful batting in their second innings - to score 280 runs at 4.5 an over was an excellent effort, with Andrew Strauss scoring a century and showing, for the first time in this series, the form that has given him such a great start in Test cricket.

Some in the Australian camp will feel that if they could be (say) 130-1 at lunch and then (say) 260-2 at tea then they could push on to a world record setting victory in what will be a long final session tomorrow. On the other hand there will be those who will think that a more realistic ambition is to bat through the day and go to Trent Bridge all square. The England camp will all believe that if they continue to play with the intensity and confidence that they have shown throughout this match then England can certainly force a win. The improbable headline in one of the Saturday papers here in Manchester was “Giles leaves Australia in tatters” (following his first innings haul of the wickets of Langer, Hayden and Martyn). Such a headline would have seemed inconceivable a few weeks ago but if it was repeated in a day’s time it would not really be a surprise - the Old Trafford pitch may give him help and he is (crucially) full of confidence.

Day Five

It was Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American and therefore unlikely to be a cricket enthusiast, who said “A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is braver five minutes longer.” And that was, really, the story of the final day’s play in the epic Old Trafford Ashes Test match. The hero was the Australian captain, Ricky Ponting, who played one of the very greatest rearguard innings in Test history to hold England at bay and to create the possibility of a draw with honour. It was not that Ponting survived; but that he did it with style and that he endured until almost the end of the Final Act of the drama. The statistics of the innings, whilst impressive, are almost trivial because this was an innings not measured by the cold banality of the scorer’s pen, but in the character of the man who achieved so much. The figure tell of an innings which lasted 275 balls, which was 42% of all the balls that England bowled; they tell of an innings of 156 runs, which was 42% of the runs that Australia scored and they tell of an innings that lasted over seven hours on a day of nearly eight hours of extraordinary tension. But the character, for this observer at least, came not just from the fact that Ponting’s effort was ultimately successful but from events an hour or so before the close.

Ponting and Warne had put on about 65 runs and at 325-7 around about the 90th over they were beginning to run urgently between the wickets. A quick calculation showed that with 108 overs to be bowled in the day, and with 423 runs needed to win, a scoring rate of a little over 5 an over could bring them victory. Suddenly the commentators who had written off Australia’s chances throughout the day were beginning to muse that perhaps Ponting and Warne thought that a win was possible. The England fielders picked up the vibes as well and what had seemed destined to be a match with only two possible results turned into one where the chasing of a record target became a real possibility. That Warne’s dismissal when the score had reached 340 put a stop to that adventure was, for the neutrals at least, a shame - but there was no doubt that for a few sparkling moments the impossible seemed possible.

When Ponting himself was finally dismissed with five overs to go it seemed that England would force a win. But Lee played skillfully and England was allowed to direct only nine of the remaining thirty balls at McGrath. He survived them, and with his survival Australia held on to a remarkable draw.

Many years ago I took an American friend to Lord’s and tried to explain to him the intricacies of the noble game. Some of it he picked up quite quickly, but there was one statistic that he couldn’t cope with. “Let me get this right,” he said “You can play this game for five whole days and at the end it can be a tie?” Without illuminating him too pompously that “ties” in cricket were rare but that “draws” were common I said something like “Oh yes, cricket mirrors life – you might not always be able to win, but you fight like hell not to let the other chap win either.” Australia and England fought like hell for five days at Old Trafford, no quarter given or asked. As at Edgbaston the ultimate margin between the two sides was thinner than the varnish on a stump. It was a game which England could, and perhaps should have won. But when the handshakes took place between the two sides although England were deflated, as Australia had been only a week earlier, there was pride amongst all who had taken part that they had given the public another great sporting spectacle. And for “man of the match” Ponting, who handled with dignity last weeks loss and with pride this weeks fight back, there will be the satisfaction that the doubters must now salute him as an authentic Australian hero.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Paddy's Sports View 9th August 2005


From: "The Emirates Evening Post"


There is an old joke, dating from the 1980s when a stock market and property boom in Japan created hundreds of new multi-millionaires. One of these wanted to buy his son a present for his coming-of-age and asked his son what he would like. His son said that he would like a really good set of golf clubs - so the millionaire bought him Wentworth, Sunningdale and Turnberry! For the Mega rich to become involved in sport is, of course, not a joke these days but a reality. It has always been the case that wealthy Americans have indulged their sports passions by buying Football, Hockey or Baseball teams. These were rarely, if ever, hard nosed business decisions but nearly always indulgences that were driven not by economics but by emotion. Whilst there is plenty of money in these sports most of it goes to players and their agents rather than to the entrepreneurs who hold the team's stocks. But in recent times there has been, in some cases, a more commercial driver behind some businessmen's involvement in sport - and this is certainly the case with the Glazer family's take-over of Manchester United.

The creation of the "Premier league" in English football just over a decade ago meant that all of the top clubs had to be more commercial and far better funded than before. Some of this funding came from TV rights revenues and from hugely increased sponsorship and sports goods marketing. But if a club was to succeed it had also to seek more conventional sources of a funds - usually from a stock market flotation. Manchester United were the classic model; their flotation as a limited liability company allied with the powerful exploitation of their brand, allowed them to mine a rich vein of revenues. This money in turn gave United the edge in the transfer market and they were able to make many star signings and this was one of the main contributing factors in their success. However the very fact that they were no longer a private club, but now a stock exchange traded business, left them vulnerable to take-over. The American Malcolm Glazer, although initially rebuffed by the United board, persevered and eventually took full control of the club this year.

Whilst the Glazer approach would appear to be mainly commercially driven (certainly the Glazers don't seem to know much about "soccer") the story of Chelsea and Roman Ambramovitch is rather different. Where Glazer, although a rich man, has not put much of his own money into Manchester United (he has borrowed heavily to fund the deal) Ambramovitch's purchase of Chelsea is a purely personal one. This man, who is rich almost beyond comprehension from his Russian oil industry fortune, has bought Chelsea as a plaything. He shows few signs of wanting his investment to produce a return and is equally happy to put more money up for even more new star players if his manager tells him it is necessary. This gave Chelsea the 2004/2005 Premiership title.

The Glazer take-over of Manchester United has been roundly criticised by many of the club's fans who see the fine traditions of the club being put at risk by this American carpetbagger. At Chelsea, however, the reverse is the case and most fans are quite happy that their club is now Russian owned and relish in its new nickname "Chelski"! I have a funny feeling, however, that in the end it may be the fans of Manchester United rather than those of Chelsea who are ultimately the happier. For Ambramovitch Chelsea is a plaything - an amusing diversion from his mainstream imperative of staying rich and becoming richer. For the Glazers, however, Manchester United is a business and they will expect it to perfom. In the short term this will be uncomfortable for some of the fans as ticket prices and other costs of being a supporter are bound to increase. But to establish a sound cash-generating business at Old Trafford should ensure that the team continues to compete at the very top in Europe for the long term. Chelsea's over reliance on Ambramovitz may, on the contrary, end in tears. He may bore of his toy or, more likely, start to expect it to give the same level of return that he gets from his other businesses. At the moment, as a fan, I think I'd be happier red than blue!

Monday, August 08, 2005

Edgbaston Ashes Test Match

As published in "The Emirates Evening Post"
The second Ashes Test match - Edgbaston 4th - 7th August 2005

Preview

The last time that England played Australia in a Test match at Edgbaston in 2001 England made a decent start on the first morning of the match (despite having been put in) and were 106-1 just before lunch. Steve Waugh threw the ball to Shane Warne who, with his second ball, had Mark Butcher caught by a diving Ricky Ponting. England's innings then fell apart. Roll forward four years to Lord's 2005 when England again made a solid start in their second innings (80-0) before Warne came into the attack and immediately got rid of Trescothick - the rest of the innings then fell away to Warne, McGrath and Lee.

In looking at the prospects for the second Test which begins tomorrow it is clear that once again the key to the outcome will be how the England top and middle order copes with McGrath, Warne and Lee. Having said that, even if the England batsmen do find a way of dealing with these three fine bowlers, it would be no surprise if it were Gillespie (or Kasprowicz) who came to the aid of the Australians' party. It is in the nature of the Aussies to work as a team and very often the less heralded players are the ones who chip in if one or more of the stars has an off day. It was, for example, Clarke and Katich who set up the Australians' win at Lord's with their 155 partnership in the second innings which came at a time when England threatened to get back in the match.

England's move up to second place in the world Test rankings has also been based on teamwork and leadership. In the West Indies eighteen months ago the key to success (apart from Steve Harmison) was the solid middle order of Butcher, Hussain and Thorpe. If one of the openers was out early, and if further wickets fell, one or more of these experienced batsmen would help rebuild the innings. With all three now gone England really struggle to recover from early setbacks. At Lord's three of the middle order (Vaughan, Bell and Flintoff) scored a total of 24 runs between them in the two innings. It is this frailty which has led the selectors to call up Paul Collingwood for the Edgbaston Test, and it is likely that he will play ahead of Ashley Giles. Collingwood is a talented and gutsy cricketer, but it is asking a lot of him to perform a rescue act if once again England get into trouble.

The Australians are not unbeatable and England, with the inspirational Pietersen in the side, have the ability to put them under pressure and force a win. But for this to happen England need to play at 110% and luck needs to run their way. For the good of the remainder of the Ashes series let's hope this happens!

Day One

Psychologists tell us that there are two conventional human responses to threat or fear - the first is to flee (to hide until the threat has gone away) the second is to fight. At Edgbaston yesterday the testosterone count in the England dressing room must have broken all records as the England team responded to the disappointment of Lord's by fighting like caged animals suddenly set free. It was an exhilarating and quite extraordinary day's cricket which saw 407 runs scored in 79.2 overs - a scoring rate of more than 5 per over. To put the score in perspective if it had been a One Day match England, at this rate, would have scored 257 runs - a potentially match winning total. That England were all out in the same 79.2 overs might beg the question as to whether a slightly more measured approach could have given England a more impregnable position - but what the heck, to have the famed Aussie attack on the back foot most of the day, having lost the toss and been asked to bat, is something that most of us at Edgbaston would have settled for at the beginning of play!

The day started with the news that Glenn McGrath, the star of the Australian attack from Lord's (where he took nine wickets for 82 runs) would take no part in the match following a freak warm up injury. This seemed more to concern Australia than it boosted England who knew that Gillespie, Lee, Warne and Kasprowicz would present enough of a challenge. But the Aussie body language showed that the loss of the totemic McGrath so unexpectedly had got to them. Lee and Gillespie opened the bowling and looked almost innocuous as Trescothick and Strauss took charge. Inevitably it was to be Warne who broke this assured opening partnership at 112 just before lunch with a fizzing leg break that deceived Strauss and seared into his stumps. After lunch Vaughan looked in fine form with three elegant boundaries and he and Trescothick took the score comfortably to 164 before Trescothick edged one to Gilchrist for a brilliant 90 off only 102 balls. Immediately Bell (who continues to look out of his depth) fell to Kasprowicz and then Vaughan, letting his adrenaline levels boil over, played an appalling shot to Gillespie and Lee took a fine catch on the boundary. From 164 -1 England were 187-4 and there were some frowns on the England balcony.

When Kevin Pietersen forced his way into the England Test side to bat at 5 ahead of Flintoff at 6 many wondered what would happen if these two hit form together. Now we found out. In just over an hour at the crease they put on a hundred runs with Flintoff scoring 68 at more than a run a ball and hitting six fours and no less than 5 sixes. He fell immediately after the tea interval but Pietersen continued to play brutal but cultured cricket. Although Geraint Jones failed, Giles, Hoggard, Harmison and Simon Jones came to the party scoring 75 crucial runs between them bringing England above the psychological 400 runs total. In less then six hours of scintillating cricket England had put the ghosts of Lord's behind them.

This match has started with a mighty bang and there is every likelihood that the excitement will continue tomorrow. Australia have the fire power fully to match England's score, or more - the Ashes has come alive!


Day Two

If the definition of genius is to have the ability to do something that nobody else could do then Shane Warne is touched with that art. It was, no doubt, in anticipation of Warne bowling an over before the close of play that all the spectators stayed glued to their seats towards the end of an absorbing day's cricket at Edgbaston. Andrew Strauss must have thought that he had already had the one unplayable delivery that Warne would bowl to him in the match when he was clean bowled in England's first innings. So when Warne's second ball fizzed and turned nearly ninety degrees and uprooted all of his stumps last night Strauss will now be convinced that that Warnie has a hex on him. Whether this spell can be turned on again sufficiently on Saturday is the key to this match. On a pitch that looks like it is taking spin Shane Warne can win the match for Australia even though, overnight, they have a deficit of 124 runs and England still have nine wickets in hand.

Australia are never beaten until they are beaten and this match still has a long way to go. Nevertheless for the second day running most of the momentum has been with England. In an innings of only 3.2 overs less than England's Australia scored 99 runs fewer. Their run-rate was still a hugely respectable 4 per over but England's onslaught of the first day has given the home side a slight advantage, not least because Australia will have to bat fourth on a deteriorating wicket. The contrast with the first Test match was huge. At Lord's England had fielded as sloppily as they batted and this never gave them a chance to get back into the match. On Friday at Edgbaston England caught their catches and even achieved a superb run out when Vaughan athletically threw down the stumps to dismiss Damien Martyn. Giles, so ineffectual at Lord's, bowled well and took two crucial wickets (Ponting and Clarke, both when they were well set). Giles also took the wicket of Warne who batted as if he had an urgent appointment in the back of the pavilion with somebody and didn't want to miss it by lingering at the crease.

Whilst the Australians were in most cases victims of their own downfall that takes nothing away from a mostly aggressive and disciplined performance by the England bowlers. That these bowlers work well as a team was shown by the fact that Harmison, who bowled capably on a wicket that didn't quite suit him, was only needed to bowl eleven overs in the day. Giles (3-78), Flintoff (3-52) and Jones (2-69) did the bulk of the work and were duly rewarded.

For Australia both Langer (82) and Gilchrist (49 not out) played well within themselves whilst Ponting (61) and Clarke (40) played their natural games. Had one of these players gone on to a really big score the overnight position would be very different; that they didn't is a tribute to England's perseverance.

The weather seems set fair for day three of this intriguing battle. England will have to bat well and set Australia around 350 to be in the pound seats at close of play tomorrow. This, of course, means finding an answer to the magical spells of Australia's sorcerer in chief!

Day Three

The breathtaking pace of this extraordinary Ashes Test series continued on the third day at Edgbaston when the advantage swung back and forth between the two sides throughout another pulsating day. At stumps that advantage was firmly with England with Australia at 175-8 in their second innings still requiring another 107 runs for victory. For the second time in the series 17 wickets fell on a day - but these bare statistics tell little of the drama and the tension that held the rapt attention of everyone lucky enough to be at the ground. This was cricket at its supreme best with multi-coloured skills on display for 88.5 spellbinding overs during which no quarter was given by either side. That England finished the day on top is almost entirely attributable to one man - the remarkable Andrew Flintoff who gave one of Test cricket's greatest ever all-round performances.

The morning belonged to Australia who by lunch had England in disarray at 95-6. This was an overall lead of only 194 and had England folded early in the second session Australia would have had a target that they would have believed to be easily gettable. Warne and Lee were in fine form; Lee fired up to put his indifferent first innings bowling behind him. The England top order folded first to Lee (who accounted for Trescothick, Vaughan and night watchman Hoggard) and then Warne who first won his personal battle with Pietersen and then easily outthought Bell.

In the afternoon Flintoff, although unable initially to find an enduring partner, took the game into his own hands hitting 73 off 86 balls with ten boundaries, four of them sixes. The key to Flintoff being able to give England a tolerably respectable total of 182 was a last wicket partnership of 51 with Simon Jones who batted sensibly - as well as hitting a few good blows himself. The near doubling of England's score in the post lunch session was crucial to giving them a chance to put Australia under pressure in their second innings.

Twelve overs into their innings Australia looked to be under no pressure at all. At 47 without loss, with Langer carrying on from where he left off in the first innings and Hayden looking in some sort of form, it seemed that they were building a platform from which the Aussies could push on to victory. Michael Vaughan then brought on Flintoff who was on a hat trick having taken the last two Australian first innings wickets yesterday. The hat trick eluded Freddie, but his second ball clean bowled Langer and his sixth had Ponting caught behind for a duck. Flintoff had taken four wickets in eight balls, this success only being interrupted by his remarkable batting! As in the Aussie first innings England had then to fight hard for their wickets but all the bowlers chipped in as the Australians increasingly began to feel the pressure.

At the scheduled close of play Australia were 137-7 and then Michael Vaughan claimed an extra half hour to try and finish the job on the day. This looked to be a mistake as Shane Warne and the excellent Michael Clarke added 38 runs before Vaughan called up Steve Harmison to bowl the final over. Harmy has had an ordinary match and was well below his best pace earlier in the innings. But Vaughan must have set "Give it a real go Steve" and Harmison responded with four fast and well-directed balls the last of which destroyed Clarke's stumps.

If England, as they should, wrap up the match early tomorrow it will be their most important Test victory for years. And with only a few days to go before the Old Trafford Third test they will have the momentum. If England win it won't just be the admirable Barmy Army who will be dancing in the stands - the members might do a gentle foxtrot in the pavilion as well!

Day Four

If the cardiac unit at the Birmingham Royal Infirmary didn't have an unexpected upsurge in business around lunchtime yesterday I would be very much surprised. My cricket watching stretches back fifty years, and whilst there have been some nail-biters along the way, nothing can compare with the tension of the fourth day of the second Ashes Test at Edgbaston. There have been some tight ones - the MCG in 1982/83 (which England won by 3 runs) and again in 1998/99 spring to mind. The latter match was my first visit to the great Melbourne ground and England's win (by 12 runs) was comparatively comfortable compared with yesterday at Edgbaston - and Australia had already retained the Ashes anyway. The key point about Edgbaston 2005 was that it really mattered to both sides. If Australia had won the likelihood of England winning back The Ashes would have been small indeed. But England's win levels the series and all is to play for. This context, combined with the quality of the cricket, the fierceness of the competition, the closeness of the final result and the packed ground throughout makes this arguably the greatest, as well as the closest, Ashes Test match of all time.

For all the fierceness of the contest the game was played in a wonderful spirit. Simon Jones would be well advised to reflect on his inappropriate gesture when pointing Matt Hayden back to the pavilion, not least because it was a rare lapse of taste on either side. Perhaps Freddie Flintoff should have a quiet word with him. There was a moment just after Harmison had taken the final Australian wicket to give England the win that brought tears to my cynical old eyes. It wasn't the cavorting of the England team, but the sight of Freddie going up to Brett Lee, who was on his knees, and comforting him. Lee patted Flintoff on the back to show how much he appreciated the gesture. There is a lot of nonsense talked about "The Spirit of Cricket", much of it anachronistic hogwash. Cricket's spirit comes not from administrators and law makers but from players like Freddie and the two Captains each of whom spoke well at the end of the match, not just about the guts and talent of their own team, but also admiringly and genuinely about their opponents.

The eight days of this Ashes series so far has been cricket at its very best and there is every expectation that when the teams gather again at Old Trafford on Thursday this will continue. Australia's perfomance at Edgbaston (when they were, let's not forget, without Glenn McGrath) will not have dented their self-confidence much. But England will know that the last time they squared an Ashes series from one down (in 1981) the momentum carried them on to further improbable triumphs. History is bunk? We shall see!







Monday, July 18, 2005

Ashes Series 2005 - Preview


From: "The Emirates Evening Post"

The Ashes series 2005

On Thursday this week the most eagerly awaited cricket contest since the last World Cup will start in earnest at Lord’s Cricket Ground, London when the first Test match of the 2005 Ashes series begins. The build up to this match has been intense not least because of the late start to the series caused by the cricket authorities’ wish to raise revenues with an interminable sequence of 13 One Day Internationals over the past month. But now all that is behind us and the serious business of the summer can at last begin.

ICC Test Championship
1 Australia 132
2 England 111
3 India 107
4 Pakistan 100
5 Sri Lanka 100
6 South Africa 100
7 New Zealand 97
8 West Indies 75
9 Zimbabwe 41
10 Bangladesh 5

The significance of the series (aside from the obvious one that this is one of the oldest rivalries in sport) can be seen from the ICC’s Test Championship table which shows that the battle will be between the two best Test sides of the moment. But the table also reveals what cricket lovers around the world know, and that is that although England may (just) be Australia’s closest rival the gap between the two sides is pretty large.

Australia’s hegemony in world cricket is unparalleled in cricket history. Since they last toured England in 2001 they have played 15 series against other Test nations and their series record is Won 13; Drawn 2; Lost 0. These series have comprised 46 Test matches of which Australia has won 33 and lost only 5.

England’s record over the same period is good, and in 2004 and 2005 it is excellent - 18 Tests played, won 14, Drawn 3, Lost 1. So it is not too much of an overclaim to say that the Ashes series is a contest to decide who really the top Test nation is at the moment.

The two sides are very different in character and experience. The likely England XI on Thursday will have 326 Test caps between them; their Australian opponents will have no fewer than 730. And the average age of the Australian team is 31 to England’s average of 27, truly a battle between experience and promise.

Nowhere is “promise” more obvious than in the selection of the South African born and bred Kevin Pietersen in the England side. Pietersen burst on the international scene in South Africa earlier in the year with some blistering innings in the One Day series but his Test debut will be when he walks out against Australia this week. In some respects the timing of his arrival at the crease may be crucial to the outcome of the first match, and possibly the series. If England are 25-3 when Pietersen takes guard it will be the tyro’s wholly untested powers of application and resolve which will be to the fore. If, on the other hand, the England upper order have fired on all cylinders then a platform of (say) 300-3 may be just what Pietersen needs to give him the confidence to launch a match winning assault on a tiring Aussie attack!

In their top six England have three players who are out and out attackers (Trescothick; Pietersen and Flintoff) and three who are more balanced in their methods (Strauss; Bell and Vaughan). The bias for attack (characterised by the preference of Pietersen for Thorpe) is commendable – whether it is foolhardy we will soon find out.

The experienced Australian side have strength in depth and there are no visible chinks in their armour. England’s best hope is that the bowling attack of McGrath (age 35); Warne (35); Gillespie (30); Kasprowicz (33) may be just past their best – although the younger (28) Brett Lee, who was in good form in the One Day series, will certainly play in place of Gillespie or Kasprowicz. Australia’s batting line up is formidable; any side which has Adam Gilchrist, who averages 55.65 in test matches, at number 7 has to be pretty awesome!

By far the key moments in the first Test will be the first 40 overs of each side. If England can weather the storm of McGrath and Lee and lose no more than one wicket over this period then they could have a platform to build a decent score (if they can master Warne!). If Australia are troubled by the pace of Harmison and the accuracy of Hoggard and lose some early wickets then England might just be able to apply the screws. Strauss, Trescothick and Vaughan versus McGrath and Lee and Hayden, Langer and Ponting versus Harmy and Hoggy are appetising battles to look forward to!

Key Players

Australia

(1) Glenn McGrath. One of the greatest bowlers of all time whose nagging accuracy has been such that he averages only 21.22 runs for each of his 499 test wickets. Is he past his best or will England fire him for one last effort?

(2) Brett Lee. Has not played a Test match since January 2004 when the Indians hit him for 276 runs in the fourth Test match at Sydney. His pace and aggression may unsettle the England upper order.

(3) Shane Warne. Warne is 35 going on 16 and to see whether (like McGrath) the challenge of one last go at the Poms will bring out the best again will be a delight to watch.

(4) Adam Gilchrist. Gilchrist is a phenomenon, completely without fear and with an eye unequalled in modern cricket he can turn a match in a few overs.

(5) Ricky Ponting. This will be Ponting’s first Ashes series as Captain and he will be determined not only to follow successfully in Steve Waugh’s footsteps as captain but also to keep his place close to the top of the Test batting rankings.


England

(1) Steve Harmison. Which Harmison will turn up to play? The one that destroyed the West Indies and New Zealand in 2004 or the shadow that had a miserable tour of South Africa in 2004/5?

(2) Michael Vaughan. By far Vaughan’s biggest challenge in cricket awaits him. Whether he continues where he left off in his last battle with the Aussies (633 runs at 63.3) or whether the burdens of captaincy will affect his form is a key question.

(3) Andrew Strauss. Intelligent and likeable Strauss is unflappable and has made a dream start to his Test career (Averaging 55.12 in 26 innings). The Aussies will be by far his biggest test though.

(4) Ashley Giles. Under-rated, but in form, spinner who took 31 test wickets at home in 2004. Will be needed to stem the flow of runs and force mistakes from the strong Aussie batting line up.

(5) Andrew Flintoff. Lord’s will be his 48th Test match, but his first against Australia. His economical bowling and destructive batting could turn a match.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Letter in "The Observer" 10th July 2005

Letter published in "The Observer" 10th July 2005

Sir

Sadly, after more than 100 years, I feel that we must now accept that the concept of the British Isles Lions touring team has no place in the modern game of International rugby. The first two Lions tours of the professional era, under two of the world’s best Rugby managers (Graham Henry and Clive Woodward) have proved beyond doubt that a team of players, however good, thrown together just for an overseas tour, will be no match for a fully professional National team. In the amateur rugby days of the past it was the case that there was far less team building than is the norm in the modern era. So whilst New Zealand, Australia and South Africa were somewhat more familiar with one another as a team than their Lions opponents, there was not the focused permanent squad system that characterises the modern professional age. So the Lions could often compete on almost equal terms with their opponents. Today, as the events in New Zealand have proved beyond doubt, a scratch team such as the Lions will be no match for a fully professional top International team like the All Blacks who are totally familiar with one another.

Clive Woodward I think did his utmost to try and create both team awareness and a sense of unity in his Lions squad. He should not be criticised for failing because (with the benefit of hindsight perhaps) it was never going to be possible for him to match the All Blacks as a team. The same would apply to any future tours and I would envisage that the Springboks or the Wallabies would have as little trouble in beating a Lions team as the All Blacks did.

The future of Northern hemisphere rugby has to be based only on the National teams. It is Wales, Ireland, England and Scotland who should in future be the standard bearers for British Isles rugby not the Rag, Tag and Bobtail combination of players unfamiliar with one another and gathered together only for a few weeks every four years, that is the Lions.


Patrick S Briggs