MEDIA RANT #1

At times the sports media in NZ are a joke. Actually, the joke is on me because from time to time I still buy newspapers and listen to the radio. Unfortunately I need to as part of the game that is sports betting is staying in touch with what's happening in the sporting world. I'm slowly getting into the habit of surfing the internet for news, but haven't quite weaned myself off the regular trip to get the daily, yet.

However, a couple of articles from the weekend papers will help accelerate the process. I'll concentrate on an article in the Sunday Star-Times headed "2005: Year of the Cambo". This riveting read started with the outstanding claim:

"You read it here first. Michael Campbell will clean up at the Halberg Awards for 2005"

Wow. I've paid $2 for some journo to tell me something I (along with no doubt many others) thought about two months ago, some three seconds after he sank his last putt at the US Open. For him to suggest he is the first to have this earth-shattering thought at least gave me a bit of a chuckle. The humour value steadily increased. After half the article gave me further insights into his vast knowledge of New Zealand sporting history (such as "only one other Kiwi - Bob Charles at the British Open in 1963 - has won a major golf championship" - a fact any half-knowledgeable sporting Kiwi knows), the scribe managed a left-field turn by using the rest of his precious column inches to bemoan the fact that rugby union has missed out at our top sporting awards.

"Rugby has suffered a raw deal at the Halbergs in recent years ... our national sport hasn't even really been in the hunt for the top award since 1987, when the All Blacks won the teams' section"

Umm, the fact that the All Blacks haven't won the Rugby World Cup since 1987 might have something to do with it. This is one of my biggest gripes about sports journalists; yes, rugby is our national sport/obsession and I don't begrudge the profile that sport has, but when some of our writers who obviously have had a few too many free lunches at rugby grounds around the country start to imply rugby somehow gets a "raw deal", my blood pressure increases.

It reminds me of the time when the Rugby Union suggested they should get some form of government assistance like other sports; this from an incorporated society that pays no income tax on turnover of $90 million a year. Yes, rugby really has a "raw deal" in this country, my heart bleeds in sympathy.

With profile comes the territory. The no.1 sport has higher expectations placed on it, and so it should. No way should rugby ever receive a sporting award unless it achieves the ultimate - a world cup triumph. The journo then somehow manages to convince himself that because rugby players haven't featured in the awards, then there must be an "obvious flaw in the Halberg awards":

"They are weighted heavily in favour of individual athletes, particularly those who compete at the Olympics ... individuals within teams rarely get recognition in the sportsman and sportswoman sections"

This guy's research obviously stopped at last year's awards for 2004, which happened to be an Olympic year. When NZ wins 5 medals, 4 of them by indivdual athletes, then of course individual Olympic athletes are going to dominate the nominations. If he bothered to turn the history pages over, he would have found a netball player (Irene Van Dyk) as Sportswoman of the Year in 2003, and 3 out of the 4 finalists for Sportsman of the Year in 2002 were from team sports (and got upstaged by another golfer, Craig Perks).

The humour continued when, after pointing out this "obvious flaw", he unwittingly answered it:

"It's difficult to pick individuals out of (a team) for special recognition"

No doubt why the Halberg Awards have, in addition to Sportsman and Sportswoman categories, a Team of the Year award and a supreme winner from those three categories. Perhaps the writer should ponder why for example, a rugby player should have two bites at the cherry - as a member of a team eligible for a team award and then as an individual in the sportsman category?

The article signs off by saying:

"It's also a great shame we can't celebrate top performances by our All Blacks at the Halbergs"

Well, actually, when they produce a top performance, like winning the world cup, I'm sure it will be celebrated. The real shame is I continue to be conned into buying newspapers full of crap such as this. One day I'll learn.

ORIENTEERING: Nationals

I guess I was hoping for a bit much when starting a thread on maptalk about the timing of the Nationals, that the oldies with strong opinions would keep out of it! Oh well, there were enough comments from our younger brigade to give me a flavour of what they are thinking. There were some good comments too - but first, some background.

Personally I don't really care when the Nationals are. Nor should I, as I don't run around anymore. My personal opinion counts for diddly squat. But I do have some responsibility to ensure that all sections of the orienteering community that may be affected by an issue have a voice. Simon makes a good point - "it is more obvious now than ever that students are the future of the sport" - and in some respects, the opinions of our younger orienteers are ones I will listen more closely to. That is why I was so interested in James' letter to the Auckland mag; I thought if there are a lot of students who don't mind the Nationals at Labour Weekend, then one of the reasons for not holding them then goes out the window. However judging by the comments on the thread, the split mirrors that of the wider orienteering community.

I'll admit I have some bias against Labour Weekend. In 1982, I got picked for the NZ team for the ANZ Challenge for the first time. It was my first year at Uni. The challenge was in Oz during the Oz champs carnival, late Sep/early Oct. And there was no way I was missing that trip! I missed about 10 days of lectures, and had 2 or 3 weeks to catch up before exams started. Oh, and there were the Nationals at Labour Weekend in Rotorua as well. I think I had an exam the Tuesday after. It was a hell of a month; my exam results weren't great, and neither was my Orienteering. In 1999 (the last year the Nats were held at Labour Weekend), I was coaching someone who was really upset they had to miss the event due to Uni exams (and she was an Aucklander). Last time I looked, Uni exams are still held late Oct.

If I had to express a preference, I favour the Nationals remaining at Easter because:

1. The change to Easter has had no adverse (and can be argued the change has been positive) effect on numbers competing;
2. It guarantees those juniors and elites (and even masters going to WMOC) who will be competing internationally a high quality event in the first half of the year;
3. It has a minimal affect on juniors in relation to their education;
4. It is a 4 day weekend, allowing for 4 events (yes, you could run the middle and sprint on the same day but a 3 day, 4 event weekend with travelling would be hellish IMO)

So I declare a slight bias. But personal bias has no place in decision-making, and if all our students were siding with the Aucklanders crying out for the Nationals to move to Labour Weekend, I would probably be leading the charge to have it changed.

Internationally, Orienteering is a summer sport. That is because in Europe, where Orienteering originated and is at its strongest, an outdoor sport such as ours can't be done in the snow (except on skis). Our sport is climate driven; and so if we look at the southern hemisphere countries (South Africa, Australia, Brazil) we see that Orienteering down under is done in the winter. New Zealand is a special case; a small country with extremities in climate, and therein lies the crux of the problem. Aucklanders want to pig out at the bach in summer and orienteer in the winter, which doesn't exactly appeal to South Islanders who have a more European climate with snow to contend with. Everyone has the right to express when they would like to orienteer, but trying to marry the wishes of different areas of the country (and there is not only climate to consider, but fire risk, landowner restrictions at certain times of the year) into a nationally structured season would be IMO an exercise in futility.

So like any good politician when faced with a divisive issue that has a roughly 50/50 split, do the ostrich (i.e. stick your head in the sand). Not strictly true, but the status quo will continue until the anti-Easter brigade come up with compelling reasons to have the date changed (and having a structured season for competitive orienteers from the Auckland region is not a compelling reason), or avail themselves of the process available to them to try and get it changed (i.e. the remit process and NZOF AGM).

Back to the comments from maptalk:

Martin: "Yes there is a mindset that the season is based around january to december. this is because the age groups are defined by which calendar year you were born in."

Interesting to note that in ski-O, a sport where the (European) season straddles the end of the year, age classes are still defined by age at 31 Dec. Their international events are held early in the calendar year and you have the situation where many 20 year-olds aren't eligible for their JWOC! I suspect the history is classes are defined at the end of the year as it suits (foot) O in the northern hemisphere. IF O was a summer sport in NZ, there would be nothing stopping us defining age classes at, say, 1 July. In horse racing, horses born south of the Equator have an assigned birthdate of 1 August, while those born north are assigned 1 January.

Martin again: "Before asking the question of Easter/Labour/QBday, a question should be asked about when during the season the nationals should be held"

Chicken and egg! Should the timing of the nationals define when the season should be, or should the season define when the nationals should be!? At this point, I'll introduce another comment:

Greg: "The only problem with James suggestion is that you are asking for more events, I can't see any changes happening if it involves more events being added for clubs to organise. Ideally if you are talking about an 'elite' season it would be best to run it so that it ends just before the start of the serious part of the European season. But the people that do the planning are not elites, and are also worried about every other person wanting to orienteer, which leads to events scattered all over the year"

We need to remember that Orienteering is a small sport, reasonably labour-intensive and has issues surrounding volunteer workload. It is a sport where masters compete and elites are not the be-all-and-end-all of serious competition. Our sport's survival is significantly dependant on the goodwill of clubs (or more correctly, certain individuals within clubs) who need to remain motivated to put on events. Otherwise it will slowly wither away and die.

So from a national perspective, I don't have much interest in telling clubs what to do, especially when it comes down to when they should put on their events. Now the Nationals are exempt from this, as it is one of two "NZOF" events (the National Sec Schools Champs being the other one), and as such "NZOF" decide when they should be held. The current philosophy of "NZOF" is it is really up to the owners of "NZOF" (the orienteering clubs) to decide when the Nationals should be.

Those from the Auckland region should be a bit careful about leading the charge of trying to set up a structured season. Consider the following scenario: NZOF set up a think tank committee, their recommendation is Orienteering should be a spring-to-autumn sport, and NZOF "order" that the Auckland Championships are to be held in March. Wonder what the reaction would be from Auckland clubs?

So to get back to Martin's question, the Nationals are fixed at a certain time of year (because last time we checked orienteers want the Nationals to be at the same time every year), through a democratic process (although some Aucklanders still believe that it wasn't), and it is really up to clubs and regions to devise a programme of events that take that date into consideration.

In an ideal world, it would be great if the different areas would co-ordinate and a "national season" could be devised. But the world is not ideal: Aucklanders do not want to orienteer in the summer and always have the risk of a fire ban in Woodhill to contend with. Wellingtonians and South Islanders have restrictions on them if they tried to orienteer in late winter/early spring due to climate and access. So it doesn't matter when the Nationals are (Easter or Labour Weekend), there is always going to be a significant proportion of the orienteering community who view the date as "not ideal". Transferring the Nats from Easter to Labour Weekend would transfer the problems of an "orienteering season" from Auckland to Christchurch.

So our world is not ideal. Is it really that bad? Last word to Fraser - his post sums up my feelings perfectly:

The debate about when the season is seems like a lost cause to me. If the NZOF decided that, for example, summer is the season for orienteering then how do they enforce this? Are they going to ban orienteering in winter?? Even in this small country there seems to be enough local variation in climate or land use to make different regions have different ideas on when orienteering is best for them. So you can debate the timing of nationals but debating the season seems pointless on a national level.

O'ING: Global Growing Pains

A sneak preview of an article about to appear in "Orienteering Today":

THE GROWING PAINS OF BECOMING A GLOBAL SPORT

International decision-makers must quickly learn to assess issues on a global basis, or run the risk of damaging the sport’s long-term prospects, argues Rob Crawford*

Politicians, including sporting politicians, must always guard against the natural temptation of preserving self-interest at the expense of unity. The latest decision by the IOF to include Micr-O in next year’s WOC has motivated me to write the following article.

Allow me to indulge in the sharing of personal experience. Those who competed at a World Cup race in Leuk, Switzerland in 1996 will never forget the day. A sudden thunderstorm struck during the men’s mass-start race, eventually washing away a temporary bridge over a ravine used to get from the last control to the finish. The last third of the men’s field, including myself, was stopped at the last control and directed to the finish using a road bridge 1km away.

Some hours later, the official results were published and the last third of the field could not be ranked. A little puzzled, a visit to the event centre to find out why resulted in a lively discussion with the IOF Controller. I can still clearly remember being told by this person that, because the top 45 could be ranked (for World Cup points), the rest of the results “did not matter”.

Puzzlement quickly turned into rage, as I tried (and failed) to politely point out that I had not given up my employment, and spent thousands of dollars of my own money, to come and participate in an international race to be told that my result “did not matter”. My point was lost on him.

At times, I wonder whether such arrogance still exists in the orienteering world. Some readers may not care, but there is one word to explain why you should – “Olympics”. Orienteering has the Olympic dream. Personally I think the dream is too far away, and I will be very surprised if this happens in my lifetime. If it does, I will be very happy to be wrong, and eat my slice of “humble pie”.

Many decisions are based around the Olympic dream. We must make our sport more visible, attract sponsors and media, to move our sport closer to the dream. Annual world championships, professional arena production, and now Micr-O are all needed for this “progress”. I can see, and understand, this. But do the decision-makers understand the cumulative effect that all these choices have on the less-developed orienteering nations?

Why is this so important? To answer, let me refer you to the IOC report that assessed our bid for Ski-orienteering to be included in the winter Olympics. They state: “concerns were expressed over the low participation in ski orienteering of countries outside
Europe”. Have we learned the lesson this report gave us? International issues must be decided with more balance. It is not acceptable to continually make choices that benefit the strong orienteering nations which at the same time damages the ability of other nations to continue their own development. Another Olympic report published this year, relating to the evaluation of summer sports, listed 33 criteria that sports were evaluated on. It may come as a surprise, but it is not nearly enough just to have 75 affiliated nations and the sport on TV to become an Olympic sport. Under the heading of “universality”, here are some of the criteria sports were evaluated on:

Results of World Championships
Number of affiliated national federations
Participation by national federations in World Championships
Participation by national federations in Junior World Championships

Even the simplest analysis of this report can see that no matter if Orienteering has 100 affiliated nations; if only 40 countries are participating at World Championships and medals are won by the same 6 countries, the Olympic dream is no closer to reality.

Therefore the argument, in simple language, of “let us make the strong nations stronger and then worry about the rest” will not work. You may find, in 20 or 30 years time, “the rest” may be in such a bad state of affairs that the years of neglect will not easily be reversed.

The major decision affecting countries such as my own is of course the move to annual world championships. That has been a bullet to our ability to develop a high performance programme. I am sure our nation is not alone. Regular participation at World Championships is just as difficult now as when we commenced in 1976. The politicians will tell you that there were 37 nations at the recent WOC held in Japan. That may be true, but is only a simple analysis. Of more relevance is the number of nations competing in the relay, which indicates a significant presence at the event. In 2003: 37 men and 30 women; in 2004: 33 men and 24 women; in 2005: 27 men and 22 women. The alarm bells should be ringing. Will the New Zealand women’s team, 9th in 2005, be at the start line in 2006? The answer is not 100% yes.

The move to annual world championships is not the only example. Last year for WOC, we had an athlete available for the relay only. Unfortunately, our Federation could not pay the entry fees and the athlete understandably refused to pay the full entry fee (because the entry fee is a “package fee”). The organisers would not accommodate our request for a reduced entry fee for the athlete. Correspondence from the IOF stated, in part, “you will be happy to know that Council has decided to propose that the rules for all disciplines be harmonised with the new Ski-O Rules” (2 June 2004). Bulletin 2 for WOC 2006 has just been published and the entry fee is still a package fee; the rules have not changed.

Yes, this is only a small matter, but may I be excused for wondering how the IOF can make a major decision to include Micr-O in WOC in about 6 weeks, yet to change one line in the Competition Rules has taken more than 15 months (and counting)? Is this a symptom of the attitude first experienced in 1996?

The EPG report made the worthwhile suggestion that every 4 years the World Championships should be held outside of Europe. This idea is not new; it has been suggested before. Yet even if I believe there is the willpower within the orienteering world to make this happen (which I don’t), has anyone stopped to think how the increasing demands on WOC organisers (professional arena production, maybe Micr-O?) will affect this laudable aim?

This article should be viewed as an early warning. There will always be decisions on international issues where conflicts arise. The key to managing such conflict is to achieve a balance. Too many decisions that benefit one section of the international orienteering community at the expense of another will divide, rather than unify, our sport. If Orienteering truly wishes to become a global sport and reach the Olympic stage, self-interest must be put aside, a greater effort made to understand the needs and aspirations of all affiliated members, and balanced decision-making that provides incentives for achievement by all, as opposed to a select few.

*Rob Crawford is President of the New Zealand Orienteering Federation and an associate member of the IOF Foot-O Committee.

POLITICS: Good Luck Helen

An alcohol-fuelled rant is twitching through my fingertips. Rewind to 1999, a year when I spent 6 months living in Melbourne and came back to New Zealand shortly before an election. I was over in Oz looking for work, which gave me plenty of time to read the papers and get an understanding of Aus politics. Upon my return to Godzone and straight into an election campaign, I was struck by how immature, catty, unintelligent and basic our politicians were compared to our neighbours (and they weren't exactly top of the pops either). Sadly, nothing has changed.

I really am in a dilemma about who to vote for. Firstly, should I vote? Well, my blessed mum once said "if you don't have your say, you can't complain". She has a point. But come on mother, when the next New Zealand Prime Minister is a choice between Morticia from the Addams family and Mr Magoo, do you really expect me to exercise my democratic right?

The election campaign has both surprised and saddened me. Surprised at the naked, basic attempts by politicians to throw money around in the form of election bribes; saddened by the fact that a lot of New Zealanders continue to respond to such tactics. Such short memories we all have if we continue to believe promises made in the heat of a political campaign.

Advertising - I've had personalised letters and prerecorded phone calls that I object to. What's happened to the good old door-knocking? Granted, I'd probably tell them to piss off but at least it would give me an opportunity to engage in a two-way conversation if I was feeling in the mood. Political ads on TV - such negativity where the emphasis is on putting down the opposition, not promoting your own strengths. Message to Helen and Don: stop spending your day rubbishing each other's policies, rise above the pettiness and tell the nation of your vision for a better New Zealand. The media could help too; I'm not that interested in the left testicle of the National candidate for Tauranga but they keep shoving it down my throat (yuk, gross illusion) on the front page.

I'll be astounded if Labour lose the election. They've had such a sweet ride over the last 6 years with the economy that they should be romping home, despite the fact that governments generally lose favour with the electorate the longer they govern. And they would have got a third term, if our Minister of Finance had managed to give us something better than a packet of chewing gum in 2007 as a reward for a $6 billion surplus. Actually, in some respects I agree with what he was proposing; putting aside money for a rainy day is a refreshing signal that some of our politicians are prepared to think long-term, rather than in three-year cycles. But unfortunately there are many in society whose primary thought is "what's in it for me", and our politicians are populists who will respond accordingly.

In some respects I hope Labour win. I would love to see how they would manage an economy that's going downhill. As with most governments, I suspect badly. Then they would be stuck on the opposition benches for a reasonable length of time. If National win and the economy goes up shit creek, they'll be a one-term government.

So from one dictator to another, good luck Helen. That doesn't mean I'll vote for you (my father will never forgive me), and my dilemma is yet to be solved (pity the Legalise Cannabis party is not running this year), but I guess I'm prepared to put up with your grandmothering and social engineering for another 3 years.

SPORT/BETTING: The Rugby World Cup, Ashes ... what next?

I've always regarded England (and/or the UK) as an underachieving nation in sports. Well, they can now claim the upper hand in two of the bigger anglo-saxon sports (cricket and rugby union) over their convict cousins, not to mention football/soccer and don't be surprised if they add rugby league to the list by the end of the year. What the hell is happening to Australian sport?

The news that Orienteering Australia has had a massive funding cut from their government may be a clue. From being world leaders in sports funding, they are now coming back to the pack. And over the last few years, money has been flowing into English sport more than ever. To my Orienteering friends, you may be interested to know that the British Orienteering Federation states on their website:

"BOF currently manages a budget of just under one million pounds a year. Over three quarters of this is either exchequer (taxation-funded) or Lottery grants from UK Sport or Sport England"

The fact that British Orienteering gets 750,000 quid gives you an insight into the amount of money pouring into UK sport. Expect that to increase with their hosting of the 2012 Olympics. While money doesn't buy success, it sure gives you a hell of an advantage. One day I'm going to have a huge rant about sports funding in New Zealand, because it is a joke. Before I return to the cricket, some figures for Kiwi orienteers to chew over:

UK: Population 60 million, 9,000 orienteers, government funding 750,000 pounds (1.9 million NZD)
Australia: Population 20 million, 5,000 orienteers, govt funding (2003/4) $136,000 AUD ($150,000 NZD) - although this is now getting cut by 40% I believe.
New Zealand: Population 4 million, 1,600 orienteers, govt funding $18,000.

Back to the ashes - bit of a pisser really. Draws are not good to my bank balance, and thanks to trading like an idiot on the final day (which is easy to do after five all-nighters) I've taken a wee hit - but that's gambling for you. I only lost what I made on the fourth test, and won on the first three, so I can't complain. Sharee's not too impressed this morning when I told her the rock she's about to get has been downsized - like many, she sometimes cannot sort the serious from the humourous when utterings spew from my mouth...

Shame that Warne dropped Pietersen. Would have been a helluva match with Aus chasing 220 odd in 50 overs, and a fitting finale to a riveting test series. (OK, cricket and riveting don't belong in the same sentence, but I'm allowed a bit of licence in my blog). And, I will say it again, Ponting is dumb. Dumb Dumb Dumb. I'm thinking of suing him for gross negligence. Yes, it's my wallet talking, but add the decision to go off for bad light, to bowling first at Edgbaston and declaring far too late against Sri Lanka last year, as stupid decisions that have had a significant affect on the result of a game.

And talking about dumb - this article about Tony Greig made me laugh.

England deserved to win the series - it would have been an injustice if Aussie scrambled a win last night. Is this the end of a golden era in sport? - the Australian cricket team have been outstanding over the last decade and will be judged as one of the best teams in the history of sport. Unfortunately we won't know if this is really it for a little while - they have a hit and giggle against the rest of the world next month, before wiping the floor with West Indies and South Africa during the summer. It may not be until a couple of years when the Ashes are in Australia they have their next true test (although I dream that a full-strength Kiwi team could challenge them); by then, they may be Warne-less and McGrath-less. And maybe Ponting-as-captain-less? I live in hope.

ORIENTEERING: An amazing ride

I've sometimes wondered if I ever would see a New Zealander win a medal at a World Orienteering Championship during my lifetime. To think that in some remote forest in Slovakia last week it nearly happened.

I've had a few days to reflect on Marquita's 4th place in the middle distance at the World MTBO Champs. The reoccuring thought to me is "don't belittle this achievement". Sure, Mountain Bike Orienteering is a developing arm of our sport, but there are plenty of people who take it seriously. There were over 25 nations at last week's championships, so when you compare it to WOC in Japan (37 nations), it is not exactly in the bog-snorkelling or tiddlywinks class. This is a serious sport, and we have just had a Kiwi a minute away from getting a medal. The more I think about it, the more I shake my head in awe at the result.

It's one of the great things about sport - results that come out of the blue to shock and surprise. I sent a fax to the WOC team saying if Bangladesh can beat Australia at cricket, Michael Campbell can win the US Open, and our junior men can kick Aussie butt in the JWOC relay, what can you do? One of the reasons I can spend hours in front of a tele watching sport (apart from making money) is the great unpredictability it can produce. Sport constantly shows the lesson that human achievement is only limited by the personal obstacles that we put in front of ourselves.

Read to the end; more about that later. Let's get back to Marquita. OK, she's a friend, and the partner of one my best friends and greatest influences in my life, but she is so deserving of getting something like this. To think that after doing her cruciates so bad at the 1997 Nationals, she can come back, be a World Masters Champion on foot and fourth in the world on a bike ... fucking marvellous. And I always like to see people who are so giving reaping rewards. She's our Convenor of Selectors and has spent a fair amount of time in this role, not to mention a lot of hours fieldworking maps, drawing them on OCAD, setting and controlling events, etc etc. A blog post would not be complete with advice from my Mum, who always told me you get out of life what you put in. Well, Marquita has put in a fair amount into our sport, so seeing her get a result like this is just desserts. Onya chainsaw, I'm so happy for you.

Now, to those of less life experience than myself, read on. Many years ago I asked Paul Dalton what makes a good runner (now he won't remember this). Paul, in addition to being a reasonable orienteer, was quite a handy runner and I envied him - one year he ran the Rotorua Marathon in a tick over 2 hours 30 and I thought bloody 'ell, if he was half decent at navigating he'd be dangerous (sorry Paul). "So Paul, what's the difference between a 34 min 10k runner such as myself and a 32min 10k runner such as you?"

I'll never forget the answer, which went along the lines of the top 6 inches. If you can run 34min, you can run 32 min, the difference is 90% mental.

Sport at the top level is all about between the ears. For every champion in sport, there are 10 people who have the same talent who don't get there. Now I know this will come as a shock to some people, but I don't profess to know everything - however I do have some clues about psychology in sport to know that the difference between 3rd and 1st in NZ, or 40th and 10th in the world, is usually what goes on in the brain cells.

Some of us think that the biggest barrier to New Zealand orienteers achieving internationally is physical - we ain't fit enough. That is partly true, but I truly believe that the greatest improvement that most elite or aspiring elite orienteers in NZ can make is getting their head space right. Mental strength can make the difference, even overcome physical and technical deficiencies.

So use Marquita's result as inspiration. Not only to show what can be achieved, but even at times when things may not be going your way. Remember she was in hospital with significant doubt about whether she would be able to run again. Now she has come 4th at a World Championship.

Now get your arse off the chair in front of your computer and go for a run!!!

SPORT/BETTING: Ashes Update (2)

Fucking English weather. This has been a nightmare test for reading the atmosphere. Rain has been coming out of nowhere; basically sub-tropical conditions, humid warm days warming up the clouds to dump a bit of aqua over the cricket pitch. Add to that Ponting's unbelievable decision to come off for bad light (on Day 2, I can understand it on Day 3), and I'm in a bit of a hole.

At least I got one thing right a couple of days ago. Ponting is dumb. For some months, I've always though that he bears a striking resemblance to George W. Bush. Now I believe he is a clone and shares the same (lack of) intelligence. That decision on Day 2 to go off for bad light when you're 112-0 and needing to win the game defies belief. I can understand last night's decision, only 5 overs were left and 2 to the new ball. But on Day 2, they lost at least an hour, closer to 90 minutes and the light wasn't that bad. On the one hand, I hope it comes back to bite them on the bum; however my book does need an Aussie win to get out of this little hole I've dug...

Australia can still win this test, and I'm impressed with the way they are playing - not panicking and getting into a position where they can win it on the final day (and the opposition can't). It's a bit like the Aussie of old; I have seen so many tests where their opposition have had parity over the first 3 days only to be crushed on the fourth or fifth day, so it wouldn't surprise me that they get over the line in this one. Even in this series, they have been very strong in the latter stages of the last 3 test matches (fighting back to nearly win, or draw, after being dominated for the first 3 or 4 days) so it will be an interesting test of England's mental strength when they come out to bat.

England will need to bat about 90 overs at some stage to save this test. That's a tough ask, although the pitch has not deteriorated to the extent I would like thanks to the weather interruptions. Much will depend on what England can bowl Australia out for - the bigger the lead, the more pressure their batsmen will be under, and the more likely Aussie will win. In short, if Aussie can get to 550, I fancy an Aussie win - anything less, that victory parade can go ahead.

SPORT/BETTING: Ashes Update (1)

If Australia retain the ashes by winning this test, it will be thanks to one man, who has carried a creaking bowling attack and also added quite a few runs lower down the order with his batting. Before this final test, Mr Phone Sex had taken 31 wickets at 18 runs apiece, and I don't think many would have predicted the influence he would have on the first day - bowling 30 overs and dismissing the top 5 English batsmen. Bit of a pisser really - I was expecting a relatively normal first day of test cricket and seeing England 350-5. So 319-7 represents advantage to Australia, but not as dominant a position as the market suggests.

More about that later. First wind back the clock. And a frustrating 24 hours prior to the start watching weather forecasts change as often as a man changes his underpants after a bad curry. First rain on Fri/Sat, then Sat/Sun, now Fri only. So basically if the UK Met Office don't know if and when the rain will hit, there's no point trying to forecast it into the betting equation with any accuracy. There may be 10 overs lost, might lose a whole day - who knows? At the time of writing, there's a band of rain over the middle of England, but moving away from London. If there is rain, my interpretation is it will come from the south or south-east which is unfortunate as the rain radar on the met office site will not give a huge amount of warning. So I'm not worrying about it. On the balance of probabilities, there will be time lost but not enough to adversely affect the outcome. So I still think there will be a result, but nothing is ever certain in test cricket.

Having laid the Aussies pre-test, the only risk to me was England batting and losing wickets early. Well, England did win the toss and bat. As I said I would do, I laid the draw after the toss to reduce some of the liability. Then, as England started off quite nicely and I progressively backed Aussie as their price drifted - the only bummer being I was trying to get an order filled at 5.4, but when Warne came onto bowl the price immediately dropped to 4.8 (!) (an example of unfortunate timing) and only got 13 quid matched.

This is what I love about betting on test cricket. Aussie were 2.9 at the start of play, and 4.9 when England were 80-0. I wonder how long the betting exchange markets will be so dumb? Think about it, a decent test batsmen averages over 40, closer to 50. The average opening partnership I haven't researched but an opening partnership of 80 is not out of the ordinary and certainly expected if you look at basmen's averages. Yes, England had a good start, but just because they are 80-0 has Australia's chances of winning gone from 33% to 20%? The answer has to be no.

And, true to form, the classic over-reaction continues when a few wickets fall. England go from 80-0 to 131-4, and Australia's price goes in the space of 80 minutes playing time from 4.8 to 2.06. So a few wickets, and have Australia's chance of winning the game really changed from 20% to 50%?

At times I wonder how people lose money on Betfair. Australia's price changed from 2.9, to 4.9, to 2.06, and now they are 2.3 at the end of Day 1. But their chances of winning the game probably only fluctuated 10% max. either way during the first day. I had them at about 30% (3.2) before the game; now I would have them at 40%: current prices are Eng 3.85; Aus 2.28; Draw 3.25 - as usual, the draw is too short, and so is the favoured team. Without too much thinking, I'd have the draw at 25% (and that's being generous), Aussie at 40%, and England at 35%. So that's Aussie 2.5, Eng 2.8 and Draw 4.0

At the moment, my book is +24 points Eng, +4 Oz and +5 draw (yes, that's a guaranteed win on any result, but a +4 win is not worth staying up 5 nights for) . I'm light on Oz and have ammo to play around with the draw. Based on value, I should lay the draw but chances are if England bat for more than an hour tomorrow, or Australia get off to a good start, or if there is some rain around, the draw will shorten significantly. If England are bowled out quickly, I'll lay Aussie as they will be odds on, and there's little downside in laying an odds-on shot early in a test match.

So more importantly, what's going to happen? The pitch looked quite dry to me, they certainly hadn't put the sprinklers on it too much! England will get anything between 330-380 (400+ from here will be a huge bonus), and the first key is how well Aussie bat. I wish the forecasts were worse as it would force Oz to bat more aggressively (= more chance of wickets, but I think they will be reasonably agressive anyway). My usual equation is 50 run lead puts the game in the balance (because of pitch deterioration). But Aus have Warne and Eng have Giles, so I think Aus only have to reach the Eng first innings score to remain slight favourites. One thing is near guaranteed; the second innings of both teams will be shorter than the first. If England get a first innings of 50+, it will be gold. If Aussie get a first innings lead of 50+, I'd be cancelling the victory parade in London.

SPORT/BETTING: Fifth Ashes Test

Less than 36 hours out from the climax of one of the greatest test series in my lifetime, my head is full of thoughts about how this game will play out and how to make money from it. Currently, the prices on Betfair are 4.2 England, 2.76 Australia and 2.52 Draw. As usual, the draw is way too short and the prices on the teams do not reflect what has gone on in the last couple of months. Again, as is usual, markets do not react to what I term “momentum shifts” and it’s almost as if they expect the “law of averages” to catch up by saying … “Aussie have lost the last one, so they must be due to win the next one”.

Absolute bollox. Australia have been outplayed and just as importantly, out-thought thanks to possessing possibly the dumbest captain currently in international cricket. Ricky Ponting is not going to grow new brain cells overnight, and the English players are not going to lose their skills in the 10 days since the last test finished. Yes, there may be some nerves out there but they won’t materialise until the latter stages of the game. And, having got over the line twice in this series, those nerves are more likely not to morph into cracking under pressure, which is one of the most important factors in sorting out winners and losers in international sport. Neither do I expect the Aussies to crack, which has made this test series riveting – to think that they were 2 runs and 3 wickets away from winning tests that they had no right to having been dominated for most of those games … you underestimate them at your peril.

So, if I was making a book on the game, I’d have the prices around 3 for the draw, 2.8 England and 3.2 Australia. Yes, this takes into account McGrath playing and (Simon) Jones not. If McGrath plays, I don’t expect him to be 100% and I don’t expect him to be the deciding factor in this game (however, as everyone knows in punting, you are never 100% right).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside for Newbies No.1:

There are three main factors to take into account when assessing test cricket –

1. Weather


2. Pitch conditions


3. Ability of the teams

Note that history is NOT one of them. Statistics have their place in betting, but not as a predictor of what is about to happen. Especially in cricket where the battle between bat and ball (which in essence is what cricket is all about) is significantly influenced by the condition of the pitch and overhead weather conditions. What happened at the Oval last year, and even at Trent Bridge last week, remains in the history basket. The pitch won’t be the same, the weather won’t be the same, and the game won’t be the same either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The weather is questionable for Days 2 and 3 by the looks of the latest forecasts. Even allowing for the fact that forecasts tend to err on the pessimistic (at least in agricultural countries like New Zealand and England so as not to piss off the farmers) and can’t be trusted more than 3 days out (especially in England), it’s enough for me to be slightly wary about the draw. Don’t buy into the “England are playing for the draw” crap. That will not enter into calculations until either Day 4 when they’ll be trying to bat Australia out of the game or Day 5 when they’ll be given a reasonable run chase.

I haven’t researched too much about the pitch yet (that is today’s job). I expect it to be a typical English wicket. With England 2-1 up and reasonable weather I imagine the sprinklers have had a little bit less use than may have been the case. But don’t buy into the “doctored pitch” crap either. Pitches take months to prepare and while their condition is influenced by preparation in the immediate days leading up to a game, I don’t think the English Cricket Board are stupid enough to try and make it a road, as if England lose the toss and end up batting on the last day on an over-prepared pitch facing Warne, they deserve what they get. And anyway, I take what the groundsman says with a grain of salt. Lord’s was supposed to be a good batting wicket. Really? 17 wickets in the first day (admittedly to some poor batting).

Ability of the teams – no question England has been the better team. Jones out and McGrath possibly in evens them up a bit, but how much is the $64 question. Is it enough to tip the balance? I don’t think so – England deserves to be slight favourites.

So what to do? Comparing current prices with how I’d price the game (and that is what betting is all about, putting your money where you see the perceived value), I should either lay the draw or back England. But I’m doing neither.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside for Newbies No.2:

Betting in test cricket is like winning the toss. The adage when winning the coin flip is to bat first, and if you think you should bowl, think about it and then bat first. That is because pitches gradually deteriorate and even if it is a green top, if you get skittled for 100 you’ll have the chance to so the same.

So it is with test cricket betting. Lay the draw, and if you think you should do something else, think about it, and then lay the draw. Obviously there are some occasions when this is not smart (tests at Napier, Georgetown and Antigua spring to mind), and my second strategy if there is reasonable confidence in the pitch is to lay the favoured team – especially if they do not deserve to be the favoured team, as in this case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I’m laying Australia, for shitloads. The only downside is if England win the toss, bat, and get skittled. Normally I don’t like being hugely exposed on a team fielding – a clump of wickets tends to change the price for good – but I’m prepared to take the risk. If England do bat first I might immediately lay the draw as well to reduce some of the liability – and I expect the draw price will come in if England win the toss and bat first.

If Australia bat first, their price won’t change much unless they are skittled (and how I hope that happens – can’t see it though) and, depending on the weather, I’ll look to lay the draw as it comes in. Laying Australia now is basically an insurance play until we see how the forecasts and actual weather pans out. My research tells me start worrying about the draw when 80 overs have been lost in a test match (and that was well demonstrated at Old Trafford). 80-90 overs lost (a day’s play) means the draw should be around evens or progressively odds on, depending on how far into the test match the overs are lost, and the state of the game.

So, my bank at the moment is 120 points; I’ve laid Oz for 30 points at 2.78 for about a 54 point liability. Normally I don’t have such a big liability (I normally keep it to 25-30% of bank max., and about 15-20% if the liability is on an odds on shot) – but I’ll be quickly shifting to red on the draw at some stage, depending on the state of the game and the weather. End result (if the weather behaves) is I want is a huge green on England, reasonable green on Aus and red/neutral on the draw. If the weather does pack in, I’ll green up at some stage on all three results. But mark my words, less than 80 overs lost; there WILL be a result in this game!

G’luck everybody – I’m off to do the rain dance.

INTRO: Welcome to Honcho's House

Why a blog? I'm 40 this month, about to get engaged (oops, cat - bag - out of) and having suffered a small heart attack a couple of years ago I know my life is probably at least half over. OK, it's probably the first stages of a mid-life crisis, but I've got so much shit (yes, swearing is allowed in this blog) in my head I have a strong urge to get some of what I consider worthwhile recorded for posterity.

Now I'm not so famous that I can publish my memoirs, sell a shitload of books and retire on the proceeds. So a blog will have to do. Whether I have 10, 20 or 40 years left on this earth - in some respects it doesn't matter - I've had such a full life so far that if I can earn a million dollars in the next 10 years and help Sharee raise her kids; I will be happy when I'm put in a coffin (yes, that's morbid but a fact of life that we all must eventually face up to).

Yes I will earn a million bucks in the next 10 years. But that's a subject for another day. Trouble is, I'll probably spend it (or give it away). One of the many pearls of wisdom my mother has given me is you can't take your money to the grave. And I won't be. Given my mother will probably live to 100 and may even outlast me (the high cholesterol comes from the father genes), I'm not hanging out for the inheritance and ain't no way will I be providing for anyone else apart from moi, and some deserving philanthropic causes such as New Zealand orienteers.

But as usual I digress. To those fortunate enough to be reading my initial posting, add this to your favourites folder and come and check it weekly. Given I drink a bottle of red wine Thurs/Friday, the weekends would be a good time. Or before major sporting events such as cricket tests or All Black matches when I'll give out my tips.

The purpose of this blog is poly: to provide mildly humourous and sometimes serious content on all matters Orienteering; to slowly reveal the secrets of how to make money from betting - yes, it can be done; and when I've had too much to drink to have the occasional rant about anything and everything.

At times, I've been described as complex, cynical, sarcastic (and recently rude and undiplomatic - thanks Wayne!), but never boring. I'll try and post regularly on both gambling and orienteering topics to keep my acquaintances from both sides entertained. Initially some prior knowledge of such topics will be assumed. Your comments are welcome, if only to let me know that people outside of my immediate family have bothered to check in and check this out.

For now, Ciao...

P.S. House of Honcho? As my orienteering friends know, on maptalk I'm known as "Head Honcho" to reflect my exalted position as President of the NZ Orienteering Federation. The name was given to me by Bruce Collins.