SPORT/BET: Jet lag & cricket musings

Apparently the Kiwi rugby league team were going to tire against the British in this morning's international, let in a few late tries and thus justify the bookies who had the Brits favourites going into the match. To be fair, it is a worry when a team flies to the other side of the world and you wonder how well they will perform a few days after they step off the plane, especially in physical sports such as union and league. However, it was the Kiwis who scored the late tries and if it wasn't for them going on their usual slumber party for the 10 minutes after half-time, this would have been the most one-sided league international seen for quite some time.

Once again, the question marks were on the team who were playing their third hard match in three weeks (in three different countries), when perhaps the real question was how the British would shape up in their first international of the season. It seems more often than not, match fitness will win out against a team full of fresh legs but might be a bit rusty after a break. In two weeks time, when these teams play again, it will be the Brits playing their third match in a row (without the travel) while the Kiwis will have had a fortnight off. I'm expecting a much closer game.

You don't need to travel halfway around the world to get jet lag. My weekend so far has consisted of going to bed at about 4 p.m. on Friday afternoon, getting up at 8 p.m. to watch the first half of the India v Sri Lanka ODI followed by the South Africa v NZ ODI. By the time that had finished (9.30 a.m. Saturday morning), matchsticks were holding my eyelids open, crawled into bed and managed to sleep to about 4 p.m. After a few hours of doing nothing, back to bed and up at 6 a.m. to watch the league. A day's work today will be followed by another all-nighter for the next ODI from South Africa.

I'm not complaining, although I wish I could work out the Indian cricket team. They are one of the most unpredictable sides around, and I've taken a bath in the first 2 ODI's going against them. The way they've played so far they could beat anybody, but I know the moment I put some money on them, they'll do their Jekyll and Hyde act. It reminds me of their ODI series against Pakistan earlier this year; they won the first 2 games comfortably before losing 4-2. I'll keep backing Sri Lanka, which means India will probably win 7-0.

However of more immediate interest is tonight's game between New Zealand and South Africa. It's been disappointing to see the Kiwis chuck away two games from winning positions, although from a trading point of view they have been good for the bank balance. My main concern about the Kiwis is their frame of mind after two losses when they should have won. I hope I'm wrong, but there is the possibility of a 5-0 whitewash here. I'm not totally writing the Kiwis off, but in the past I have questioned their mental strength and tonight is a test of their self-belief and confidence more than anything else.

Finally, interesting to see the West Indies rattle up over 600 against Queensland. Hopefully they can be reasonably competitive against the Aussies when the first test starts Thursday. Chuck in the usual doubts about Brisbane weather (Gabba tests at this time of year always seem to be rain-affected) and I won't be taking the Aussies at 1.3 pre-test.

FEEDBACK

A nice bit of feedback that I thought was so intelligent and thought-provoking it should be highlighted on the front page:

You are such a fucking know it all.You should add the following to your "About me" section:I like to find orienteering web forums and start up arguments, talk shit, take the piss out of people (in a way I think is subtle) and annoy lots of people.

Let's dissect that. Know-it-all. Yep. Start arguments. Check. Talk shit - definitely. Take the piss out of people - subtle or otherwise, don't care. Annoy lots of people - think I've succeeded there on occasions too.

At least I do most of it by signing my name to comments rather than being a coward and hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.

ORIENTEERING: BJ - Brave or Stupid?

The news that David Brickhill-Jones ("BJ"), one of Australia's leading orienteers, has decided to take advantage of his Welsh father and dual nationality to run for Great Britain from next year, is sure to have fired up the emotions across the Tasman. It's a pity Australia don't have an equivalent of Maptalk as the voyeur in me would love to see the reactions from our friends across the ditch. Some idea of the feelings can be gauged from the British forum nopesport where some Aussies have expressed their opinion, both for and against.

Of course, sportspeople switching nationalities is nothing new. This weekend, New Zealand takes on Australia in netball, and the fact that we are currently the world champions has something to with the fact that a tall goalshoot from South Africa emigrated to our shores a few years ago. She's not the only South African to leave their country for good (think Kevin Pietersen and Zola Budd), and such lifestyle decisions can be somewhat understood. From Kenyan middle-distance runners running for Denmark or Qatar, to washed-up All Blacks turning out for Samoa or Scotland, country-hopping is an accepted part of the sporting landscape.

However BJ's decision is not to do with lifestyle. If you believe his statement ("this decision is based on my personal circumstances, being based permanently in Europe, and the support available to me from British Orienteering to support me in my goal of becoming World Champion"), it's purely a decision of "I've got a greater chance of being the best by running for GBR, than AUS"

Sorry BJ, that doesn't wash. One only has to go back to May this year, when BJ finished second in the World Cup sprint race held (ironically) in England, to see that despite the apparent disadvantage of being an Australian orienteer, you can still achieve on the world stage. One only has to look at the examples of the trailblazers before him, especially Grant Bluett and his win at the World Games in 2001, to see that it doesn't matter if you come from Australia or Outer Mongolia, or live in Sweden or Timbuktoo, if you're good enough, you can win.

I could speculate as to the real reasons behind the decision, but in deference to the many friends I have in Australian orienteering, I'm not going to. And even though I may think BJ's decision might turn out to be the wrong one, I'm not going to be critical - it's his life, and he has to live it the way he wants to. But I will say if this was a Kiwi orienteer turncoating, I'd be mightily pissed off and can understand the disappointment no doubt many Australians feel.

Here's the irony: BJ has displayed his talent, while running for Australia, by finishing second in a World Cup sprint race. There's only one race more important than the World Cup, and that's the World Championships. There's only one place better than second, and that's first.

So BJ is basically telling us that to improve one place, he needs to swap countries. Brave or stupid? I guess time will tell. I hope for BJ's sake he can improve that one place needed to become World Champion, because I imagine there will be a few of his ex-countrymen lining up to take potshots at him should he not do so, and in some respects, who can blame them?

SPORT/BET: Trading a cricket game

OK, so I did put the kiss of death on the sporting underdogs last weekend. FIGJAM has become FINGJAM. But the beauty of betting exchanges is you can be wrong and still make money. Let me explain.

The above chart is a graph of the odds for the first one day international between South Africa and New Zealand during the game. Right-click on the graph, save it to your computer and open it up in Picture Editor or similar, change the zoom to 200% and while it is a bit fuzzy, you can make out the important bits.

I have a program that logs prices to an excel spreadsheet every couple of seconds (thanks to shareware from Gary Russell), and from that I can make the above chart. It's interesting to review the price movements during a sporting event, as it helps you understand the market you're working in and more importantly will allow you to identify "wrong" prices in future.

Back to the game - New Zealand is always a little under-rated in one-day cricket, and the prices after the toss (which NZ won, and a reasonable toss to win given the dry nature of the pitch) of SAF 1.82 NZL 2.20 I felt were a little wrong. Reasonably even teams, one with the home advantage and the other with the best use of conditions; the prices should be close to evens (i.e. 2.00 both sides). Having laid SAF for 500 quid at 1.75 immediately after the 20/20 game, I was happy - it would be very unlikely that SAF would remain favourites for the whole course of the game and I would have opportunities to either get out of the shit if I thought SAF were going to win the game, or reach the desired position of making some money no matter who won (known in betting exchange parlance as "all green", representing the colour of the figures in your current profit/loss column).

10 years ago, when betting exchanges were not even a figment of someone's imagination, to bet on a sporting event like this would require me to take a view with no ability to do something during the game. In all likelihood, I would have backed NZL as their price was IMO value (the key to all betting activity), and today you would be reading a tirade about how Nathan Astle can't bat, catch or bowl.

However it is 2005, not 1995. How can I walk away from a game where for 85% of the time I thought NZL would win with pounds falling out of my pocket? Read on and keep referring to the graph (times are NZT and are consistent with the graph times):

9.13 p.m.: early wicket - Astle out. The classic over-reaction; SAF odds fall to 1.55. Does an early wicket mean SAF's chances of winning the game have gone from 57% to 65%? Not in my book. Another 400 quid laid at 1.55 (CP - current position: SAF -595; NZL +900). I could have waited, as chances are Vincent at No.3 is not going to set the world on fire ...

9.22 p.m.: and so it proved. Bye bye Lou. Your wicket was not worth the SAF odds falling down to 1.45. Chuck another chunk against SAF at around that price (CP: SAF -770; NZL +1288)

10.04 p.m.: a nice partnership between Fleming and Marshall has come to an end through a fine catch by Gibbs. During the last half an hour, I've nibbled at SAF as their odds slowly drifted, but this wicket brings their odds crashing down to 1.45 (from 1.65). Now this I can understand, as Fleming is a key wicket. And, at 70-3 with Fleming out, I'd admit that SAF's chances of winning the game have increased when compared to the start. However there is little downside in going against a strong odds-on favourite early in a sporting contest. A few minutes later, I lay SAF again at 1.42 (CP: SAF -784; NZL +1418). If you compare my current position with that of half an hour ago, basically the changes in odds have allowed me to get an extra 130 quid profit on NZL without incurring any significant liability on SAF.

11.34 p.m.: the first decent partnership of the game has come to an end with Oram run-out. NZL are 172-5 after 37.1 overs. With a reasonable middle/lower order, I believe in all probability NZL will get around 240, which I assess is a "par" score for the pitch. That means IMO both teams would have a roughly equal chance of winning the game, and translating that to odds, should mean both teams should be priced around 2.00. But the wicket sees SAF odds tumbling down from 1.75 to 1.60. Like a kid in a candy store (and because I have backed SAF a little bit during the partnership), I can't resist going in again (CP: SAF -775; NZL +1500)

Why are the odds wrong? In my experience, people (especially TV commentators) over-estimate what is a good score when batting first in an ODI. That's backed up by a cricket database I've purchased where I know historically how successful teams are chasing scores of 230, 250, 270, or 300. But as I've paid for that I'll keep it to myself!

12.35 a.m.: The New Zealand innings ends at 249-8. I think that's a reasonable effort, and even if I'm incorrect about what should be a "par" score, I'm convinced the market has got it wrong as they think it's sub-standard; the odds are now SAF 1.55 NZL 2.78 (compared to the start of the game SAF 1.82 NZL 2.20). CP: SAF -655; NZL +1400

1.26 a.m.: Thanks Shane (Bond). A wayward first over costs 17 runs. SAF odds go below 1.40. Another over-reaction. Like a kid in a candy store ... (CP: SAF -825; NZL +1900)

1.46 a.m.: Cricket is a funny, and unpredictable game. From 17-0 after 1 over, SAF are now 41-3 in the 8th over and for the first time in the game, NZL are favourites according to the odds (in the space of 20 minutes, NZL odds have gone from 3.65 to 1.65). Unfortunately, I backed SAF before the fall of the first wicket, and after the first and second wickets, so when Smith goes I curse loudly but at least now I can get into a position where I can win no matter what the outcome of the game. NZL is in the box seat and some people may wonder why I wouldn't ride out the game with a nice big win on the Kiwis. Read the first sentence of this paragraph again. (CP: SAF +500; NZL +650)

3.30 a.m.: After 35 overs, SAF are 135-5, requiring another 115 runs off 15 overs with 5 wickets in hand. Surely NZL can't lose from here? Read the first sentence of the previous paragraph again. You'll notice I haven't had a bet in the last 75 minutes - why should I? - I could go to bed and wake up in the morning with money for the groceries, but around this time NZL odds fall below 1.20 and while they probably represent a fair reflection of their chances of winning the game, they are a little skinny and you don't go broke very fast going against strong odds-on chances. I laid the Kiwis for 500 quid at 1.24 (CP: SAF +1000; NZL +530)

3.45 a.m.: GAME ON! Astle's sixth over goes 2-0-4-6-6-4; NZL's odds go from 1.3 to 2.5 in the blink of an eye. Another over-reaction; in hindsight I'm a bit quick in backing NZL at 1.8, 1.9 and 2.2 during the over (CP: SAF +600; NZL +900)

Boucher goes soon after, NZL odds go back below evens (1.8) and hit 1.43 around 3.55 a.m. With 20/20 hindsight, those odds were probably wrong, and as the papers tell us, so it proved. But even at this stage late in the game, I felt NZL were favourites to win, and there comes a point in a sporting contest where you just sit back and watch it. It's quite easy to f**k up a good position, and price movements late in a game which is reasonably close can sting you if you are on the wrong end of it. 10 minutes later, when Pollock and Kemp got going, both teams were 2.00 and in another couple of overs after a couple of boundaries SAF were (deservedly) 1.35.

About now, I realise SAF will probably win, but with their price at 1.35 I don't get involved. I don't need to; I've made money whatever the result and Murphy's Law dictates the moment you plonk some money on the team batting, a wicket will fall. While there can be some massive price swings late in a close game (as this game shows), they can just as easily go against you as for you, and I've learnt the hard way a couple of times if you've got a winning position, don't get greedy!!!

So 600 quid profit for a night's work when I thought NZL would win for 85% of the game is not a bad effort in my book. I'm not the world's best trader, I can identify a couple of things I did wrong last night but I think I can say ...

FIGJAM.

SPORT/BET: Predictions

FIGJAM.

Translation probably required: The 'F' is easy to work out, and the rest is "I'm good, just ask me"

Having predicted Australia to win their cricket test against the Rest of the World in 4 days, I'm going on a roll. Here's the next set:

The Kiwis to beat the Kangaroos in league AGAIN tonight;
If it keeps raining like it has today up here, Otago to beat Auckland in the final of the NPC;
Makybe Diva, the $2.50 favourite, will not win the Cox Plate;
New Zealand will beat South Africa in the ODI series starting Sunday.

The chances of all 4 happening are slim, but that's the beauty of betting - especially when you're going against the favourite. To make money, I don't need all of them to come true. Having now gone public, I've probably put the kiss of death on the underdogs, but if I get a couple right ...

FIGJAM.

SPORT: Sack the Coach!

"You've got to understand the business that we're in. We play sport and there are losers. Someone has to win and someone has to lose and Australia - regardless of whatever sport they're in - are not going to stay at the top of everything for the rest of our lives. So you better get used to it."

So said Wayne Bennett, coach of the mighty Kangaroos (Australian Rugby League team). For those of you who have not been on planet earth (well the down under part of it), the sporting equivalent of a solar eclipse occurred in the weekend when the New Zealand rugby league team beat Australia, in Australia for the first time in a looooong while. It was the Kiwi's first win in Sydney since 1959. This catastrophic event ranks right up there with losing the Ashes, kissing your sister, or Greg Flynn beating you in an orienteering race. For a nation of sporting winners, this sucks, big time.

And of course the natural reaction is ... sack the coach.

Never mind that under Bennett's coaching, the Kangaroos have a 10-1 win/loss record (the loss being of course last weekend). Never mind that it is possible normal service will resume on Friday in the return match at Auckland (although I'll be putting money on the Kiwis again). After any sporting calamity, someone must be held accountable and first in line is always the coach.

I'm always amazed at the knee-jerk reaction that follows an unexpected sporting loss. As fellow New Zealanders know, any All Black loss (unexpected, and/or in a World Cup) is followed by a few days of national mourning followed by calls for the coach's head to be delivered to the grieving public on a silver platter. Possibly because we have experienced many such moments over the last 10-15 years, we're getting better at coping with such loss. The Australian sporting public has yet to go through such a process (although they are getting some practice in 2005 - cricket, rugby union, netball, now rugby league ... let us pray the list keeps growing!)

But what intrigues me about Bennett's comments is the implied acceptance of losing. I suspect the comments have more to do with his (strained) relationship with the media, but it does surprise me that a coach of a dominant team in world sport can be so blase about losing. Surely if you are the supreme force, your reaction (publicly at least) should be somewhat different? Could you imagine for example Steve Waugh saying to the Australian public "get used to losing, it's going to happen at times" if he happened to be the captain of a losing Australian cricket team?

One other thing I picked up on after the league last weekend. At the press conference, Bennett was asked if it was possible the Kangaroos had taken the Kiwis lightly. His answer was along the lines of: "well I didn't, but I don't know about the players" while giving a murderous side glance to his team captain on his left. Meooooow.

As I will keep banging on ad-nauseum, top-level sport is about the top 6 inches. Sometimes you learn more about people in moments of adversity. As a passionate Kiwi sporting fan, I like what I'm seeing. Bennett shouldn't be sacked for losing one league game, but he should possibly be sacked for his reaction afterwards. Normally I'm terrified of a wounded Australian sporting team, but the signs are the Aussies are not a happy camp and while I expect them to improve on their performance (they can hardly play worse), should the Kiwis get enough ball and another early lead, I'm expecting the same result. If you've got a spare $10, put it on the Kiwis, it's worth the price.

Footnote: For some reason, before last weekend's test I had a "gut" feeling the Kiwis would do well, maybe even win the game. Certainly at $1.10, the Kangaroos were too short and I didn't mind having a little flutter at such odds. I try and work out reasons for why I may be feeling such a way, but have come to the conclusion it is my subconscious trying to tell me something that the conscious can't work out. The answer hit me today when reading the following quote from All Black coach Graham Henry:

"If guys have 4-5 weeks off, it takes a game or two to come back. That's natural," he said.

Ahhh, the penny dropped. Earlier this year, I was convinced the All Blacks would lose the first tri-nations game against South Africa because (a) it was in South Africa and (b) most of the All Blacks had had a month off. They would be rusty, and so it proved. It was the same last weekend; if you go through the team lists it was the Kiwis who had more players involved in the final stages of the NRL season and if anyone was going to put in a sub-par performance due to lack of game time, it would be the Kangaroos. A lesson I won't forget in a hurry - be very wary of sporting teams who may be short of game time; there is a greater chance of their performance not being up to scratch, and that sometimes can be the difference between winning and losing.

ORIENTEERING: The latest joke

My plans to do some work this morning were side-tracked when receiving an e-mail which managed to both amuse and anger me.

The IOF Foot-O Committee have considered some rule changes, including this change to Rule 6.6:

6.6 (WOC)Give the 6 best placed at each individual distance at the previous WOC an extra place to their nation, max 1 extra pro (sic) nation. The winner from last WOC still have a personal place. Race (sic) the number to go to the final from the qualification to 17 from each group, so that there are 51 in the final.

The reasoning behind this is "To ensure that the best runners at each distanse are present, especially on the sprint we learnt this last year in EOC and WOC."

The creators of this wonderful idea obviously have thought that by adding 6 places at the top and giving an extra 6 places at the bottom, they can slip this little masterstroke through the system without anyone blinking an eyelid. Er, wrong, think again.

What sport (that wants to be treated seriously) panders to the top nations by giving them extra chances to get it right? If this is such a brilliant idea, let's have two Brazilian teams at the soccer world cup, three Australian teams playing test cricket, NZ Maori in the rugby world cup and a World Cross-Country Championship consisting of 50 Kenyan and Ethiopian runners and some token white guy from Italy or somewhere.

The fact is in most sports, if you happen to live in a nation that is the best in the world, it is almost as hard to represent your country as it is to become world champion. A Norwegian orienteer is in the same situation as an American sprinter, Kenyan middle-distance athlete or Australian swimmer. C'EST LA VIE!!!

Top-level sporting competitions demand equality in participation. Anything else, quite frankly, is a crock of shit. Especially in a sport trying to portray an image that it is ready for the Olympics. "Yes, Mr Rogge, we allow 4 runners from Norway, Sweden and Switzerland because runners from outside the top 6 nations are so shit they don't really deserve to be here". That really is going to fast-track our sport's progress to the Olympic stage.

Given this latest masterpiece from the corridors of international orienteering, I'm tempted to lead a crusade to have the extra place given to the defending world champion kicked out (not that I will get anywhere, but it would be fun trying). Perhaps those in Scandinavia need to reflect on the fact if an orienteer, even from Norway, cannot make their national team, then they don't have much claim to be considered one of the "best runners" in the world.

Footnote: Also included in the proposed changes is an increase in team size to 9. If accepted, that allows the strong nations to have their best 3 at each discipline race at the World Championships. So the reasoning given - "to ensure that the best runners at each distanse are present" - becomes redundant.

SPORT/BET: Oz in 4 days

Ahhh, a cricket test starts tomorrow. Time to make some money (I hope).

The ODI's gave a small boost to the bank account - mainly due to the second game where Australia after rattling up 329 were still about 1.3 to win, and then after three overs of the ROW's reply were 1.6 - I think at one stage they got up to 2.5 when the ROW were really humming.

Such odds were crazy - successful chases over 300 in One Day cricket amount to 12 out of about 170, and yet a bunch of admittedly good cricketers thrown together for a series were apparently odds-on to do it after getting 80 off the first 10 overs. Never mind they still had 250 to get off the remaining 40 ...

Enough about the past - onto the future. Crawford's law when assessing cricket tests boils down to three factors:

WEATHER - a few showers forecast each day. I love such forecasts - such uncertainty helps keep the draw price down. Hopefully whoever bats first can get off to a good start, an hour lost to the weather and the draw will go into freefall. That is the easy way to riches. A six day test, and currently the draw is 7.2. I'd have it closer to 20. However, that may not be the way this test pans out ...

PITCH - Sydney = spin. Here's the one big caveat: Sydney pitches do tend to favour spin, but what not many are taking into account is Sydney tests are usually played in January. Apparently it's October at the moment, early summer not late summer, and IMHO it's a dangerous assumption to make to assume the pitch will behave like a normal Sydney pitch. Can the groundsman get a test wicket to the same readiness in October that he does in January? I'll be watching the first session with interest, and currently I'm leaning towards laying the team batting first - it's a ploy with little downside as if they get off to a good start, it won't cost me too much (and the second bet in such circumstances is to lay the draw as it shortens). Sometimes in gambling you make money by taking the opposing view, and it could well be the pitch has more life in it than everyone is expecting - but we won't know until the game starts.

TEAMS - apparently the ODI series exploded the myth that cricket is not a team game! I've rated cricket as a pseudo-team game, as when it is stripped to its bare essentials, it is basically an individual contest between one person with a ball in his hand and another with a bat - the rest is periphery. The fact that the world's best cricketers couldn't come together in a short space of time and perform like, well the world's best cricketers, has nothing to do with team dynamics. It has everything to do with their motivation.

The press has these players analysing their performance by saying it is hard to come together at short notice and perform, not used to playing in different roles ... blah blah blah ... what utter crap. Lara's comments have a bit more truth to them; he hasn't played any serious cricket for a while and can be excused for being a bit out of form, but the majority don't have that excuse. The fact they are looking to the absence of a team dynamic as a reason for their ODI losses leads me to suspect they haven't learned the lessons from the ODI games, and that is ...

The ROW lost because Australia wanted to win more badly.

And it will be the same in the test (unless Graeme Smith can perform pyschological miracles). So my prediction, assuming minimal weather interruptions, is an Aussie win in 4 days.

Currently the prices are 2.04 Australia, 2.64 World and 7.2 Draw. I'm very tempted to back the Aussies at evens, but will hold off, as even the best side in the world do not dominate a test match from day 1 for every session. It is probable they will be a better price at some stage during the test.

I'll look to lay the side batting first, but if it's Australia, not for any huge amount. If the ROW side bat first, I'll be laying them large and watch what the pitch does with interest. If I've got it wrong, then a shortening draw price will be able to bail me out.

O'ING: The Best of Maptalk 1

I've struggled to get into work mode today - always takes a while to wake up after watching a late night cricket game (and how I love those Aussie cricketers - they've started at about $2.20 for both one dayers so far). So a cursory romp through the old threads on maptalk gave me an idea to occasionally post some of the more mildly amusing comments on this blog. Some of the contributions to maptalk deserve to be recorded for posterity. I haven't gone through them all yet, but I have enough to get started.

The trash-talking that sometimes appears was started by none other than Brent Edwards:

Posted: 6 November 2000, 10:44 AM
Due to Neils poor results in the last several meetings it is my understanding that he is considering giving up orienteering. In my view this is a good thing, there is a certan standanrd that New Zealand Orienteers set themselves and I'm afraid Neil falls well below these standrds. I have heard a rumour that the NZOF will be discussing the pros and cons of baning Neil from all badge events until he can show them that he has any ability at all! Basically I have the understanding that Neil needs to prove himself to the New Zealand Orienteering popoulation ASAP. What better way to this that at the summer series Park events. He has allready proven that he has the ability to lose these races, now it is a question of if he can ever beat Fraser again. I personally doubt it.

Posted: 9 November 2000, 9:58 AM
Frasor, I'm afraid that your calculations are in error. In the first summer series event at the Domain Brent the Champ Edwards came home in second placing. This gives me a total of Hmm 4 points. On the second event Brent the Champ Edwards came home in fourth placing. This gave him another 2 points. If my calculations do not fail me this gives Brent the champ Edwards a total oh hmmm 4+2=6 which puts him in an anascalable lead. In your summer series report you have given me the total sum of a feebilish 5 points. This is sadly in error as it puts me in second equal place with the likes of Dave the hole in the wall Stuart, Fraser the inhanced performer Mills and Rob back from Europe Jessop. I suggest Fraser that you ammend your error without delay before you get accused of "fiddleing the books" (I know this will be a change for you as you are normally accused of fiddleing with something much smaller). If you think that you have a chance at beating me by fiddleing then then I suggest that you bring out an oversized biscuit.

It's a pity Brent can't spell; but I think his lack of education actually adds to the quaint charms of his postings - you know, an intelligent mind trapped inside a semi-intelligent body. More examples of Brent's semi-literary and illiterate wit will again appear one day.

I found one of the more creative contributors (when he was not comparing Orienteering to rugby), was Dave Barr, sadly lost to the sport and Orienteering's loss has been Speight's gain. Oh well. I suspect the following was alcohol-induced after listening to Eminem too many times but it reads well even in the cold sober light of day:

Two mahoenui girls go round the outside; round the outside, round the outside
Two mahoenui girls go round the outside; round the outside, round the outside
Guess who's back Back again Rayney's back Tell a friend
Guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back..
He created a monster
Nobody ever sees neil no more
They want rayney he’s chopped liver.
Well if you want rayney then this what he’ll give ya.
A national dns chopped up in a file shredder.
Some coruba that'll jump start his suby quicker
than a knock when he got knocked at the wailing bongo
by the proctor when he was being a drongo
When crossed the line like henry olongo (hey!!)
You waited this long, now stop debating
Cause he’s back, he’s a snag and he’s masturbating
I know that you got a job there rayney
but enrons money problem's complicating
So the SFO won't let him go
or let him show, at champs of O
so he didn’t go to tekapo
But it felt so empty when he didn’t show
So, come on and dip, rum on your lips
---- that, --- on your rack, account for some tax
get ready, this shit's about to get heavy
enron settling on it’s lawsuits, ---- YOU JAMIE!

Now this looks like a job for neil
So everybody, just follow neil
Cause we need someone to keep it real
Cause it feels so empty, without neil
I said this looks like a job for neil
So everybody, just follow neil
where should I put this orange peel
Cause it feels so empty, without neil

Little Rayney, he’s going insane he’s
working so hard it’s driving him crazy
He’s feelin like a prisoner long gone
'til someone comes along on a mission yelling ENRON!!!
A visionary, vision of o-league
Could fart a revolution, pollutin the airwaves
not a rebel, so just let him revel and rant
about his prized possession nike rip-off pants
And it's a disaster, such a castastrophe
for rayney to be the subject of my poetry
Hairy back, na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na
Fix your damn subaru tune it up and then he’s gonna
enter in, in the back of your heels like a blister
The center of attention, back for the winter
he's interesting, the best thing since wrestling
Investing in your kid's ears and nesting
Testing, attention please
Feel the tension, as soon as you mention money
give him ten cents, and soon he’ll be
in the bank, banking, saving pennies
a-tisket a-tasket, he’ll go tit for tat with
anybody who's talkin this shit, that shit
rob garden, you can get your ass kicked
he‘s a pool hall ace he thinks the police said
And Jamie? You tried dissin rayney
You twenty-two year old baldheaded fag, dissed him
said you’d beat him, he’s too slow, let go
It's over, if you’re going to DNF don’t go!
Now let's go, just gimme the signal
he’ll be there with a whole bag full of ripped clothes
Not on dope, suspected of using his own tool
ever since Rob C turned into an old fool
But sometimes his shirts just seem
like they were bought in ‘83
So this must mean the’re ripped and torn
But he just says, there quite well worn
No he’s not the first king of waikato uni
he is the worst thing since goodoldandy
to use black sayings selfishly
though they make him sound moronic really (Hey!!)
There's a concept that works
Twenty million other white rayney’s emerge
Has anyone seen my fishing reel
It'll feels so empty without neil.

Finally, in light of the current debate around the introduction of Micr-O to next year's WOC, here were a couple of ideas to improve our sport that sadly did not make it past the conceptual stage:


AndrewT
Posted: 9 November 2001, 4:47 PM
(the subject is supposed to say Who thinks Orienteering needs more (insert anything here) ) Who thinks that Orienteering needs more DRUM AND BASS?! I do! At the start we need big 18" speakers pumping out the 6 beeps (along with plenty of subbass and synth stabs) when you start! When ever you punch your sportIdent card, a massive bassdrop should crank, followed by some rough amen breaks...and at the finish, there needs to be a DJ, playing some light breaks so you can warm down. Come on the O Massive, lets get this new trend going, and NOW!!

bendover
Posted: 12 November 2001, 6:09 AM
i think that orienteering needs more porn. instead of start officcials, theres just a load of playboy bunnies in thongs getting rammed by men with mustaches called jungle stud and jake snake. then each ident unit is artfully sculpted as female genitalia (on the mens course) and on the womens course a chocolate starfish. instead of a beep, a variety of groans and whiplash sounds are available. every race is sponsored by 'Whiplash Trash' online web store, with prizes of john holmes blow up dolls for winners and blow up sheep for first new-zealanders. australian men are automatically disqualified for being bastards. Female entry is restricted to scandinavian countries, and every runner is subject to strict vital statistics contols before being allowed to run. all in all, orienteering will benefit from the worldwide media interest and the spin off merchandise deals, including a series of videos - 'bushy ditch', 'crossing the dyke', 'wet pit', 'slippery marsh', 'love in lycra', 'frasers festival of fun'. i will be submitting these reccomendations to the IOF along with the Drum and Bass ideas. Together we can make things happen. Its time for a change. please

SPORT/BET: Summer is here!

As the rain and hail smashes into the windows, it's a little surreal to realise summer officially arrives today in the Southern Hemisphere, as a bruised and battered Australian team takes on the might of the rest of the world.

Rather unusually for me, I have no friggin' idea how these two teams are going to match up. Not because there is no prior form to judge, rather the key question is the Rest Of The World's motivation for these matches. They may say publicly they're up for it, and they will be keen to get one over the Aussies, but personally I question whether they have the burning desire needed to beat what is still a very good cricket side.

If it wasn't for that issue, the ROW should win in a canter. But (as the All Blacks found out at the last Rugby World Cup), an Aussie side going into a match as underdogs is a dangerous opponent. I have a sneaky feeling that the Aussies will want to win these matches more, and anyone expecting a 3-0 cakewalk for the ROW may be in for a bit of a surprise.

Of course, the other major factor to take into account will be the toss. Thanks to the recently introduced idiotic substitute rule, teams winning the toss do have an advantage. I can't pick a winner, so I'm taking the cheats way out - I'll back whoever wins the toss!