Super 14 Week 8

One of the better rounds of the comp betting-wise. I'll put up NZ TAB prices as well as best available to back at Betfair (remembering the draw is an option at Betfair).

BLUES v BULLS (NZTAB: $1.50 - $2.50; BF $1.73 - $2.44)

Why the bookies don't see this as a 50/50 game is beyond me. So the Blues come home off a 40 point thrashing and are 3/2 on? Parlease - it's the worst price of the season so far. Luckily for the Blues, the media (for once) have been more worried about the "failure" of the CG team so they have got off relatively scot free from a public bagging, although there has been some. Lavea goes (had to after last weekend), but Nacewa at 10 is untested. Angus MacDonald at 7 makes me cringe, but they don't really have another option at the moment. Yes, they are at home, yes they have played well at times this season (I don't think they can play any worse than last weekend), but they should be around evens for this game.

The Bulls are 4-2 after their home stand, with their two losses coming in the last minute. They could quite easily be 6-0 (and they should be 5-1 but we won't moan about THAT TMO decision which cost my pocket). I don't think they are playing as well as they did at times last year but here I think their forward pack have more than a 50% chance of grinding the Blues down and that makes a win at least a 50% chance. The Blues beat the Brumbies because of errors and most of the Blues points came from turnovers. The Bulls play 10 man rugby (which is unfathomable with Habana on the wing), so I can't see where the turnovers are going to come from. To me, this is the bet of the season so far - I may be proved wrong, but I'm loading up on the Bulls.

WARATAHS v CHEETAHS (NZTAB: $1.07 - $7.50; BF $1.12 - $11)

A test into the unknown - the Cheetahs first road game. The Cheetahs are a little inconsistent, they are one of those middle of the road teams who if they play well can test those near the top of the ladder, or if they play poorly will one day get thrashed. Even with Rogers out, the Tahs have enough firepower to punish teams who aren't on top of their game and they are the one side at the moment who are showing they can pile on the points. I was tempted by the 18.5 handicap line, but I'm going to leave this game alone - there is a chance of a blowout.

FORCE v STORMERS (NZTAB: $2.00 - $1.75; BF $2.14 - $1.91)

I didn't see the Force play last week, but I gather the scoreline flattered them. I don't often back odds on shots, and there is a possibility that this could be the Force's first win of the season, but I'll have a wee wager on the SAF boys. It's not often you get $1.90 for a team playing the wooden spooners.

HURRICANES v CRUSADERS (NZTAB: $2.65 - $1.45; BF $2.82 - $1.61)

Everyone is salivating at this clash of the Titans. As an Aucklander, I hope they bash each other senseless and end up with 20 injuries. Ah well, dreams are free. The Canes continue to have the shamrock on their shoulder, or looking at it another way, you could say they are learning to win games that they have no right to do so. The last time they played (the semifinal last year) it was also an eagerly anticipated clash and ended up a lopsided thrashing. I'll be very surprised if the Crusaders lose but I do feel the $2.82 I can get on the Canes is a little on the high side, so a small bet on the underdogs is in order.

CHIEFS v HIGHLANDERS (NZTAB: $1.45 - $2.65; BF $1.47 - $3.20)

The Chiefs are the opposite of the Canes - they are losing games they should have won, much to my annoyance (and my pocket). Like the match above, the favoured team deserve to be so, but the prices are a little skewed. I'm not reading too much into the Highlanders (lack of) performance last week, and remember the Cats did beat the Chiefs earlier this season. Do the Highlanders have a 30% chance of winning this game? Yes, in my book, so a bet is in order.

SHARKS v REDS (NZTAB: $1.30 - $3.30; BF $1.38 - $3.70)

Didn't see the Reds / Cheetahs last week, apparently I didn't miss much. I'll leave this one alone - the Sharks have played reasonably well on the road and they may be a touch vulnerable after the long flight home, but it appears the Reds are not playing well enough to get the win. No bet.

So in summary, I like this round from a betting perspective (not to mention a few interesting match ups). Time to dip into the reserve fund for the JWOC team - this week, the bets for them are:

$80 on the Bulls @ $2.50
$30 on the Stormers @ 1.91
$15 on the Hurricanes @ $2.82
$15 on the Highlanders @ $3.20

Back In Black

No, not AC/DC (good song though), but for the first time this year I am in profit. Thank you Mr Warne - even though I rate your life skills on a par with my 12 y.o. stepson, there is no question you can weave magic with that red cherry. Bless you, although that last LBW was dodgy, but that's not your fault.

Now that I have recovered from a horror start to the year, I can tell the story. 2005 was a reasonably good year on the punt, and upon entering 2006 felt reasonably bulletproof and ready to press on to make some serious dosh. I should have recognised the warning signs. Pride comes before a fall they say, and within 2 weeks I was 8,000 pounds down (yes, the money - as opposed to the weight - variety) through one panicked decision and a couple of instances of breaking self-made rules.

That's the trouble with betting through the internet - it's just a number on the screen. If someone had brought that amount of money around to the abode and shown it to me and pointed out that's what you've just blown, I think I would still be having some serious issues. But (now I know this will come as a surprise to those who know me), I do have a feminine side and before deep depression set in, I did what any normal female would do - I went shopping. After a day of buying some fancy threads, shades for the poker table and some books (not to mention a night of getting completely pissed) I was ready to face the world again.

Seriously, anyone who gambles - follow the three rules. Discipline, discipline and discipline. Most punters cannot stick to their rules 100% of the time, some get away with it, some don't. I've probably only broken my limits 3 or 4 times over the last year and a bit, and finally got caught. Probably a good thing, I went back to the tried and true, and after 10 weeks of slog I'm back to where I was at the beginning of the year. And it has been a slog - out of 60 sporting events I've bet so far this year, I've only made money on 28 of them which as a percentage is way down on last year.

A pessimistic punter is an unsuccessful one. So I take the glass half full aproach - on a strike rate of less than 50% I'm square for the year and if I ignore the first two weeks of 2006, I'm 8,000 quid up. Life ain't so bad after all.

Duck Shooting Season

So our Minister of Sport, Trevor Mallard, believes "some Kiwi athletes have shown they lack the "mental toughness" needed to clinch a sporting victory". That will make interesting reading for our athletes as they pick up the paper at the airport when getting off the plane. Having been recently introduced to the role of parenting, I've woken up to the fact that when someone doesn't quite achieve what they set out to achieve, the answer is not to put the boot in and call them a "failure", but to work out what went wrong so that next time they try to do something worthwhile, they have a greater chance of success.

Even if the comment is true (which I don't think it is), it's the sort of comment that should be kept in the subconcious and not splashed around as a headline. It's a shocker.

I didn't hear the interview, but apparently Nick Hill said this morning that the medal target was set by the sports themselves. What utter bullshit. Going back to the Herald on Sunday article last December, we were told:

"The figure was calculated by Sparc's high performance chief Marty Toomey, in consultation with Dave Currie ... The number is taken from performances over the past two years that rank an athlete or team in the top three of the Commonwealth. Sparc has identified 55 athletes or teams in this category and has multiplied that by a 70-80 per cent conversion rate to come up with 45."

This guy is doing a serious exercise in arse covering and the more he says, the more inconsistencies he shows. He should piss off back to the energy industry where he came from.

Weekend Review

There is nothing more frustrating than backing $3 shots, watching them play like the $2.20 shots they should have been, and not getting any chocolates. How the Chiefs lost to the Brumbies I still cannot work out - they had enough ball to win the god-damned whole competition. As a punter, you have to keep reminding yourself that you only need greater than 33.33% of your $3 shots to show a profit, but geez, the short-term frustrations can get to you if you're not careful.

Luckily I checked the weather forecasts before the Napier test (NZ v WI cricket) and quickly worked out rain + a pitch that is a road = certain draw. Tomorrow and Tuesday look good for a wash-out, and so long as Flem and Shiv don't do a Hansie Cronje on me and turn the game into a one-innings affair, on Wednesday it will be "pass the sugar". I will probably cover my arse and lay the draw around 1.03 sometime Tuesday (unless the forecast is for more rain on Wed) for some sad freak who wants to risk a quick 3% on a certain result.

Also involved in the SAF / Oz test, hence the late night. Laid the draw pregame at 3.5 which was a bit of a risk given a slightly dodgy forecast and also the possibility of bad light. But tests involving Aussie hardly ever get past 400 overs, and even 3.5 I felt was too short. I might pay for it, but as I type the first innings have been completed just past the halfway mark, so a result should still be on the cards - weather and pitch conditions permitting.

And one final parting shot at SPARC before I completely forget about the Commonwealth Games. Yes, I do not have a huge amount of time for them as I believe their philosophy for high performance sport in NZ is fundamentally screwed up. So if someone can show me the consistency in the following two published quotes from their CEO I'd be most grateful:

Sparc is part way through a review of its high performance systems but Hill said Melbourne wouldn't be a catalyst for radical change. – Herald on Sunday, 26 March 2006.

However, (Hill) warned anything less than 40 medals "would mean there would have to be some serious questions asked about how well our high performance systems are working and whether we need to make radical changes". – Herald on Sunday, 11 December 2005.

Maths 101

Some interesting quotes from SPARC CEO Nick Hill in the Sunday Star Times today:

"We need to front up; a fourth is a failure ... "

and barely two sentences later, "Brent Newdick's fourth ... is a fantastic result and you have to be excited by what that means for the future"

For those without a degree in mathematics, if A = B and B = C, then A must equal C.

So let's translate that second quote:

"Brent Newdick's failure is a fantastic result and you have to be excited by what that means for the future"

ROFLMAO.

Enjoying a loss

I have a soft spot for basketball. Played it at school and was always high on the list of priorities when working as a freelance photographer. I have some great memories (and photos) from being on the sidelines during the Oceania Test Series in 2001 when we beat Australia in a series for the first time. One of my biggest regrets during my clicking days was chucking the media accreditation forms for the 2002 World Basketball Champs in the bin, deciding I couldn't afford it. The day after accreditation closed, the syndicate I work for had a large win, the result for me meaning I would have more than enough to pay for the trip.

Ah well, enough nostalgia. Last night, with the Blues v Waratahs and the Basketball Gold Medal game on at the same time, it was no contest. Switched on just in time to see the haka (yes, before the game). What followed was one of the most enthralling and high-quality sporting contests you'll see in a long time. At times when watching sport you forget about allegiances and just watch it for the pure spectacle that sport can sometimes produce. There are not many times when I wake up the following morning after NZ has lost to Australia in something and not give a shit.

If you haven't seen the game and get an opportunity to do so, it's worth it. Can't wait for the World Basketball Champs later in the year - hopefully we'll get coverage in NZ as based on the strength of last night's game, both the Kiwis and Aussies will go well.

Super 14 Week 7

HURRICANES ($1.50) v SHARKS ($3.15)

Can lightning strike twice? The Sharks get another chance to ambush a NZ team returning home from SAF. They are capable, and while I feel the Hurricanes will not be completely on top of their game after a torrid match against the Bulls, don't forget the Sharks are nearing the end of their road trip and I do worry whether they can get the same performance as they did last week with their airline tickets now in hand. But the price is worth it - not with the same confidence as last week, but I'll have some money on the Sharks tonight.

WARATAHS ($1.44) v BLUES ($3.35)

I have been saying throughout the season that the Blues have been playing OK, but ironically their win last week has me worried a loss is on the cards for them. The Brumbies made too many line breaks against them last week and had problems with support players (missing Giteau I feel) and/or errors stuffing up promising situations. Any repeat of a leaky midfield and I don't think the Waratahs will be as charitable. MacAlister may be back, which will be a help, but I'll believe that when I see him run out onto the field. I can't see past a Tahs win, so I'm not betting.

CHEETAHS ($1.39) v REDS ($3.70)

No Latham. No chance. No bet.

BRUMBIES ($1.54) v CHIEFS ($2.84)

I remember this game fondly from last year, one of my better collects laying the Brumbies at 1.10 at halftime with a 14 point lead (the game was eventually drawn). The last 2 weeks the Brumbies haven't been as impressive as before, I still believe on any given day the Chiefs can beat anybody, so with fingers crossed I'm chucking some moolah on the Mooloos.

HIGHLANDERS ($1.17) v CATS ($6.40)

Only a fool would back the Cats in this game, but the handicap line of 15.5 is tempting. Further thought is required.

FORCE ($6.00) v BULLS ($1.19)

A potentially ugly game with two of the lesser creative sides in the comp just got uglier with the appointment of Honiss as ref. One to avoid, both betting and watching.

So again, I can't see how I'm going to spend $100 for the JWOC team:

$30 on the Sharks at 3.15
$30 on the Chiefs at 2.84
$40 into the Reserve Fund.

Athletes and Drinking

A subject I'm well qualified to address I feel.

So the big news is a couple of cyclists had a few drinks and got up to a bit of hijinks. Big deal. It is a great time-honoured tradition in most sports to get absolutely mothered after a major competition, and why not? After a few months hard training, which generally involves abstinence from alcohol (and in some sad cases, sex), the natural urge to have a bit of fun is overwhelming. The great thing is it usually only takes three thimbles of beer into a finely-tuned athletic body for said athlete to get absolutely off their face.

Let thee without sin cast the first stone. Given my past record at various orienteering events, which by the way I am proud of, I'm not even in the queue.

Super 14 picks will be up later in the day.

Still in Nappies

Judging by the events from the past few days, NZ sporting commentators and some of the public have a lot of growing up to do. As the medal haul from the Commonwealth Games dried up faster than a creek in Central Otago in the middle of the summer, out come the doomsday merchants:

Tony Veitch (Radio Sport):

“But they have spent, SPARC, 30 million dollars over the last 12 months to ensure this team would perform, our best-funded team to the Commonwealth Games. So have we done poorly? Are we underperforming?”

Andrew Saville (Radio Sport):

“Huge amounts of money, yes, have been spent on athletes, and officials, at these games, and some teams have not been up to scratch. It’s not good enough.”

That was on Monday morning. As the week has worn on, the lack of success has become mainstream media news and everyone is putting the boot in. Try this from Peter Cresswell whose knowledge on sports probably equates to mine on architecture:

"Congratulations to the sixteen medal winners. To the rest of you, may I have my money back please?

With $30 million of taxpayers' money spent on making NZ atheletes beneficiaries -- that's $1.875 million per medal -- does it even begin to look like it was in any way money "well spent"? And have we got a right to complain about atheletes' performances when we've been forced to pay for them, and the money appears to have been pissed up against a wall?"

Go into any NZ sports forum (not that there are that many) and you get well-informed comments such as this:

"What i object to is my f**king tax dollars being spent on the likes of Chantal Brunner who is not up to it"

Oh dear. At this point, I'll direct my four regular readers to an article my twin brother wrote on Sportsfreak. Every time a NZ team shows signs of underperforming at a Commonwealth or Olympic Games, people are quick to put the boot in and question the use of public funds for the athletes.

I don't have a problem with criticism of a sporting performance that is below par. In New Zealand, we have developed that to a fine art - possibly because we have a lot of practice at it.

However I am seriously FUCKED OFF that because there is some use of public funds in high performance sport, when things go a bit pear-shaped the sad cockroaches come crawling out of the cupboard and complain about the amount and/or use of public money so these athletes can go swanning off on a sports holiday to get pissed and maybe put in a sporting performance on the side. I guess when my stepson fails School C (or whatever it is now) in a couple of year's time, I should follow their lead and complain bitterly about the use of taxpayer's money to fund my local Secondary School.

Time to clear up a few misconceptions and make some salient points:

1. Sporting success (and failure) has FUCK ALL to do with money. Money helps in certain areas, can make life a bit easier (or harder) in build-up and actual performance, but the greatest determinant of sporting performance is what goes on between the ears of a sportsperson.

2. Not a huge amount of the high performance funding in NZ reaches the athlete. Most of the money goes into the three regional academies, sports programmes run by individual sports that pay for in most cases a High Performance Manager and High Performance Coach, and into support services (think physios, nutritionists, medical etc etc). Whether that's a good or bad thing can be argued and debated another time, but the relevant point given what Joe Public thinks is the $30 million DOES NOT go into the athlete's pockets as "beneficiaries" of the NZ taxpayer.

3. Whoever set the target of 40+ medals need their head examined. As we know in Orienteering which has this problem more than most sports, "home advantage" has a role to play. The last time the CG were held in Australia (1982 Brisbane), we didn't have a very good time - 5 gold medals and 26 in total. Yet 8 years later when the CG were in Auckland, we won 17 gold medals and 58 in total. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that taking the Aussies on in their backyard in something like this is a very difficult assignment. No, I'm not accepting mediocrity, just adding a dose of realism. In my view, the target was unrealistic given the venue of the games and was a figure plucked out of thin air, without critically assessing the realistic chances of the sports involved. So good on you SPARC - set a fucking stupid target and invite the public to come screaming at you about the waste of money you disburse from governement funds when this target is not reached. Great strategy.

I could go on but I've got work to do. To sum up what could become a very long post:

A. Some of the criticism about the performances of some of our athletes is warranted and deserved.

B. There should be continuing debate about the amount and/or use of public money in high performance sport, but the debate should be about HOW and WHERE this money is spent, and IS IT USED EFFECTIVELY?

And most importantly C. - A and B are NOT LINKED. The performances of the athletes are the "end result" of the funding, just as my stepson's School C result will be the "end result" of government funding of my local Secondary School. But you can't link the collective performance of our athletes at the Commonweakth Games with the funding of high performance sport in this country. We could have the best systems and processes, coaches and support services in the world and come home with 30 medals. Alternatively, we could have really crap systems, coaches etc and come home with 60 medals. You see, the "end result" does not necessarily reflect the effective spending of public money in this area. The day the media and public twig to this will be the day I can say we have dispensed with the nappies and reached sporting maturity.

Aussies taking the p!ss Part II

Only in Australia would they publish a website that shows you where to stop if you're caught short ...

http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/

Aussies taking the p!ss

When the All Blacks do the haka before a rugby match, it's thrilling, even terrifying. But when a bunch of bare-chested all-whites from the New Zealand swim team do the haka at the pool when they win bronze, they look like they're auditioning for Brokeback Mountain II.

Louise Smith in The Australian

Kiwi boxer and convicted child killer Soulan Pownceby does ringside commentary for New Zealand TV before losing his first bout. Pownceby was jailed for four years in 1995 for the manslaughter of his five-month-old daughter and was convicted of four more assault charges by 2000. He's even been named captain of the boxing team. Another conviction and he could run for parliament.

Louise Smith again.

Sporting Quotes

There are some classics around, but every so often I come across a new one that I find mildly amusing, like this ...

American golfer John Daly, explains why he doesn't like going to the gym: "They won't let me smoke."

Haka'd Out

Rant time. I thought during the Commonwealth Games I would get rapidly pissed off at the number of times I heard "Advance Australia Fair", and true to form, every time we get one of those minor medals some Aussie is on top of the dias and those sickening strands blare out of the TV. But unexpectedly something else has got up my nose big-time, and that is the use of the haka.

Before the Games, we were "promised" less hakas by the Chef De Mission. So what the fuck are the swimming boys doing the haka when one of their teammates comes SECOND or THIRD ???

Cringe factor huge. There is nothing worse than seeing skinny white boys doing a Maori war dance, especially when we haven't won?

Seriously, I'm starting to get embarrassed by the use of the haka. While I'm no expert on Maori culture, every New Zealander knows the haka is a war dance, and according to Wikipedia, "typically used by warriors before a battle, proclaiming their strength and prowess and generally verbally abusing the opposition" (my emphasis)

Using the haka AFTER the event has always been a little suspect in my book, given its origins, and we can blame the Rugby Sevens and League boys for that - they should know better.

But using it after the event when we haven't won??? I can understand the swimming boys being a little pumped up at the sight of a precious medal, but if they stopped and thought for a moment, breaking out into a haka, telling all and sundry about their strength and prowess for finishing second or third, and verbally abusing the poor chap who has just won, is embarrassing, disrespectful and pathetic.

On the other hand, I think the T-shirts the NZ Badminton side - a.k.a. the "Black Cocks" - have made are just brilliant. For those who haven't heard, this is what NZ supporters have been wearing at the badminton venue:

(Caps) Not a Soft Option
(Mens Tshirt) Black Cocks: Expect Big things
(Womens Tshirt) Nobody Likes To Come Second

I'd love to know what their opposition - which included Jamaica and Kenya - thought of them!

Super 14 Week 6

With 3 cricket tests underway this weekend, I'm a bit distracted from the rugby - perhaps just as well as the match-ups look decidely unappealing from a betting point of view.

CRUSADERS ($1.05) v CATS ($18)

Yuk. Although the Crusaders were $1.03 last year and squeaked home 41-38, last year the Cats had Andre Pretorious. This year they don't, and even though I'm expecting the Crusaders to be slightly off the boil after the team changes and getting up for 2 games against fellow NZ sides, only the insane would be backing the Cats. Even the handicap line of 24.5 I'm not interested. No bet.

FORCE ($12) v WARATAHS ($1.09)

Whoever programmed this year's Super 14 must have a sick sense of humour, putting these games together on a Friday night. Viweing figures for the NRL will show a marked increase tonight. No bet.

BULLS ($1.52) v HURRICANES ($3.10)

The Canes used their get out of jail free card last week. They won't get another one. No bet.

BLUES ($2.18) v BRUMBIES ($1.82)

Am struggling to get a handle on this game. The Blues coming off a bye and with the season on the line against a team who hasn't lost, although put in their worst performance of the season last week. I'm finding it hard to get off the fence for this one, but if I had to, I'd lean ever so slightly to the Blues, who I don't think have played that badly so far this year. In a 50/50 game, odds of $2.20+ start to look tempting - I'll see what happens in the next 24 hours before deciding whether to bet.

HIGHLANDERS ($1.47) v SHARKS ($3.35)

A bit disappointed the Sharks aren't paying more - had expected them to be around the $4 mark. Even so, I think they're worth a wager - NZ teams returning home from SAF are never a good bet, no matter who they are playing and the Highlanders have lost their playmaker and kicker, although I think his absence is not as crucial as some think. The Sharks are infuriatingly inconsistent (play bad when I have money on them, play good when I don't), but I will go to the well one more time with them.

STORMERS ($1.83) v CHEETAHS ($2.24)

A lottery. I might take the Cheetahs if they drift out to $2.30+ as it's another game I find hard to call.

So this week's bets:

Definitely $40 on the Sharks to beat the Highlanders.
If I can get $2.20 on the Blues and $2.30 on the Cheetahs that's where the other $60 will go ($30 each).

A bizarre game

Anyone need proof that Cricket is one of the most logically-challenging sports needs to go to Cricinfo and read about last night's ODI between Australia and South Africa. Dean Jones (a former Aussie cricketer) had this to say halfway through the game:

"This knock of 434 is greatest in the ODIs and might not be conquered ever. The way Australia is murdering their opponents, makes them invincible," he said on the sidelines of the second Test between India and England.

Well Dean, that knock of 434 was conquered in a tick over 3 hours. To put it in perspective, the highest ODI scores prior to yesterday were 398 and 397 by Sri Lanka and New Zealand, but against substandard opposition (Kenya and Zimbabwe). The highest score between two "real" teams is, sorry was, 376 made by India against New Zealand.

Not surprisingly, a game where one team scores a world record and then has it chased down has generated a lot of words amongst punters. There will have been some serious money made and lost on the match - none of it by me as I was asleep. Checking the Betfair threads I see that 800,000 pounds was matched on Australia at 1.01. That means a collection of individuals (you would hope it is not one) backed Australia for 400,000 pounds to win 4,000, and lost. Ouch.

But was it a bad bet? Not in my book. There have been well over 2,000 ODI's played and not one of them (until now) has produced a score over 400. Even allowing for the fact that these games tend to produce higher scores now than 20 years ago, the pitch was obviously a road and the boundaries short, 1.01 was probably a fair price at the change of innings. Apparently South Africa were 110/1 then, and 150/1 soon after at the fall of an early wicket. Shockingly bad prices, they should have been closer to 500/1.

Many people, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, would disagree, and that is what makes punting a reasonable way to make a living - there is no right or wrong way to assess what is the correct "price" for a sporting event, and punters perception of "value" differs - if we all thought the same, there would be no edge.

The advent of betting exchanges has brought about a new phenomena into sports betting which there is very little literature and I suspect no-one has given too much thought to (and I would if I had the time), and that is how the various occurences during a sporting event should affect the price of the individuals or teams involved.

This ODI is a case in point. Australia are 1.01 and South Africa are 110 after Australia make 434-4 in their 50 overs. As I've said above, IMO those prices are a joke and the fact that South Africa successfully chased doesn't alter my opinion. (That is not to say I would back Australia at 1.01 or lay South Africa at 110, as even if such bets were value in my eyes I have an irrational aversion to backing 1.01 shots)

But there is a counter-argument that says the occurences during a sporting event should have no effect on the opening prices. Perhaps Australia should still be 1.80 odd and SAF 2.20 ish (their opening prices) after Oz got their runs. If they can get 434, why can't South Africa?

The Lions scored an early try against the All Blacks in the second test last year and NZ's price went from about 1.13 to 1.20. Does an early try by the rank outsider justify such movement?

Pakistan lost three wickets in the first over of a test match late last year against India and their price skyrocketed. Even worse, they were 39/6. No prizes for guessing who won the game. Is a wicket in a test match really worth the 5% the prices move?

Wickets, runs, tries - they're all part and parcel of sport - we just don't know when they'll occur, and at what frequency. Logic tells us that such occurences should affect the price of the combatants, but as I implied at the beginning, sport is one of the most illogical beasts around. As such, "taking the counter view" (e.g. backing SAF at 110 when it looks like they have no hope, or backing the AB's at 1.20 when the Lions scored a try) is probably not the dumbest thing to do after all.

So, here we are on the final morning of the test match between West Indies and New Zealand - NZ need another 2 wickets to win and the Windies 45 runs. The prices are 1.22 NZ and 5.2 Windies. "Logic" tells us that NZ, the pregame favourites, should be able to wrap up the final 2 wickets and win, but if I was having my first bet on the game now, I know what I'd do.

More sport please

I'm suffering withdrawal symptoms - there's not enough sport going on at the moment. Three simultaneous cricket tests, six games of Super 14 coming up, a few from the Six Nations as well if I want to get bored, the NRL starting this weekend with seven league games. Lucky the Commonwealth Games is coming up so I can listen to "Advance Australia Fair" a thousand times ...

Yep, I'm overwhelmed. Test cricket is not treating me kindly this year so we'll ignore that and concentrate on the wekend's Super 14 - not that I can see a whole lot of value:

CHIEFS ($3.80) v CRUSADERS ($1.37)

One of my theories about rugby is sometimes teams are not given enough credit for forcing their opposition into playing badly. Take the Chiefs last week - the Reds had been reasonably competitive this season and were made to look ordinary against them. Maybe they were playing away from home in the world's most boring city (although the person who has Byron Kelleher's girlfriend's cellphone would probably deny that) , but that ignores the fact the Reds actually beat the Chiefs in Hamilton last year.

The week before - the Force played their "worst" game of the (admittedly short) season so far - against the Chiefs. OK, you can say the Chiefs have played two of the wooden spoon contenders and won, but other teams have played the Reds and Force and not been as convincing.

I still believe the Chiefs can be semi-finalists this year. They are up against a side who put in probably the best 40 minutes of footy so far in the Super 14 last week, and any repeat will see a Crusaders victory. But at $3.80 I'll have a small tickle on the Chiefs at home.

WARATAHS ($1.11) v CATS ($9.20)

$9 in a head-to-head match up should be taken almost without thought, but even I cannot part with any lucra and place it on the Cats. Along with the Crusaders, the Waratahs last week looked as if they are starting to hit their straps. And the wonder boy (Rogers) is back. Keep an eye out on the bench halfback (Sheehan) - if the Tahs have half a brain he'll be starting soon and then they could get real dangerous. One to avoid - both betting-wise and watching - I'll be falling asleep viewing the opening match of the NRL instead.

BRUMBIES ($1.18) v SHARKS ($6.40)

The Brumbies almost got through 3 matches on the trot without conceding a try, letting one in late against the Cats. The Sharks have been competitive (up until last week) prinicipally because they feed off the mistakes of their opposition. Brumbies are one of the better sides at keeping their error rate down, and that coupled with their defense makes this a no-brainer, and a no bet.

REDS ($1.28) v FORCE ($4.70)

I really don't care about this match...

BULLS ($1.65) v HIGHLANDERS ($2.62)

... but this one, I do. I really thought the Highlanders would struggle this year with their horror draw, but get through this and their hard part of the season is over. It's the game of the weekend without question, and also the bet of the weekend without question - the Bulls should be slight favourites but not that short. Load up.

STORMERS ($2.32) v HURRICANES ($1.79)

Getting back to the theory at the top, the Stormers were ordinary last week thanks in part to the opposition - before that they put up good showings against the Tahs and Brumbies. The Hurricanes may prove to be the flaky version of previous years, so I'm prepared to put a little bit on the Stormers to get their first win at home.

So I'm putting $100 this week on:

$60 Highlanders to beat the Bulls @ 2.62
$20 Stormers to beat the Hurricanes @ 2.32
$20 Chiefs to beat the Crusaders @ 3.80

If anyone wants some rugby league bets, these prices seem wrong to me:

Tigers $2.86 to beat the Dragons
Eels $2.12 to beat the Knights
Cowboys $2.24 to beat the Broncos

Super 14 Week 4

After last weekend, no-one can feel confident about any particular team's performance on any given day. Even the supposedly best side (Crusaders) continued their sleep-walk start to the season. Last weekend I felt most of the games were "dross", but then watched the second half of the England-Scotland game which at least put it into perspective (i.e. they probably weren't that bad).

With no team really showing signs of getting it together, it makes it difficult to predict results with certainty. On the flip side, that means teams that are written off as having no chance are probably value in betting, and there are a few this week that appeal as betting prospects.

CHIEFS ($1.38) v REDS ($3.60)

A case in point. The Force were woeful last week against the Chiefs, and the only thing I took out of the game was there were signs that the Chiefs backline was starting to get re-acquainted. The Reds on the other hand showed for the third week in a row they are a competitive side but yet again came away without the chocolates.

Media is making much of the deja-vu factor - the Reds lost their first 3 last year, and then went to Waikato Stadium and won 20-6. Big deal - has absolutely no relevance. What is relevant is the Chiefs showed signs of improvement, albeit against one of the weakest sides, while the Reds performance was consistent with their first 2 efforts. Any continuation of performance improvement should see the Chiefs win, but no way are they a $1.38 shot. It's a ridiculous price. I'm on the Reds for this one.

BRUMBIES ($1.18) v CATS ($6.80)

If there's one thing you learn during the Super 14, BEWARE the teams returning home from South Africa - applies more to the NZ teams but also has relevance for the Aussie teams as well. With the expanded competition this year and a team in Perth, some teams get lucky and play the Force on the return home, but not the Brumbies. Yes, they will probably win. No, they are not worth backing at $1.18. Hell, I'd even baulk at $1.30. I may have a nibble on the Cats, but only a small one. Of more interest is the Handicap, where I can get better than evens for the Cats getting a 14.5 point start. There will be 30+ point thrashings in the Super 14 at some stage, but these generally occur later on, and no side is showing signs of doing that any time soon.

WARATAHS ($1.30) v SHARKS ($4.70)

The Waratahs are returing home as well, have players out to injury/suspension, but do have Mat Rogers on the bench, who you'd expect will get 30 min out on the field. The Sharks have had a win, a 1 point loss, and a 2 point loss against the defending champions. Both teams have a decent backline, and note the game is being played in the afternoon (Reason: so as not to clash with the Mardi Gras - so rugby comes second to a bunch of weirdos prancing around in drag. Let's rename Sydney Faggotville).

This has the makings of a good game. OK while the Crusaders were not on song last week, the Sharks impressed me with their defensive effort. Their lineout worries me, but at $4.70 I'm having a lash.

CRUSADERS ($1.33) v BLUES ($4.30)

It would be fair to say both teams have underperformed so far this season. The difference being the Crusaders have managed to win all 3 games while the Blues have only 1. I always look forward, as an (ex-)Aucklander, to these games, but last year's game is still very clear in the memory when the Crusaders had a 30 or 40 point lead at halftime. It was an awesome performance, and just reinforces how no team this year has hit their straps.

So is this the week the Crusaders awake from their summer snooze and get cracking? This might be the game that gets them up and running for the year - if they can't shake the cobwebs out of the system when the Blue and Whites come to town, then I really might start to think this is the Hurricanes year. But that Blues price is sooooooooo tempting. I might regret it, but I'm leaving this one alone.

STORMERS ($1.83) v HIGHLANDERS ($2.24)

Apparently the Highlanders have been hit by the tummy bug which explains the prices. Well the Brumbies were hit by the tummy bug in Week 1 and still won. Geez, with modern medicine you can play an 80 min game of footy with an upset stomach. Can't read too much into Otago's performance last week (it pissed down with rain), while the Stormers are showing at home they are no easy beats. I'm leaving this one alone as well, while I think the Stormers are a little on the short side price-wise, it's not enough to entice me into betting.

CHEETAHS ($2.76) v HURRICANES ($1.58)

Hmmm. I still have the feeling the Hurricanes are a bit over-hyped. Sure, thanks to the away win v the Blues and max points after 3 rounds, they are looking like semi-finalists. They are managing to put together a magical 10-15 min spell and pile on the points, while at other times they look ordinary. How much can you read into the last 2 weeks where they have played possibly the 2 worst sides in the comp? The Cheetahs will provide slightly stiffer opposition, but I can't get a grip on them either - last week in the rain I tend to discount, and before that a narrow win and loss against other SAF sides.

The Canes will probably win, but I don't think the price is justified. Rule No.1 in betting is VALUE - so while it is without any degree of confidence, I'll be having a small wager on the Cheetahs.

So this weeks $100 gets spent on:

$30 on the Reds @ 3.60
$20 on the Cats to cover the 14.5 handicap @ 2.08
$30 on the Sharks @ 4.70
$20 on the Cheetahs @ 2.76