Blogrest

A few days off this week:

a) I'm sick

b) I'm following the World Orienteering Championships

c) I'm following the World Series of Poker - 10,000 people paying $10,000 (that's USD) to chase a $10 million first prize. Madness.

d) I'm fucked off that South Africa can get bowled out for 170 on a track made for batting, although thankfully their better second innings showing has allowed me to bail out for no loss

But before I go - everyone is raving about the great defensive effort by the All Blacks to win the rugby in the weekend. But shouldn't we be worried that we only survived on about 40% possession and territory and our lineout crumbled in the second half?

Back later in the week.

Cricket Preview

ENGLAND ($3.35) v PAKISTAN ($4.30) DRAW ($2.10)

A dodgy weather forecast has seen the draw collapse from $2.68 to a low of $1.82 and is now on the rebound. The weather may have on influence on the outcome - my untrained meteorological eye sees possible interruptions late on Day 3 and more the worry, a significant chance of bad weather on Day 5, so another test to be wary (but not scared of) the draw.

Analysing this test you come to similar conclusions to the first test - popgun bowling attacks trying to get the other side out twice. No-one managed it in the first game, so there is a chance it won't happen here either. Add to that Strauss' captaincy (his decision to bat on in Day 5 at Lord's show a concerning conservative mindset) and the blind lay of the draw pregame might not be the smartest move.

But there were signs at Lord's that these two sides can produce a result. One can only wonder if Pakistan held onto their catches on the first day how differently the match would have panned out. Kaneria showed in England's second innings that he will cause problems in the latter stages of a test as England's ability against good spin bowling is my main question mark over their team. On the other side, give either Harmison or Hoggard more helpful conditions (either on the pitch or in the air) and I very much doubt you'll see Pakistan rattling up 450+ again.

Another test where it is difficult to take a pregame position. Team selection, toss decision and pitch watching during the first session will be the most important elements in deciding a betting strategy. Interesting that for a pitch that traditionally takes spin, England have sent their second (part-time) spinner back to county cricket. For the record, I have laid the draw at $1.90 (too short even given the weather forecast) but any early signs we will get another runfest I'll be quickly bailing out.

SRI LANKA ($2.14) v SOUTH AFRICA ($7.80) DRAW ($2.44)

Weather conditions have the potential to affect this game as well. I'm surprised the draw is as high as $2.44 given a reasonable chance of Day 1 interruptions. A reflection that everyone is writing off South Africa (without Smith, Kallis and Pollock) before a ball has been bowled. I'm not so quick to write them off; they have the better seam attack and expect them to be competitive for a significant portion of this match - however if there is enough time for a result I'd expect Murali and Jayasuria to have the final say.

Sri Lanka aren't at their strongest either, with Vaas out with a hamstring injury. The last test at the SSC ground saw Day 1 lost to rain, both teams (SL and Pak) bowled out for under 200 before second innings runfests turned the game into a draw - the only draw at SSC for ages.

Unfortunately the liquidity on the Betfair market is small, but the strategy here is clearer:

Lay Sri Lanka or back the draw pregame. If play gets underway on time, reverse the bets and lay the team batting. Overcast / humid conditions and inclement weather leading up to the test suggest to me batting will not be a cakewalk.

If play is delayed, lay the draw when play gets underway.

I think there is potential for significant price shifts in this game, but in the end I expect a Sri Lanka win if there is enough time in the game for a result.

Shorts

I love the NZ Sporting media Part One: Sky TV will be showing all the NZ games at the World Basketball Champs LIVE.

I love the NZ Sporting media Part Two: Radio Sport in NZ have updated their website and you can now listen to them LIVE over the internet.

This USA Today article on David Sharp / Everest is one of the best pieces on the whole affair (although does contain one inaccuracy - the Turkish team passed Sharp first on May 15, not Himex).

If you haven't checked KiwiHerald or Newzland (links on the left), go and do so, great Kiwi satire on a semi-regular basis.

Two cricket tests start tomorrow - previews in 24 hours.

Life must be good ...

when the All Blacks beat the Springboks by the not inconsiderable margin of 18 points and all we can say is it was a muddling performance and express concerns over rotation and lineouts.

FFS, while the Springboks aren't exactly at the top of their game, they are still not a bad side - we beat them and STILL we can't be satisfied. New Zealand will drop a game in the Tri Nations (probably in South Africa, hopefully not next week) and I fear what the public/media will think then.

There is one problem with the All Blacks. Dan Carter. Seriously. He is SOOOO good and we run the danger of being over-reliant on him. While he gave away 7 points in the opening minute he was responsible for the 35 we got in the other 79 minutes. While we express our lament at lineouts and rotation, the real concern is how would a Carter-less AB's perform? Not very well IMO.

And whie talking about good times, cashed in a poker tournament at the Casino during the weekend - 3rd out of 30 runners and picking up $650. Out of the 4 tourneys I've played up there, cashed twice, not to mention 4th in a 180 player tourney online during the week (US$280). God help the poker world when I actually learn how to play the game properly.

But the best bit of the weekend tournament was busting out a guy who obviously was a good player and I later learnt he had won the NZ Poker Champs last year. My first big scalp - who's next :-)

Bikes and Boks

Well f**k me. Favourite blows up in the Alps and is a goneburger. Next day comes out like a man possessed (or on drugs - joking) and earns complete redemption. I stayed up and watched Le Tour last night and it was a fairly awesome sporting performance, to say the least.

As 2 of my 4 regular readers have pointed out, on the surface it may seem I'm glad I didn't go against Landis after all. Far from it, I'm even more depressed. Why?

Landis to win TDF after first day in the Alps: $1.30
Landis to win TDF after second day in the Alps: 100/1+
Landis to win TDF after third day in the Alps: $1.30

Catching such price swings are what you dream about. Say you laid Landis at $1.30 for 1000 quid - your book reads -300 Landis, +1000 the (rest of the) field. Next day at 99/1 you back Landis for 50 quid at 100's and your book now reads +4400 Landis +950 the field. And then the dream second seismic shift occurs and you can lay Landis again for e.g. 3000 quid at $1.30 and your book ends up +3500 Landis +3950 the field. You've now got a guaranteed profit of 3500 quid by risking only 300. Now where's my valium?

These don't happen very often, and you catch them even less. So yes, it's depressing to see it happen in a situation where you seriously thought about betting - in such situations, you are analysing whether to bet not on whether you think the outcome may or may not happen (in this case Landis winning the TDF), but whether you believe there is sufficient likelihood there will be a significant price movement at some point between the placing of the bet and the conclusion of the event to make the bet worthwhile. And after mulling on it, I thought there wouldn't - and now I have a sore backside from the kicking I have given myself.

No-one in their wildest dreams would predict Landis would lose 10 minutes in the Alps and then get it back the next day. But that is what makes sports, and sports betting, interesting (and at times frustrating).

The unpredictability of sporting performance leads on to the next topic, the South Afican rugby team. All Blacks beat Wallabies by 20, Wallabies beat Springboks by 49 ... must mean an absolute thumping is on the cards tomorrow night.

Far from it. Obviously the Boks have problems (on and off the field) and yes, I have more chance of winning lotto than the Boks have of beating the ABs, but it is not impossible. More to the point, I don't think a 50-point thrashing is on the cards; 8 changes to the ABs, 5 to the Boks - what happened in the last fortnight starts to lose its relevance. Despite the obvious dangers of complacency, can the ABs really convince themselves to take the Springboks seriously? I believe there is more chance of this being a muddling game and a 15-20 point win a la the Irish tests earlier this year than a complete bollocking, esp. as NZ have stuffed up their backline by putting Sam T at 12.

The changes the Boks have made are positive (but they needed to make one more, to get rid of Olivier at 12) and will play better than last weekend (as obviously they can't play worse). I'm seriously considering backing them with the 21.5 point start at evens.

Tour De France & Tour De Basketball

A few days ago, Floyd Landis was odds on (under $2) to win Le Tour. Odds that were way too short but I didn't have the balls to lay him - having watched him through the Pyrenees he looked as good as anyone. Confirmed on the first stage in the Alps. Nah, I won't lay him - stick to the knitting I say. So don't bet, then watch him blow up on Day 2 in the Alps. Farrrrrk.

But I really want to talk Basketball. New Zealand and Australia have just finished an enthralling four match series that has been shared 2-2. For the NZ Tall Blacks, this represents the first 4 of 14 warm-up matches before the World Champs in Japan. Even allowing for the fact Australia were underdone and have huge upside for improvement, our boys are definitely streets ahead of where they were in 2002 and with another 10 games they sure will be close to their best come their first game in Hiroshima.

Which they need to be as they have a tough draw, playing Spain first up, then Germany - the two hardest opponents in their pool. It's typical of the irony of sport that NZ are probably a better team in 2006 than they were in 2002 but unfortunately they are going to get nowhere near the fourth place they achieved four years ago. Why? - the draw.

24 teams are competing in 4 pools of 6, with the top 4 progressing to the round of 16. NZ should qualify third (maybe fourth, maybe second, in our wildest dreams first). Then they play cross-over matches with another pool in the round of 16, and who is in that other pool? World Champions Serbia, Olympic Champions Argentina, World No.10 France to name 3. So finish third in their pool and they probably get to play Serbia, finish fourth - here - play arguably the best team on the planet, Argentina.

Knockout sporting competitions are very draw dependent, something that needs to be thoroughly analysed. NZ don't have any favours and (hopefully this is another prediction that will be shown up) will do amazingly well to get into the quarter-finals.

So when they come home in say 10th place, no doubt SPARC will cut their funding, label the team as a failure and Mallard will question their mental toughness. You read it here first.

More SPARC Spin

The release of the SPARC report reviewing the New Zealand performance at the Melbourne Commonwealth Games is just another example that the bureaucrats just “don’t get it”.

New Zealand is an extremely proud sporting nation and one that I would argue punches above its weight on the global stage. At times our expectations are not met and invariably provoke an outpouring of grief and much soul-searching as to why. According to SPARC, underperformance at the 2006 CG in certain sports was due to:

* Lack of depth, exposed through injury, illness and unavailability of key and/or experienced athletes;
* Commonwealth Games being a milestone event for some sports;
* Some coaches lacking capability and capacity;
* Some athletes not committed at the level required to be world-class, and;
* Some sports lacking the required high-performance culture.

What a sorry list of excuses. There is only ever one reason for underperformance in sport: the opposition (whether it be a team or individual) were “better on the day”. Anything else is just an … excuse.

Let’s explore these excuses in detail:

1. Lack of Depth.

Well, hello, New Zealand is a small country of 4 million people with economic resources to match. Now SPARC will tell you that size doesn’t matter and if we are smarter and innovative we can overcome the bigger budgets and populations of sporting superpowers such as Australia.

Time for a reality check. From sex to sport, size does matter and New Zealand sportspeople are already fairly smart and innovative. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t overachieve on the world sporting stage as we have done. SPARC seem to think that because the Government has chucked an extra $30 million into sport and recreation it has a divine right to expect better sporting results.

Time for another reality check. Money does not buy sporting success. It can help in certain areas, but there is no direct correlation. Increase the budget by 50% and we’ll get 50% more medals. If only sporting life was so simple.

So what is SPARC going to do about this “lack of depth”? From the report:

“To develop depth, SPARC needs to further focus its investment and support to sports that can win medals.”

Translation: We will continue to decrease the number of eggs in the funding basket.

That is so short-sighted and about as dumb as you can get, and where SPARC have got it completely wrong. Sport is an unpredictable game, sometimes with winners coming out of the woodwork before anyone has had a chance to recognise them, that further selective targeting of high performance funding just increases the chance that a future champion will be missed by the system, and a potential winner foregone. I argue that further selective targeting of high performance funding will decrease, rather than increase, our international sporting success.

Sporting success in New Zealand is to some extent cylical and inconsistent. That is a natural by-product of being a small nation (both in terms of population and economy) and I would have thought that anyone with half a brain would recognise that is what our sporting history has shown. Let me give you some examples:

Kayaking, Rowing, Hockey, Equestrian, Yachting, Cycling – at times on “top of the world” yet at other times struggling to compete. I’ve given six examples of sports that I thought of off the top of my head in 5 seconds where New Zealand has had intermittent success and I challenge anyone to name me six sports where New Zealand has consistent long-term (5+ years) international success (and rugby doesn’t count, as that has not been funded by the public purse to any great extent). And by success, I mean “winning”, because that is how SPARC defines our sporting success.

So let’s chuck out the shooting and lawn bowls eggs out of the funding basket and only leave the rowing and swimming ones in there because they are the ones that are doing well at the moment. As a strategy it is dumb – there is no other word to describe it.

2. Commonwealth Games a Milestone Event

This needs some explaining. For some sports, the CG is not the most important event for that particular sport – I think the example of Hockey was given where World Cups, Champions Trophy etc are more important events. Thus for Hockey, the CG is a “milestone” event as opposed to a “pinnacle” event (pinnacle being the most important, whatever it may be).

What a load of horse dung. If the CG is only a milestone event for e.g. the NZ Hockey team, then it is also only a milestone event for their competitors as well. If the NZ Hockey team had beaten Australia for the gold medal, would we see Australia describing the CG as only a milestone event and using that as an excuse for their loss? I don’t think so. Seeing that in the report is laughable.

3. Coaches lacking capability and capacity

Oh yeah, that’s right, underperfomance in sport is always (partly) the coaches fault. It may be true in certain circumstances, but as a generalisation it’s weak, tired and not accurate.

4. Athletes not committed

See 3. above – may have some relevance in individual cases but as a general excuse, I struggle to believe that the vast majority of our athletes at the CG weren’t giving their all during competition (or in training leading up to it).

5. Lack of high-performance culture

This needs translation as well. What it really means is some sports have yet to become the full-time professional business that SPARC want to see in our sports (that matter) with full-time managers, coaches and athletes living and breathing their sport 24/7, leaving no stone unturned in their quest for international success. Time for the final reality check – despite the extra funding SPARC have given some sports, it is still not enough to transform them into “professionals”. Many of the Commonwealth and Olympic sports are “amateur” by definition, and if SPARC thinks that by using money to employ full-time managers and coaches while athletes still have to earn a crust through a day job is enough to suddenly transform a sport into the world of professionalism, they (SPARC) have rocks in their head. CEO of Hockey NZ (Ramesh Patel) has made this point – while it’s great to have funding for managers, coaches and international travel, the athletes still have to spend x hours a day working to put food on the table.

You can’t chuck an extra couple of hundred thousand p.a. at a sport like shooting and expect an amateur sport to display all the qualities of a professional sport in a short-time span that can suddenly take on and beat the world (where, incidentally, they are up against full-time professional athletes in the case of for e.g. India). Yet that is what they expect. Unrealistic, unjustified and shows how far removed from reality these paper-pushers are.

So there you have it. What a pathetic list of excuses for a perceived failure. One day I’ll write about their recommendations contained in their report, which are just as pitiful.

49-0

Growing up as a young lad, New Zealand - Springbok rugby tests were the ultimate in sporting rivalry. So it is with more than a touch of sadness I watched that absolute shellacking on Saturday night. That has to be the worst rugby performance by a South African side ever. And now they have 7 days to rid themselves of the mental scars and face up to the All Blacks - good luck.

An equally worse performance has been my reading of the current England Pakistan cricket test - first I gave the Pakistanis a chance of winning, then I thought the English would do it, which of course means it's going to be a draw. A fifth night of getting it wrong does not appeal, so I might get some shuteye in readiness for the "L'Alpe D'Huez" stage of the Tour De France tomorrow tonight. I feel like plonking a few quid on Cadel Evans in the winner's market but I don't want to jinx the guy. After all the crazy happenings in sport, an Australian winning cycling's most prestiguous race would not surprise.

Catches win matches

The oldest and most over-used cliche in cricket, but so true. Drop a guy before he has scored and watch him make a ton (getting further let-offs along the way) is the fast road to the losing podium. Pakistan had their chances to restrict England to an average first-innings and have blown it. As long as (a) they don't collapse in the morning, and (b) the dreaded catching bug doesn't affect England as well (as it did at this ground against Sri Lanka - what is it with catching a ball at Lord's?), I'm expecting England to be 1-0 up in 4 day's time.

This weekend's Tri Nations test is Australia v South Africa and I'm expecting a home win. However Australia at $1.30 is IMO a bit too short (South Africa $4.60 Draw $60) and if it wasn't for my running liability on them in the winner's market I'd go against them at that price, but not for any great amount.

Cricket Preview (Eng v Pak)

Any test series involving England gets my attention due to the massive liquidity on Betfair - already before a ball has been bowled 700,000 quid has been matched on the match odds market. During the last few days the draw price has shortened from 3 to 2.5 as news of injuries to bowlers in both camps filters out.

It is a tricky test to take any position pre-game (and I haven't yet). As always, three things to consider - weather, pitch and teams.

First the weather - a flaming great big high is about to descend on England so the chances of interruptions are minimal. Normally, this is great news for draw layers as 5 full days of play usually guarantees a result. However, with the depleted bowling attacks and the fact that sunny days usually mean a lack of assistance for seamers there is a chance this test could become a batter's picnic. That's what is making me nervous about going against the draw pregame. Balancing that however, is more often than not batsmen get themselves out, so even with five sunny days it's nearly reaching a price that is too short.

Pitch - no idea. The infamous slope will always give some slight assistance to bowlers but I can't help think that (unless the groundsman has had the fire brigade out there with the hoses) the pitch will be flat. Reason No.2 to be wary (but not scared) of the draw.

Teams - both teams are missing strike bowlers (Flintoff and possibly Hoggard for England; Ahktar and possibly Asif for Pakistan) but with the weather and likely pitch conditions it's the second innings where the result is likely to come and where I think if anything, Pakistan have the edge.

If there is one nagging doubt I have about England, it's their ability to play good spin bowling. While Kaniera is not in the same class as Warne or Murali, he still has the potential to win a match. Rewind to the last two times these teams met a little over 6 months ago (admittedly in Pakistan), his second innings bowling figures were 4-52 and 4-62 as he bowled Pakistan to two test wins.

It is also apparent that Pakistan have improved as a test side, with batsmen more adept to hunkering down when the going gets tough and a few who, if they get in, can go and get really big scores.

The absence of Flintoff I believe also makes this game more even than the market has priced it. Losing an all-rounder affects the balance of the side. Either play one more batsmen and have a slightly depleted bowling attack or play a full complement of bowlers and have a batting tail that you would rather not have. Hobson's choice.

So all in all, while the draw is heading into "too short" territory, anyone looking at betting pregame should consider laying England. Currently the prices are England 2.86 Pakistan 4.0 and the Draw 2.48. The only downside to a lay of England is if Pakistan bat first and go back to their old ways of flashing at everything outside off stump and get bowled out cheaply. I like to think that is unlikely, but if worried about such a scenario lay the draw after the toss. If England bat first and pile on the runs, their price will shorten but not as much as the draw, which gives an avenue for an exit strategy.

On a forum someone made the comment that this is "anybody's game to lose". I tend to agree, and IMO a result will come through either Pakistan not batting well enough in the first innings or England not batting well enough in the second.

Happy Days

Don't know what I enjoyed more - Italy winning the World Cup or the All Blacks demolishing the Wallabies.

The All Black win has seen IMO an over-reaction in the winner's market for the Tri Nations. Remember before the game prices were around NZ 1.6 Oz 3.75 SAF 9 and now they are around NZ 1.35 Oz 5.5+ SAF 9.

While the bonus point win may be a factor (and the manner in which it was achieved), the Wallabies were $3.80 outsiders for the game and on the back of one performance out of six they have to play have they really gone from a 27% chance to 17% (to win the tournament)?

What will happen to their price should they turn around and beat the Springboks in the weekend? If I can get around $6, I might bet back some of the Aussie lay as a short-term trade.

Inglis backtracks

Well well what a surprise.

This from Stuff reports Inglis has made a statement to the media where he claims "the cold, strain and lack of oxygen might have caused him to mix up the details" and "I thought that I had heard/partaken in communications but that may be the radio traffic from the afternoon (on descent)."

Although I haven't seen the statement, I wonder if it contains an apology to the media who he accused were inaccurate in their reporting when all they were doing were basing their reports on inaccurate information supplied by him, which by the looks of it he is now admitting (is inaccurate). Fat chance.

Tri Nations Preview

With one World Cup appraoching its climax, another is about to start. Yes, the annual World Cup of rugby, otherwise known as the Tri Nations kicks off with NZ hosting Australia on Saturday. Still basking in my excellent prediction from last year that the Aussies wouldn't win a game, I predict this year they will (win a game) - but will still come last. Unless the South Africans continue to have injury woes in which case they may have company down in the basement. Which means there can be only one winner. Spoken like a true Kiwi.

I am not buying into the talk that the Aussies have looked the best of the three sides from the pre-tournament internationals played over the last month. First, England were awful and made them look good. Second, Ireland ran out of puff in the last 20 minutes which in hindsight shouldn't have been a surprise given they had two extremely physical encounters with the All Blacks in inclement weather (and kept the same starting XV). The Australians have played no better (and to be fair, perhaps no worse) than the ABs. I'm glad they are arriving here quietly confident - the time to be worried about the Australian rugby team is when they are given no hope (e.g. RWC 2003 semi-final, God I hate to bring that up).

There is little doubt that the 2006 version of the Wallabies will be better than last year's one. With a new coach at the helm, an improving scrum, lineout options to die for and a good backline - yep, they're not going to be the easybeats of last year. However I question whether they will have improved enough. Especially when they have to play in the freezing conditions that ChCh will provide (and hopefully rain, or if not, dew) first up.

While the Wallabies have improved, the draw is not as kind. With the expanded format it is an uneven competition - while all teams get 3 home and 3 away, some poor sucker has to come to NZ and play them twice, and this year that sucker is Australia. Can they pinch a win in NZ? - not in my book, so they are behind the eight-ball already.

So how do we fit South Africa into the equation? A month ago, I was fancying their chances. But after a loss to France, continual bickering about racial quotas and injuries already, I'm not so sure. A pity really, as they are always value in Tri Nations matches (and at $9 in the outright market, this year is no different). I'm keeping an open mind about them, and will watch their first match against Oz on July 15 keenly. The draw does them no favours either, with all their away matches first before returning home. However if they can get a win in Oz (or even NZ) and perhaps bonus points in their other matches, with 3 matches on the high veldt at the end they will be in contention.

While NZ have not been that impressive either, I think they have the best of the draw (although the first match in South Africa a week after a test in Oz will be a tall order) and deserve to be favourites. They'll also have their best XV on the paddock and the merry-go-round will stop. I like the selection of Eaton at lock and judges far better than me have been crying out for Muliana to start at centre. While they will be tested on Saturday, so long as the lineout doesn't completely disintegrate and they get a reasonable amount of possession, it's hard to see them losing.

Currently on the outright market on Betfair (not that there is a huge amount of liquidity), NZ are $1.59, Aust are $3.75 and SAF are $9. One bet stands out, and that is to lay the Aussies. Backing SAF is tempting as well, but I will wait until after their away games before deciding what to do - chances are they will still be at long odds when on the plane back to Joburg.

For non-betting exchange users, the NZ TAB has NZ at $1.60, Oz @ $2.85 and the Saffers $8. Centrebet (Aust) has NZ $1.55, Aus $3 SAF $8. So to those who think I'm spouting a pile of horse manure and want to back the Aussies, go and open a Betfair account (although Stan James and Skybet in the UK have them at $3.75). For the rest of you, the odds on offer for NZ and SAF down at the tote are OK - you can't get much better elsewhere.

As I'm taking on the Aussies in the tournament, I'm not betting on the opening game. If the unthinkable happens and the ABs lose, after a helping of humble pie I'll go away and work out an exit strategy.

Viva L'Italia!!!

Gee that little speculator on the Italians at 14's a couple of weeks ago is starting to look promising. Unfortunately I lost my gonads and dumped the betting stake at 4.6 before the semi-final, but still, a free bet is running and I'm in the position that all traders want to be in - a no-lose situation with an option of transferring some of the profit over to the other finalist (whoever it may be). Excuse the gloating, it hasn't happened for a while. However it is a good example of spotting an opportunity in a sport that is not one of my strongpoints through paying attention to the draw and likely scenarios.

State Of Origin 3 tonight, and while I may watch it, it's a no bet game for me. NSW $1.80 and Queensland $2.20 seem about right, but the main reason for not doing anything is the decision of NSW to play Gasnier at 6 - either this will be an inspired selection or a complete cock-up.

I haven't paid much attention to Wimbledon - perhaps just as well with the top 4 seeds in the women's making the semis, but the men's quarter finals interest me and as per usual, some of the favourites are just a little too short for my liking and it could be worth an all-nighter.

Federer ($1.06) v Ancic ($16). We all know FedEx is the best sportsperson on the planet but I can't have him at $1.06. If he flatlines from $1.06 to $1.01 in this game I'll be very surprised. Thankfully it's the first match on tonight (starting at midnight NZT) and it's one I think worth trading during play. It doesn't cost a lot to lay at $1.06 and I'll look for a free bet on Ancic if Federer gets out to $1.20 and even up profit if he gets to $1.50. While that may not seem likely, I've seen plenty of matches with Federer starting as an unbackable favourite where his price has touched $1.60 - $1.70. The other thing to consider is Ancic has been playing well all year - his form during the European clay season was sound and we all know grass is his best surface, and was the last player to beat Federer on it.

Stepanek ($1.57) v Bjorkman ($2.74). Perhaps more even than the prices suggest but one I'll leave alone.

Hewitt ($1.44) v Baghdatis ($3.20). The Cypriot blows so hot and cold that it's worth taking a chance on him at the price. Logic dictates Hewitt should win but it's tempting to start with a lay of him. I'm leaning to watching the first few games before deciding.

Nadal ($1.28) v Nieminen ($4.50). I feel a combination of Nadal being a little bit over-rated (on grass) and Nieminen being under-rated makes these prices false. I'll be laying Nadal pregame fully expecting the Finn to put up a fight. The last time these two met was on clay in Barcelona a couple of months ago where Nieminen was 1 set and 4-1 up before losing. Plus, I remember Nieminen's only other QF appearance at a Grand Slam (US Open 2005) where he took it to Hewitt and lost in 5 sets. The only nagging doubt I have is he's played nobody so far in his passage to the QF here. Still, at the price, worth a nudge IMHO.

Looks like a long night in front of the tele ...

Too much

How's this for a list of things to try and keep up-to-date with over the last few days:

Cricket (Wi v Ind and Eng v SL)
Football World Cup
Wimbledon
Tour de France

Throw in my own peculiar set of interests with the Subaru Primal Quest, World Series of Poker and now the Junior World Orienteering Champs, not to mention a couple of nights at Sky City and my eyes are a rather interesting shade of red.

It was a rather strange weekend in sport - the Warriors won their fourth game in a row, Cambo nearly won a golf tournament, Brazil lost a football game, an Englishman (OK, Scot) got into the second week of Wimbledon, I won a sports bet (I didn't bail on my England bets after all) and cashed in a poker tournament.

And a sad weekend too, hearing about the passing away of one of the legends of cricket, Fred Trueman. He was a man ahead of his time, being perhaps the inventor of what we now call "sledging", the term given to the trash-talking cricketers sometimes indulge in. So in memory of Fred, here are a few of his classics:

Fred Trueman bowling. The batsman edges and the ball goes to first slip,and right between Raman Subba Row's legs. Fred doesn't say a word. At the end of the over, Row ambles past Trueman and apologises sheepishly. "I should've kept my legs together, Fred". "So should your mother" he replied.

"I need nine wickets from this match, and you buggers had better start drawing straws to see who I don't get.”

“The definitive volume on the finest bloody fast bowler that ever drew breath” (on his autobiography)

On women - “Don't stroke 'em, don't tickle 'em, just give 'em a ruddy good belt”

One of the Yorkshire semi allrounders went out to bat & he wasn't know for his bravery against the quick stuff & on facing his first ball he backed away to leg & was bowled so when he gets back in the dressing room he gets a serve from Freddy along the lines of being a bit gutless so Fred goes out to bat & is dismissed in an ungainly fashion.When Fred re-enters the dressing room the other bloke is waiting for him & says something like what happened to you then trying to stir Freddy up so Fred replies 'I'll you what blooody happened I slipped on that pile of sh*t that you left in t'blooody crease'

A favourite (and true) Fred Trueman story is told by the former Essex offie David Acfield. It's one of Acfield's first 1st class games and he walks out at no.11 (he was a total rabbit), passing Trueman on the way and receiving a malevolent glare for his trouble. By the time he gets to the crease he's a nervous wreck. At short leg stands Brian Close, hard as nails outdoing Fred's glare. He takes guard and prepares to face when suddenly Trueman calls out "Eh, Closey, we've got a right one here, he's holding his bat the wrong way round."Acfield reports "And like a fool I looked!"

In a county game Fred Trueman was bowling to Rev David Sheppard, and Sheppard got a lucky 50 with lbw shouts being rejected, nicks through slips etc. Trueman said "Aye, if you're as lucky on Sundays as you are on Saturdays, you'll end up Archbishop of Canterbury."

Fred Trueman fielding close to the gate from the pavillion. As the new Aussie batsman came out to bat, he went to close the gate behind him as he walked onto the field.Trueman: "Don't bother shutting it son, you won't be out there long enough."

When Fred Trueman retired he was asked why, and he replied that he wanted to go while people were asking "why?" rather than "when?"

Fred was also a commentator for a time:

"Anyone foolish enough to predict the outcome of this match is a fool."

"That was a tremendous six, the ball was still in the air as it went over the boundary."

"Unless something happens that we can't predict, I don't think a lot will happen."

He was once commentating in the west indies and a ball went sailing into a tree outside of the ground and a half a dozen people jumped or fell out. His response was along the lines that it would have been a great advert for Rowntrees chocolate drops. Apparently he got a two week suspension (yes, from commentating) for that one.

RIP Fred.