League in la-la land

Being an avid sports fan, trying to earn a living from watching sport is a pleasurable way to while away the hours - most of the time. Sometimes it can become a grind - 6 nights in a row watching Champions Trophy cricket springs to mind - and very occasionally, along comes a sporting event that I wish I never placed a bet on as if it wasn't for the financial involvement, I'd go and do something more stimulating like the dishes.

Saturday night's league test between Great Britain and NZ being a case in point. 80 minutes of dross. Thankfully, we can rely on Rugby League to provide the entertainment after the final whistle and sport's equivalent of soap opera has provided us with the following:

(a) GB coach getting his knickers in a twist over the timekeeping. "This will be on your conscience for the rest of your life", he reportedly told the match controller, who was in turn "pissed off" by the comment. Perhaps the GB coach would be better served by tending the roses in his own backyard; let us just say that the timekeeping was on a par with the performance of the two teams on the paddock. The timekeeping did not deprive them of a win; their own inept play did (not that the Kiwis deserved it any more).

However what was intriguing was the NZ's coach sly dig in return: "Funny things happen in their part of the world as well, but I'd better stay clear of that". No, don't stay clear of that - spill the beans; nothing like childish retaliatory accusations to make up for the lack of entertainment on the field.

(b) the judiciary clearing British prop Adrian Morley of punching Brett Webb. Now I am not advocating Morley should have been suspended - as a punch goes, it looked like one thrown by a hooker on a street corner than by the enforcer of British league, but the press reported the judicary committee cleared Morley principally because Webb was the aggressor, apparently using his "elbow in an aggressive manner" towards Morley.

Yeah, right. I really can see the smallest guy on the field picking a fight with Mr Hardman on the opposing team, but even if he did, since when has retaliation been an allowable defence? Opening up a can of worms me thinks.

(c) but of course the media have been kept busy over the questionable eligibility of Nathan Fien for the Kiwis team, and this is where the amusement value goes up a few notches, especially thanks to the statements by NZRL Chariman Sel Bennett. For those not up with the play, it has transpired Fien's great-grandmother was born in NZ, not his grandmother as seemingly required by the International RL Federation rules. Enter Bennett on Monday:

"We can't see anything in it. The rules state grandparents, it doesn't state grandparent."

Que? So by pluralising a word we now can jump generations can we? After a day of radio talkback where every man and his dog expressed the opinion that grandparent (plural or not) means your mum's mum or your dad's dad (for the sake of completeness, I will also mention mum's dad and dad's mum), we see this morning that it was busy yesterday at the Chairman's desk as some RL-friendly journo kindly informs us that the definition of grandparents as "your parents' parents" was dropped in 1999 by that well-known authoritative source Black's Legal Dictionary (no, I've never heard of it either), as well as Oklahoma Case Law which apparently includes great-grandparents in the definition of grandparents.

God help New Zealand if we start relying on case law from the good ole' US of A. I'm sure the National Front of NZ could find a few titbits from "Oklahoma Case Law" to further their cause too. Maybe I should do the American thing and sue NZRL for wasting 80 minutes of my life on Saturday night.

No amount of blustering from their chairman can overcome the simple fact that NZRL fucked up. And because of aforesaid cock-up, NZRL are scared they're going to lose the two competition points and possibly a place in the Tri-Nations final because of it. Enter Bennett this morning:

"The Warriors losing points is too fresh in our minds. We got stitched up there and we don't want it to happen again."

Que? The Warriors lost points because they cheated the salary cap. We may lose the Tri-Nations points because NZRL didn't check hard enough into a player's eligibility. Sometimes when you make a mistake, there is a price to pay - although apparently not if NZRL had its way. No wonder sports administration in this country sometimes has a bad name.

Picks

Tonight: PAKISTAN ($2.24) v SOUTH AFRICA ($1.81)

Not often you see a team in a head-to-head contest shorter on Betfair than at the bookies (most have this as $1.85 v $1.85); makes you start to wonder why. I lean towards the Saffers as well, but at the price it's almost a no-bet. Should be a reasonable game for the traders, but I'll be wary as I expect the bowlers early on of both innings to have the upper hand.

Tomorrow: ENGLAND ($2.04) v WEST INDIES ($1.94)

Fully expect WI to be Lara-less with his bad back; tough game to call as much will depend on the motivations of both sides in a meaningless game. One to leave alone antepost, but in-play trading should provide some twists and turns with these teams.

Sunday: AUSTRALIA ($1.60) v INDIA ($2.64)

A team who knows how to perform in pressure games against a team who knows how to lose their bottle in pressure games. Oz in a cakewalk. Fill yer boots and lay off at 1.3 after Gilchirst canes Pathan in the first few overs.

And if anybody is interested, NZ will thrash GB in the league but at $1.37 they're not bettable. NZ -10.5 points @ 2.10 is tempting.

Chaos

Last night's cricket match between West Indies and India shows just how lucrative - and dangerous - betting exchanges can be. With WI seemingly cruising to the win and paying $1.05, the fun and games began with the loss of Morton's wicket with 13 balls to go. Their price drifted to around $1.10 with Brian Lara striding to the crease. A wide and a run later, WI required 10 runs off the final 2 overs with 6 wickets in hand.

Off the third ball of the penultimate over, Lara struck a boundary and WI were $1.03 to win requiring 6 runs off 9 balls. Fourth ball - Lara out; 6 from 8 and WI paying $1.10. Fifth ball nothing, and last ball a dropped catch becomes a runout and Sarwan - the mainstay of the WI's batting effort - departs.

So 5 runs off the last over; two new batsmen at the crease and WI have shot out to $1.35 or thereabouts. First ball - wicket! - and now WI are over $1.50. Nothing off the second, a single from the third and West Indies are still paying over $1.50 when the boundary to win the game is hit off the fourth ball.

Occasionally I wonder about the efficiency of betting exchange markets. 4 runs required off 3 balls - one hit can do it - and the market assesses a team can only do it 2 times out of 3. Mainly I suspect because of what people term "momentum" in sports - if things are going one team's way they expect it to continue to do so and betting prices reflect that.

But is it the right price? There is no doubt betting exchange markets are improving their efficiency during a sporting event - a few years ago I can recall Australia despite being the best ODI side in the world paying $1.51 to beat New Zealand when NZ still required 17 runs to win with only 1 wicket left (again, because the "momentum" was with NZ) - but to me $1.50+ seems a helluva price for a team one hit away from winning a game and three balls to do it.

Weekend thoughts will be up in a few hours.

NZ v PAK

Late post - wife off work sick. Although not as sick as some of the batting in the Champions Trophy - both SAF and SL were 30/3 last night and the pitch isn't to blame, although SL had a moving ball and a dodgy ump decision as partial excuses.

So when are we going to see some real runs scored in this tournament? Tonight? The way I'm reading cricket games at the moment, if I say yes NZ will be 40/5 and if I say no, NZ will be 100/0. Apart from the obvious minefield at Mumbai, pitches aren't to blame for the run drought so what is the real reason? Fkd if I know.

Pakistan certainly could provide some fireworks batting tonight and NZ aren't exactly no chance to do likewise, so I live in hope. NZ's problem in the past with Pakistan has revolved around the express pace of Ahktar and Sami, and with Asif back home as well I give them more chance in this game than the bookies do (Pakistan currently $1.68 favourites). I don't read too much into their loss to Sri Lanka; in fact, it's hard to assess the performance of NZ so far as both their games have been at Mumbai where they got the best of conditions in the win against SAF and to me in the loss to SL they were out-pysched by the pitch.

What I worry about is Pakistan's batting firepower - Afridi has a career batting strike rate against NZ of well over 100, Razzaq is not far behind and the others tick over at about 4.5 an over. NZ's best chance may be with Pakistan batting first as I fear Pakistan could chase down anything. Whereas NZ have shown in the past they are a better side chasing than setting, and so far both games they've batted first.

To me, Pakistan should be $1.95 if they're batting first and $1.65 if they're fielding first. I'll be taking the view that there will be some decent runs scored in this game - one day I'm going to be right...

Don't ask

about the poker. Oh OK if you insist. One of the first lessons in poker life is Ace-rag is a sh!t hand and quite why I decided to raise with the A and 2 of spades 45 minutes into yesterday's tournie is anybody's guess - I'll put it down to a "brain explosion" (and I won't use the excuse they were suited). After getting one call from a tricky aggressive Asian guy who we'll call Choon (because that's his name), I'm overjoyed to see a flop of AA8 (two hearts) and bet the pot. Well fk me Choon raises. You're on a flush draw buddy, you've got the King of Hearts so I push all my chips in the middle and get an instacall. Oops. I was right, he did have the King of hearts but also the Ace of fkg Clubs and I had the pleasure of being the first knocked out (although I had survived the weekend elimination round).

Well there's only one thing to do and that is get back on the horse, right? So this morning deep into a tournie and relatively shortstacked, some bigstack on the button raises after everyone's folded and I look down at A and 4 spades - you're stealing buddy, I push, get an instacall and am up against ... what a surprise Ace King.

OK one more - onto my bread-and-butter single table tournies (9 players) and an unusually tight and cautious group see 7 still in when the pressure goes on. Dealt AK in the big blind (last to act), bigstack in the small blind raises - I've got you sucker, I push, he calls and has AJ. Finally. Of course the cards that come out include a 7, 8, 9 and 10. As I've said before, all good character-building stuff. Fuck it.

If I've offended someone upstairs, so has the Kiwi Rugby League team. A new definition of heartbreak has been found, but I'm quite glad in a way the Aussies won as I hate watching a $1.13 shot lose with none of my money on the underdog (never let patriotism get in the way of making money).

And talking about patriotism, this piece in this morning's Herald made me even more cranky. Perhaps my ex-flatmate who is now a journalism student can explain to me how the "revelation" that Crowded House was an Australian band - something that got sorted out when they were battling George Michael and Diana Ross for the No.1 spot on the US Charts with "Don't Dream It's Over" 10 years ago - fits the definition of "news", which according to www.dictionary.com is "a report of a recent event; intelligence; information". There is nothing recent, intelligent or even informative in that piece of tripe.

And if you're reading this for info on the cricket (South Africa v Pakistan) tonight, it will revert back to the usual Indian pitch trend. Team batting first scores a shitload of runs and is $1.20 to win the game. Team batting second scores a shitload of runs plus one and I make some money.

A sh!tload to watch this weekend

All the teams at the Champions Trophy have played one game and out of the 4 games so far, the favourites have been sunk in 3 of them. The exception was India, but they were playing England...

Hopefully that trend will continue tonight, when our beloved Blackcaps take on Sri Lanka. While SL may deserve to be favourites, the continual under-rating of the NZ cricket side continues with Betfair offering $2.50 for NZ and $1.64 for SL. Fill yer boots. Personally I'd price this $1.80 - $1.85 SL and NZ around $2.20 (pre-toss). Sri Lanka hold no fears for NZ after their semi-recent 3-1 ODI series (yes, yes I know Indian pitches are not the same as NZ ones).

Cricinfo explains the "improving" nature of Mumbai pitches is rumoured to be due to industrial adhesive being used to help bind the pitch in an effort for it to last 100 overs, but I don't know if batting first is the advantage people are making it out to be. Last Saturday WI got rolled for 80 batting first against SL, NZ turned 195 batting first into a winning score thanks to knocking the top off SAF's batting, while Australia should have overcome the loss of early wickets to chase down 235.

More to the point, whether batting first or second, the crucial factor is how well batsmen individually adapt to the pitch and Fleming showed he is a quick learner - Gilchrist too, who put away the cross-bat strokes and grafted his way to 92 before being run out. I'm expecting a gane similar to the Aus / WI one; reasonably close with scores around 220-240. Hard to pick a winner, thus the NZ price of $2.50 is value. The key batsmen for NZ - Fleming, Astle and McCullum; for SL Sangakkara and Jayawardene. Who gets in and gets set out of these 5 will determine the game. And of course how well NZ play Murali, but they've played enough games against SL for him not to be a complete mystery.

Tomorrow night sees Australia play England and there's one thing worse than a winning Australian sporting team. A losing Australian sporting team. You just know they will come out and smash whoever their poor unfortunate opponents are. Sorry England. Start thinking about the Ashes.

The weekend also sees the final of NZ's domestic rugby competition and another Tri-Nations league test. Because I watch so much sport, I find it hard to watch sport just for viewing pleasure but I have enjoyed Wellington's 2 previous games and think they have what it takes to beat Waikato at home. Wellington are $2.04 on Betfair (Waikato $1.93) and I'm almost tempted to bet, but I'll stay out of it. I can't see NZ winning the league, but Australia are at a prohibitive $1.13 and it's tempting to have a speculator on the Kiwis - however I'll keep my money in my pocket for this one as well.

Have a good weekend.

Prophet Rob

I'll give cricket a rest today - nightly all-nighters on a flea-infested couch is starting to wear me down and I can't wait for a 2 day break after tonight's game where Oz will thrash WI (or will they? it 'tis afterall on the Mumbai Minefield and bad pitches can turn games into a lottery).

I haven't done an Orienteering post for a while and with all the kerfuffle over the World Cup rules for 2007 and the allocation of places for nations, why should I change the habit of a lifetime and not chuck in my 2 cents worth?

In some respects, I feel a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Given the history of participation by non-European (excluding Australia) and financially weak European nations in World Cups, whether you have 1 or 3 places is not exactly critical - the chances are participation from some of these nations will still equal zero. Yes, there is a chance the new format of the World Cup will be attractive to these countries and the entries will increase, but given the financial state of these countries (and their elite runners), there is also a chance that it will not. As an aside, one of the benefits of the new World Cup being attached to existing high-profile events is runners from the likes of USA and Israel will be able to get into the elite fields at these events, something that was a pipedream in the past - but I guess no-one has stopped to recognise that.

The negative reaction to the rules was initially voiced by a Canadian runner who has a 9th placing at a World Championships in her resume, and for those in the Orienteering world who hasn't read her thoughts, they can be viewed at her blog here. While I don't agree with everything she says, I certainly admire and respect her for voicing her opinion and more importantly making sure it was heard. Her initial reaction has led to debate and possibly concessions in the rules, which she opines don't go far enough.

But personally I wonder at the wisdom of fighting so hard for the 3 guaranteed places for these nations. History has shown they are not exactly used with any great frequency, and the economy of these nations and their runners suggest that won't change in a hurry, so why the big song and dance? As Sandy herself points out in her blog, "I can't guarantee that we will be able to use our spots if we get them", well sorry Sandy, now that this has become an issue of Micr-O proportions, you have now created a situation where nations such as yours and mine are virtually compelled to ensure their quota (whatever it may be) is filled to "save face" politically. In sporting politics when you are a flea (sorry, they are on my mind - or more correctly my legs at the moment) you pick your battles carefully; I don't know if this was a wise one to fight.

Certainly I can understand and am not surprised at the reaction - as those close to me know I like blowing my own trumpet and an article written for the magazine "Orienteering Today" 12 months ago should be re-read (it's in the blog archives under Orienteering and it's called Global Growing Pains) and applied to the current debate over World Cup quota. I especially like this bit - "too many decisions that benefit one section of the international orienteering community at the expense of another will divide, rather than unify, our sport" - and if it wasn't for the malaise I feel in that statement I would be gloating over such prophecy. So the reaction to the World Cup rules has as much to do with yet another perceived benefit for the "haves" over the "have nots" as actual substance, and it's fair enough, there's only so many times you can stand being kicked when you're on the floor.

But the debate over the quota masks the real problem that needs to be addressed, and something that Sandy touches on in her latest piece - the global development of elite orienteering. To use her words: "The development of elite orienteering in general outside of Europe is a much broader, long-term and important concept which the IOF should be deeply interested in" (I have to bite my tongue here otherwise this article will get deeply cynical). If as much time and effort went in to addressing elite global development as there is bickering about whether Mongolia gets 1 or 3 places in the 2007 World Cup, perhaps the optimism levels would rise. But they won't, because the bottom line is there is not enough willpower within the powers that be to tackle the issue - either because of vested self-interest or it's in the "too hard" basket, possibly both.

So chalk up another episode of divisiveness in international orienteering, something a sport with no money and little visibility can afford. I don't look forward to reading these words in 12 months time and thinking nothing has changed, but as a cynical ageing gambler I'd bet that's what will happen.

O ye of little faith

In my defence, after losses in netball and league, our franchises going down in basketball and soccer, not to mention the Auckland rugby team, it is a bit of an ask to expect the NZ cricket team to uplift the sporting mood in the shaky isles.

But good on them. Or rather the captain Fleming. If you are brutally honest, he (maybe along with Mills) is the only reason why NZ won - sometimes there is a fine line between sporting success and failure (anyone from SPARC reading this?) and had his wicket fallen anywhere in the first 30 overs rather than the 44th, I have little doubt the result would have been different. But it didn't, so we celebrate rather than commiserate.

South Africa must be getting sick of him - a sublime 134 in the last World Cup to effectively knock them out in their backyard, a double ton in a test match earlier this year and now this. The only pity was he didn't get a ton; on any other pitch he would have been 130, not 89 when he ran out of juice.

So onto today - and we have Pakistan in total disarray against Sri Lanka who have purred through their qualification matches without a hitch. In case anyone hasn't heard, the latest drama to hit the soap opera known as Pakistani cricket is their two strike bowlers Ahktar and Asif have tested positive to Nandrolone and have gone home. Why the fk cricketers need to take steroids is beyond me and if any of my 4 regular readers has a clue, please enlighten me.

On the back of that, Sri Lanka have shortened from around $1.80 to $1.57 for tonight's match - I don't know if the full amount of that movement is justified as express pace is not the vital ingredient on these pitches, but there is no doubt Pakistan will be weakened. And a word of caution; despite England's collapse two days ago, Jaipur is not the minefield of Mumbai - so it won't be a total surprise to see the batters get some runs. Sri Lanka deserve to be favourites, but I live in hope the game will be competitive and despite the removal of two bowlers, the batting lineup of Pakistan (assuming the pitch is OK) provides a reason to suggest it might be.

Finally, yesterday saw me enter a $3.30 online poker tournie on a whim - and blow me down five hours later I make the final table of 9 from the original 1492 entrants. Yes I was lucky - with about 200 left I got a straight on the last card to triple up my shortish stack and from there through to the final 9 won three important 50/50 hands. It ran out with 5 left when my A8 got done by the chipleader's K6 when a King fell on the flop. Still, the $200 and the experience puts me in a good frame of mind for the tournie up at the casino this coming weekend.

NZ v SAF

"We're fresh" says Stephen Fleming. "We're extremely fresh".

Kiwi translation:

"We're rusty. We're fkn rusty"

The two lopsided matches of the last two nights (trading nightmare - results decided in the first 10 overs) have shown despite the pitches (well the one in Jaipur anyway), coming into an international cricket tournament "fresh" is not exactly an ideal scenario if you're a batsmen. England looked like they hadn't played for a year while the West Indies were undone by an extremely low and slow Mumbai pitch.

And NZ v SAF is in Mumbai. I pray to god South Africa bat first as out of the two sides, New Zealand has the potential to follow the trend and be not much for 3 or 4 down after a few overs.

I have two contrasting theories about tonight's match. One - the WI were done by bowlers keeping the ball straight on a bad pitch and if you miss and the ball hits your pads - bye bye. NZ batsmen have had trouble with Ntini's pace before and if he keeps the ball wicket to wicket the same thing will happen, while we don't have to discuss Pollock's accuracy. These two do have the potential to rip through NZ's top order.

Two - NZ bowlers aren't exactly useless on a low and slow pitch. But the trouble at their pace is if they're off line they may find themselves carted to the fence. Still, the likes of Astle, Styris (if he plays) and Vettori can put the ball on a spot more often than not. Will NZ miss Bond (sore back in case you haven't heard)? Probably, but on this pitch he may not have been effective anyway.

So it all points to another low-scoring affair (now watch them prove me wrong in a 300 v 300 game). The subconcious tells me SAF will win but NZ's best chance is batting second chasing a mediocre total.


P.S. To my Australian readers: OK, we lost the rugby league but we won the punch-up and the hit on Willie Mason was worth the 12-point loss.

Being a Kiwi sports fan ...

sometimes is not easy. Already our netballers have lost the first of 3 tests to Australia last night, coupled with the NZ Breakers losing their game in the Australian Basketball league. Tomorrow night we have the first league test against our neighbours and I'm not exactly optimistic; I can't even be bothered seeing if the NZ Knights (soccer) are playing this weekend; if they are they'll lose (again).

I have a few friends across the ditch. Safe to say this weekend is not one I'll be ringing them up to see how they are. And if you're betting, bet with your head, not your heart.

Part 2

Winner’s Market (Betfair):

Australia $3.20
India $6.00
Sri Lanka $7.60
Pakistan $8.00
South Africa $10.50
New Zealand $15.50
West Indies $15.50
England $16.00


Now that the West Indies and Sri Lanka have qualified (although we don’t know yet which side of the draw either team will be), time to look at the contenders and pretenders. Before I start, be aware of a major caveat – cricketers depend a bit on form, and the lack of cricket played by many of these sides over the last few months suggests trying to work out what’s going to happen in the next few weeks is akin to playing pin the tail on the donkey. But here goes:

AUSTRALIA (2006 ODI record-major nations only: W13-L7-D1; 2005: 16-4-3)

Oz are certainly not the dominant ODI force of a few years ago, but in saying that no other side is really standing up and challenging them to be ranked No.1. While over the course of a 3 week tournament another side could certainly put together a performance to knock them out, on the balance of probabilities they will make the semis, probably the final and once there, they know how to win. While I do not advocate backing them at $3.20, it’s not the worst price you’ll see for a favourite in an 8-horse race.

ODIs tend to be batsmen’s games (even more so on Indian pitches) and this side is full of batsmen who can produce match-winning innings. Gilchrist, Ponting, Symonds and to a lesser extent Hussey can win a match by themselves. Clarke and Martyn aren’t too shabby either. The bowling attack – while not in the lethal class - is not inferior to most other sides. McGrath is welcomed back and forms a formidable opening duo with Lee. They, along with India and West Indies have played the most recent ODI series (which they won).

So why won’t they win the trophy? Because ODI cricket is a fickle beast. Ask South Africa who put together a 9 match winning streak in 2005 straight after a 12 match losing streak in the previous 10 months. And in case anyone has forgotten, the mighty Aussies did drop a game to Bangladesh last year. They aren’t sure-fire things to take the chocolates, but I ain’t putting any serious money anywhere to say they won’t.

INDIA (2006: 12-9-2; 2005: 13-12)

Possess their own impressive list of match-winners in Tendulkar, Dhoni, Sehwag (although he may be a bit out of touch) and Dravid. Conventional wisdom suggests the major barrier to India winning is themselves and home pressure, but I don’t necessarily believe that. If Tendulkar gets into the groove (and the recent DLF series suggested that is a possibility), then the rest of the team will quite happily ride on his coat-tails to glory. Their group match against Oz on Oct 29 is the game I’m looking forward too (not least because Australia are too short IMO at $1.61) and I won’t be surprised if the final is a rematch.

SRI LANKA (2006: 10-11-2; 2005: 5-8)

Their recent record flattered by a 5-0 drubbing of England, were hammered in India 12 months ago and I think are past their better days. Tharanga looks a good prospect at the top, but Jayasuria is riding into the sunset (he’ll probably end up top scorer in the tournament now that I’ve said that) and a lot will depend on Sangakkara and Jayawardene. And, of course Murali. Not the worst team by any stretch, but despite their performance in England I think it’s a team past their best days and one that needs all their senior players firing to have a chance. It’s the one price in the winner’s market I think is out of kilter.

PAKISTAN (2006:6-7-2; 2005: 13-9)

No Inzy – no chance. Bullshit. The times I’ve seen Younis Khan captain Pakistan in Ul-Haq’s absence I think he’s done a good job. Despite the recent upheaval in their domestics, it’s really just sand in the hourglass stuff and the way they responded in the first ODI against England after the forfeited test suggest to me performances won’t be affected. I don’t know what to make of their last two ODIs in England – perhaps they were mentally on the homeward journey, but this is a team who can beat anyone on their day. It’s also a team that can lose to anyone on any given day. Perhaps worth a small tickle at $8 – better than backing them match by match, as they will probably start favourites in all 3 of their group games.

SOUTH AFRICA (2006: 6-7; 2005: 15-3-3)

Here in NZ we bemoan the lack of cricket our side has played, and the Saffers are in the same boat (I dismiss the three hit and giggles against Zimbabwe), not hitting a white ball in anger since THAT match at the Wanderers. For mine, a bit over-reliant on Pollock and Ntini to contain and/or do damage at the beginning; Robin Petersen is not going to have the stroke-makers exactly quaking in their boots, but they do have some batting firepower – Dippenaar if he can find his form of the previous 12 months, Smith, Gibbs, Kallis, de Villiers. Kemp and Boucher can give it a tonk as well. If they hit the ground running, will be a dangerous semifinal opponent for Australia or India and for me the jury is out at least until I’ve seen them in the first game against the Kiwis on Monday night.

NEW ZEALAND (2006: 6-2; 2005: 4-12)

Which bring me on to our beloved Black Caps. Sorry, I think the lack of cricket will count against them, and group foes Pakistan and South Africa are sides they can have trouble against. I’m waiting for the World Cup (assuming they can get through the summer without injury woes), but I’m picking they won’t be 15/1 then.

WEST INDIES (2006: 7-8; 2005: 2-15)

Can lightning strike twice? No (sane) person picked them last time around, but I will this time. Recent matches they weren’t disgraced, a workmanlike team with Lara, Gayle and Sarwan all with the ability to turn a game with the bat. A little too big at 15/1 – worth a couple of rupees.

ENGLAND (2006: 3-12-1; 2005: 5-10)

And finally England. No chance. If they win this, it will rank right up there with West Indies’ win in 2004. Or New Zealand’s win in 2000 ... ... hell, I suppose it could happen. Pietersen and Flintoff flailing the willow gives them a little sniff ... ... Nahhhhh.

Seriously, after a summer learning how to play ODIs against NZ and Oz in the VB series, they might be worth consideration when the World Cup rolls around. Maybe.


So there you have it. The prices in the winner’s market aren’t that appealing; a couple of speculators on Pakistan and West Indies covered by a lay of Sri Lanka, but not for any great dosh – most of my betting attention will be game by game, starting on Sunday when England will get their first hiding at the hands of India. Until then, ciao.

Champions Trophy Preview Part 1

The tournament has already started with the qualifying matches underway – while they may hold little passing interest for most, to me they will be indicators to what to expect for the remainder of the tournament. This first preview will hardly mention teams at all – there is one other important factor to take into account, venues and why what happens this week requires a watchful eye.

The schedule of matches see only four venues used, and not exactly the famous cricket stadiums found in Kolkata, Delhi etc – the ICC Champions Trophy is being played in those well-known Indian cities of Jaipur, Mohali, Ahmedabad and Mumbai – get out your atlas because I don’t know where the fk they are. OK, Mumbai is one of the larger Indian cities but the cricket is being played at Brabourne Stadium which hasn’t hosted international cricket for years.

There is nothing sinister in the reason behind these venues – for reasons that will resonate with Kiwi readers and the Rugby World Cup fiasco of 2003, the venues were chosen as they were easier to give the ICC the “clean stadium” guarantee for sponsorship. But an important component of cricket is the pitch and how it plays, and all four venues do not have a huge track record of recent international cricket. With each venue hosting at least 5 matches, looking at how the pitch plays in early matches is important.

Before looking at each venue, also note that it is the end of summer in India and all matches are day/night games (to avoid the early morning dew, which is apparently worse than the evening dew).

MOHALI

The scene of the first qualifying match, where Sri Lanka scored 302/8 and Bangladesh 265/9. The pitch here was re-laid a few years ago and seemingly suits ODIs; even allowing for the fact the last ODI played here before this tournament saw Sri Lanka rolled for 122 just over 12 months ago – blame that on poor batting, not the pitch.

Mohali has a reputation as a batsmen’s friend ever since New Zealand scored 630/6d in the first test on the new pitch a few years ago, but I’m not necessarily buying into it. Even on good batting strips, if you play woeful shots (as Sri Lanka did 12 months ago) you still get demolished, and while the evening dew in this northern Indian city (I lied, I do know where these places are) does play a part in proceedings with the team winning the toss usually fielding first, the team fielding second does have its chance for if they can control the ball there is usually movement as the lights kick in.

My approach to matches at Mohali will be to treat the toss as even (until proven otherwise) – I don’t think there is a huge advantage either way and how the teams match up on paper will be far more important.

AHMEDABAD

Variously described as a dustbowl, low and slow, a run feast – forget about Zimbabwe’s shambolic effort here a couple of days ago (they shouldn’t even be in India), recent ODIs paint the picture:

6 Nov 05 (d/n): Ind 285/8 (50), SL 286/5 (47.4)
12 Apr 05 (day): Ind 315/6 (48), Pak 319/7 (48)
15 Nov 02 (d/n): WI 324/4 (50), Ind 325/5 (47.4)

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out what that means and how to incorporate it into trading on a betting exchange.

JAIPUR

I still remember Mahendra Dhoni’s fantastic 183 n.o. here 12 months ago against Sri Lanka – the only international match played at this ground for some time. Without his knock, who knows how well India would have chased down the 299 required for victory (Dhoni came in to bat after Tendulkar had gone out in the first over) and the match reports described the pitch as sluggish, lacking in pace and bounce. Despite this, slow bowlers got carted (even Murali went for 2/46 off 10). West Indies play Bangladesh here on Wednesday, and I’ll watch the match principally to see how the pitch plays. But perhaps another high-scoring ground.

MUMBAI (BRABOURNE)

Hasn’t hosted international cricket since 1995 (although England played a warm-up game here earlier this year) and is a complete unknown. From a Cricinfo article from April:

On the pitch, Dungarpur, a former BCCI president, expected a suitable contest. "The ICC's pitch expert [Andy Atkinson] was here and said the wicket was a beauty," he said.

Well, that doesn’t tell us a lot, and although England rolled their opposition for 75 in their practice match in March with plenty of bounce for the fast bowlers, we’ll need to wait for the venue’s first match on the 14th (Sri Lanka v West Indies).


So there you have it – four venues, one unknown, two where you can expect high-scoring matches with perhaps the side chasing having an advantage, and the fourth I’m going against the masses and expect a more even contest between bat and ball. While later in the week I’ll look at the teams remember who plays where (and perhaps in some matches who wins the toss) will have a bearing on the outcome of this tournament.

Finally

after about five friggin attempts I've managed to win a seat into the first big poker tournament to be held in Auckland (at Sky). Actually it's not that big by poker standards, but with a $660 entry fee I wasn't prepared to stump up the moolah and tried to get in the cheap way by entering $50 or $100 satellites.

The second-to-last $100 satellite was held yesterday with 55 entries and 6 seats up for grabs. By the start of the second session I was reasonably short-stacked having being card dead and being pushed out of pots so when dealt AJ suited with two limpers in and two to act I'm all-in baby (i.e. putting all my chips into the middle). Well fk me, the bigstack to my immediate left goes allin as does the shortstack to his immediate left. Two limpers can't believe it and fold (one said he folded AQ -HA!) but I think I'm screwed as AJ suited in a 3-way allin pot ain't the strongest hand in the world and I'm mentally putting on my jacket and doin' the walk of shame.

Lately I haven't had a lot of luck in poker, which you do need in tournaments. You need to win your fair share of races and 50/50 coinflips. So when the cards are turned over I'm up against bigstack's pocket 9's (he went allin to push out the limpers, good play bless his soul) and shortstack is dominated by me with his KJ, so I have a chance. Flop 8 7 5, turn 8, and the river is the miracle Jack - for once the gods are kind and I nearly triple up.

That happened with about 30 people left - I could have maybe should have been out but now have a playable stack of chips and shortly after get AJ suited again and raise, another bigstack goes allin and I have to fold - he said later he had pocket Queens and I have no reason to doubt him.

Down to the final two tables (20 left) I finally get some cards. Pocket Queens twice and pocket Kings in the space of three hands - with KK someone with a nice but shorter stack than me goes allin after I raise and I call of course - he turns over AQ; the flop produces an Ace but there is a hand slammed on the table in frustration when one of the two remaining Kings appears on the turn (I felt for him - its what I've been going through lately); then after calling an allin with pocket 8's (he had 67 offsuit; I called as he is an aggressive player who puts on moves like that from time to time - what was funny was an 8 came on the flop and another on the river giving me quads!) I'm on the final table of 10 with an average stack size and all I have to do is not do anything stupid.

Which was achieved - even laying down middle pair in a battle of the blinds with 7 left (i.e. one away from a seat) - the other guy said he only had middle pair as well but with roughly the same number of chips as me and two shorter stacks at the table, it's a fight to avoid with the prize only one place away. Finally bust out in 4th place (kept playing as there was cash prizes as well) when my pocket Jacks got cracked by pocket 2's when a 2 fell on the flop, but quite frankly I didn't care - I had the seat.

So a repeat performance in 2 weeks time at Labour Weekend wouldn't go amiss - they're expecting about 110 entries and a first prize of $20k+, .... dreams are free!

Earning Respect

What is it with captains of NZ sporting teams? A few months ago, NZ soccer (sorry, football) captain Danny Hay wanted respect from the NZ sporting public. Now in this morning's Herald, NZ cricket captain Stephen Fleming is "irritated" by a lack of respect "afforded to NZ on foreign shores", and "believed winning was the only way to prompt a change".

Well here's the thing Flem. I agree to earn R.E.S.P.E.C.T. you have to W.I.N. But in order to W.I.N. you have to P.L.A.Y.

And this is where NZ cricket is let down. Cricinfo has an article on the Champions Trophy that shows NZ has played the least number of ODIs since the last Champions Trophy out of all the eight major cricketing nations - 33. Compare that to Australia's 55. And it gets worse. Even Bangladesh (38) and Zimbabwe (40) have played more ODIs than the Kiwis. And don't get me started on test cricket - our participation there is abysmal.

So if you want respect Flem, have a chat to your administrators - they are the ones who have not helped your cause by not having cricket scheduled during our winter. It is a crying shame (to put it mildly) that for the first time in ages, we have a full-strength NZ cricket team but who haven't played a game together in 6 months.

I'm back!

A couple of weeks break from blogging has done me good. Not that I've achieved anything meaningful, unless you count picking the Brisbane Broncos to win the NRL before the playoffs started and then not betting them after they lost their first playoff match to the Dragons. In fact, I've also had a break from betting that has left me refreshed for a rather busy time for cricket in the next few months - the ICC Champions Trophy followed by the Ashes.

In fact, I've been doing F.A. and loving it - playing a bit of poker (both online and live at the casino) with sporadic success (yeah, a euphimism for red figures), which brings me onto the topic of this post:

Late on Friday, the US Congress passed "The Safe Port Act". Wow I hear you say, a riveting bit of information. But the way US Congress works is they can attach other bits of legislation to bills and included in "The Safe Port Act" were certain provisions that had been known as the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006". So when "The Safe Port Act" is signed by their esteemed President Mr George W Bush in the next week or two, it will be unlawful for US Banks and Credit Card companies to send money to online gaming companies, such as online poker sites, online casinos and betting exchanges.

God Bless America. While the proponents of this bill will tell you these measures are designed to protect their citizens from the evil effects of gambling, of course these measures have more (i.e. everything) to do with protecting the interests of their domestic gambling industry - horse racing, sports betting, state lotteries and Las Vegas.

The early signs are the online poker sites - many of them listed on the London Stock Exchange - will play ball and block US customers from their sites. And these companies had according to the Daily Telegraph 3.5 billion pounds wiped off their value in one day. Apparently about half of the online poker customer base is US so I guess being a shareholder in one of these companies with this impending legislation ranks right up there with not backing the Broncos as mistake of the month.

But what really ticks me off is how such a well-developed and powerful country like the US of A feels the need to protect its own self-interest rather than accept the challenge of global competition. Poker is a US "product" that is currently sweeping the world, and you would think someone somewhere in the 52 states would have the nous and wherewithall to take advantage of a rapidly expanding global industry. But oh no, lets ban our citizens from being players in a global marketplace and force them back to the 1950's and home games every Friday night with the neighbours.

Yep, God Bless America.