Bad Light

The shenanigans last night in the SAF v India cricket test aptly illustrate the changing face in test cricket which make life for this "the draw is always too short" cricket punter a tad more difficult. First a power failure had the players walking off, and then after a brief stint back on the field, the umpires decided the light was too bad for play to be safe - another worrying trend.

I'm not talking my book here - I've eked out a modest and equal profit on the two likely results (a SAF win or draw), but the decreasing amount of play in test matches will (or should) start to affect prices, and no doubt in some cases results.

For the first five years of this decade, over 40% of test matches had no play lost (whether it be due to weather, bad light, or slow over rates). Yet in 2005, only 8 test matches out of the 49 had no play lost and this year it looks like it will be a similar percentage. Two years ago, the rules on making up lost play were changed and that coupled with umpires falling in love with light meters has led to the number of overs lost in my results database filling up with numbers other than zero.

It's a good lesson on how nothing ever stays the same - the draw was around 3.5 pregame for this test and in some respects with the weather forecast and the history Durban has with light issues the price was if anything, value. One thing always to be on the lookout as a sports punter is how changing landscapes will affect commonly held beliefs - in the example of test cricket, are draw prices becoming closer to their "true price" with the increasing amount of lost play?

Gifts Part 2

South Africa to win the second test against India pregame - wandering between 1.70 and 1.80

News just before the toss J. Kallis is not playing - no change (!)

After first day scoring 257/8 on a decent batting strip - a slight shift to 2.10. India and the Draw are slightly under 4's.

I can only conclude there are a lot of South Africans with more money than sense - they should be outsiders in the field of three (17 overs lost to bad light at the end of the day, which may be pretty much the norm for the remaining four). The even money shot is India will rack up 400 on this pitch and the draw will be odds-on in 48 hours time.

Rotation

After sitting through the winter watching the All Blacks play around with their selections, now it's the turn of the Blackcaps (a.k.a. the NZ cricket team) to do the same as they enter their long build-up for the Cricket World Cup.

Now, when you're the best team in the world you can afford to fk around with who plays where. When you're a middle of the road team, you cannot. Seeing Fleming (and Bond) "having a rest" (from what? NZ plays the least amount of cricket amongst the major playing nations) from the first two ODI's against Sri Lanka gets up my jaxi big time.

Selfishly, of course, as it makes it more difficult to assess how the teams will match up. But my gut feeling is the NZ batting line-up looks a tad shaky (perhaps the understatement of the year) and for this reason Sri Lanka deserves to be favourites for the opening game tomorrow.

It's also a pity as both these teams at full strength had the potential to offer an entertaining and competitive series - and now we have to possibly wait until the third game to see this happen. So the visitors to strike first blood tomorrow - unless our bowlers can overcome our batting frailties.

P.S. After watching Mark Gillespie in the 20/20, why the hell has he not been selected to play for NZ before yesterday???

Gifts

No, not of the wrapped variety under a tree - betting prices so out of whack with reality that you have to slap yourself around and throw cold water on your face to really believe what you are seeing and aren't in a dream.

What price would you think Australia - a team that has won 29 of 38 test matches at home this decade including the first 3 of this current series against England - would be for the Ashes test starting today? 1.35? 1.40? 1.45?

No ladies and gentlemen, try 1.61 - although they are shortening at the moment as the rain radar at Melbourne currently shows diddly squat. I don't need a free set of steak knives to partake in this incredibly generous offer - I'm a-fillin my boots. 1.61 for as dominant a sports team you'll ever see - esp. as they have kicked arse 3 out of 3 so far - yes, Xmas has come twice this year.

The odds on Australia have been as high as 1.70 on Betfair thanks to concerns about the weather, and while there may be showers in the first day or so, all I can see on the weather maps is a great big high pressure system about to invade Melbourne. There won't be enough time lost in this game to affect a result me thinks, and with the covers being on the pitch for the last couple of days thanks to rain we could be in for a good old-fashioned test match where the seamers hold sway - at least for the first couple of days.

So on the Baggy Green bandwagon I hop - a small saver on the Poms (they do have reasonable seam bowlers as well), and forget about the draw (at least until - if - the pitch provides evidence I need to be worried about it)

Merry Xmas

After a few 18-hour days and last-minute Xmas shopping on the horizon, updating here has been down the list of priorities.

So a quick HO HO HO to my 4 regular readers and I'll be back on Boxing Day.

Everest Revisited

Hits on this blog have gone through the roof again and with 30% of visitors coming from USA at a time when Discovery Channel over there are airing a six-part series "Everest: Beyond the Limit" focusing on the Himex Expedition that included Mark Inglis, I guess they ain't coming here for my cricket tips.

It's interesting (well, to me anyway) to re-read my ramblings written six months ago - with the benefit of hindsight and time there are not many words I'd change. Quite why I became so fascinated with this story I can't answer either - perhaps the callous disregard for a fellow life I still find hard to believe even though there is reasonable evidence to suggest this was possibly the case.

The blog hits prompted me to go surfing (the net, not the waves) and every time I read more stuff on this it winds me up. The latest is seeing a TV "documentary" is about to be made allowing "the climbers to tell it from their point of view".

For fuck's sake, the climbers do not need a TV propoganda exercise to air in May 2007 to tell their side of the story. There are plenty of other, more immediate, ways to tell it from their point of view. And no, I don't mean Inglis' book published for the Xmas market.

The bottom line is, if the events of May 15 on Everest had an entirely innocent explanation, it would have been pointed out loud and clear by now. What troubles me is it hasn't - what we have is contradictory information still not cleared up 6 months after the event, despite Inglis' contrite press statement in July that his recollection may be unclear.

Read into that what you will.

Profiting from overreactions

In financial markets, studies have been done on the "winner's curse" and the "loser's blessing" - the basic premise being that individuals, when revising their beliefs, tend to overweight fresh information and underweight prior data.

The same thing happens in in-play betting markets too, where price movements overreact to events that are taking place. Yesterday's play in the Ashes test provides a classic example.

England have been set 550+ to win. While Australia are not 100% certainties to win (there is no such thing in sport), most (sane) people would conclude that Australia are overwhelming favourites and should be offering no more than, say, 1.05 to win the game.

I didn't see what the odds were when England set off on this run chase - some would say wild goose chase - with three tests going on and play overlapping, trying to keep track of more than one game at a time does this old head in; but as Cook and Bell developed a partnership I switched over and saw Australian odds for winning had blown out to 1.16.

I took a chunk at 1.20; made a mental note to take more at 1.40 but unfortunately Bell went out and the Aussie odds were "only" 1.33. Another quick wicket before another large partnership - this time the odds on Oz reached 1.42 - I was waiting for 1.50 :-( - when Cook fell just before the close of play.

With England at 265/5 - basically halfway with half the wickets lost, overnight odds are Aus 1.15 Eng 25.0 Draw 10.5 - partly influenced by a weather forecast of thundery showers in the morning; but in my mind Australia should still be around 1.05, even with the forecast. In fact, they should not have moved much from 1.05 throughout the whole of yesterday's play and where the "winner's curse" and "loser's blessing" provides avenues of opportunity for scratching out a bit more profit from a dead game with (barring miracles) a predictable result.

The same thing is happening in the NZ - Sri Lanka game. NZ have 500-odd to get to win the game, Sri Lanka have two days to get 8 more wickets and the forecast is not too bad - I don't think the rain is going to hit Wellington, certainly not today and probably not tomorrow either.

As I type this post, the odds on Sri Lanka have drifted from 1.12 at the start of play to 1.22 after half an hour with no wickets and 30 runs. I don't know if NZ have ever scored 500 in their second innings - certainly not in recent times and they don't get 500 that often in the first innings. Yet someone at the moment is wanting to back NZ at 8/1 to win the game - God bless 'em.

With NZ at 110/2, are they any more likely to win the game than they were when they were 0/0? Not that much in my book, and I'd only give them half a chance if they reach, say, 350/3. Yet the market has already assessed them as twice as likely to win the game thanks to a reasonable, but nothing out of the ordinary, start.

Overreactions - long may they continue.

Timberrrr

What is wrong suddenly with the world's batsmen?

21 wickets in the first 2 days at Perth and there ain't nothing wrong with the pitch.
14 wickets in the first day at Wellington and there is definitely nothing wrong with that pitch either.

And India, the team that was possibly the most likely to get skittled, shows true grit on a dog of a pitch and loses only 5 wickets on an admittedly shortened day.

Have batsmen become so used to flat bully tracks that they can't handle anything else?

Mind you, I'm not complaining - cricket is supposed to be a contest between bat and ball and at least we're getting it in these games.

Thinking of you

They call Australia the lucky country. In one respect, it isn't - when the eucalyptus oil heats up or some dickhead throws a lighted match on the ground.

Having experienced bushfires close-up (Queensland Orienteering Champs 1991 - God that's a long time ago but I can still remember it like yesterday), while they are an amazing sight they can do a truckload of damage. I fear the summer of 2006/7 may not be altogether pleasant across the ditch.

Fingers crossed the damage doesn't get too bad.

NZ v SL 2nd Test Preview

Rule No.1 in test cricket betting is the draw is usually too short.

Rule No.2 is always be on the lookout for exceptions to Rule No.1

The second test starting in Wellington tomorrow could well fall into the category of Rule No.2, for two reasons:

1. WEATHER

Long-range weather forecasts are not exactly reliable but my reading from latest reports is there COULD be major interruptions to play on Sunday (Day 3) and Tuesday (Day 5). Also factor in the Basin Reserve does not exactly have the best drainage systems in the world and there is a reasonable probability of significant play lost. For two teams that couldn't last 3 days at Christchurch it might not matter, which brings us to ...

2. PITCH

From the NZ Herald today:

Tomorrow's offering at the Basin Reserve was yesterday looking unusually dry, so there is still a chance that Vettori will receive the sort of bowling spells he wants and that the seamers won't have it all their own way.

Curator Matt Sipthorpe, in contrast to Jade Stadium groundsman Chris Lewis, said the test strip would probably settle down quickly after providing some initial assistance and suggested the captain who won the toss should bat first.

"It's a lot harder than previous ones this season," said Sipthorpe, who was overseeing his first test pitch. "Because it has virtually had an uninterrupted preparation, we've been able to monitor moisture levels closely and are expecting no problems.

"We're probably a day ahead of our preparations but you've got to be like that with the Wellington weather. You just can't take any risks because it's so easy to get caught out."

With fine weather in the week leading up to the test, this confirms my suspicions that a seamer's paradise is not in store for this match. A good batting strip, plus probable weather interruptions - I'm on the draw pregame. Certainly I wouldn't be going against it.

Orgy

An ODI tonight followed by three cricket tests starting in the next two days will probably mean a quiet blog - certainly on anything other than cricket - for the next few days.

All three tests are on TV in NZ too - that's 18 hours of cricket each day from Friday through to Monday - if the games last that long. Certainly I can see only the weather holding up the length of both the NZ - Sri Lanka and SAF - India tests; these should not last anywhere near 450 overs.

The Ashes test starting tomorrow I'm sitting on the fence for a while. Either England will collapse like a house of cards after their pyschological scarring last week or they really do have a bit of mental ticker and will surprise everyone with their fight. If they go in with the same XI I'd err to the side of the first option. I'm also waiting to see what the pitch is like before committing any hard-earned to a view. With the draw over 3/1 it's not that false a price if the pitch is similar to last year's.

PS Candyman - there was nothing wrong with the pitch for the first NZ - SL test; there was a helluva lot wrong with the batting on both sides ...

Get over it!

I can't believe the kerfuffle of McCullum's runout of Murali during the NZ - Sri Lanka cricket test. Blogs/forums are full of piffling words - possibly because there is roughly a 50/50 split between those who think it was unsportsmanlike and those who think it was kosher.

I'm in the latter - ffs earlier this year we had our Sports Minister bemoaning our lack of mental toughness and the first sign of a bit of bloody-mindedness from a Kiwi sportsman we (well, half of we) get all warm and fuzzy about the principles of sportsmanship.

Fuck sportsmanship. Hon Mallard and SPARC have brainwashed me - sport is about winning. Our hard-earned taxpayer dollars are not put into sport so that we can be a good sport. Win - at all costs. It's the way of the sporting world. Well done Brendan.

Funny thing is, exactly the same thing happened in a test against Zimbabwe last year and not a peep was heard out of the do-gooders then. Possibly because it happened in and against Zimbabwe. Which makes me wonder, if we had run out Glenn McGrath this way, would there be so much talk or we would all be privately thinking "good job, couldn't happen to a nicer bloke"?

Seriously, it's an interesting example of sporting behaviour and the divided opinion shows that sportsmanship is not always black and white. Personally I'm not entirely comfortable with what happened but neither am I critical for what the Kiwis did.

A1

While on the subject of questioning what is sport, I suppose motorsport could come under the microscope. After all, sitting on your backside driving a car is not exactly taxing, although apparently there is some physical stress involved as well as some degree of skill.

So with the benefit of doubt, let's call it a sport. Which means it may appear on this illustrious blog and I can congratulate our Kiwi team for taking out the latest round of the A1 GP . I'm not a huge fan of motorsport, but on the odd occasions I catch it on the tube I much prefer A1 over Formula 1. Why?

1. The philosophy behind the series is to reward driver skill by providing identical cars - so it's not a competition about money;
2. It's nation v nation - not private team v private team, which leads to 3 ...
3. It's another sport where we kick Australian arse.

The next round is in New Zealand next month - worth a look if you're at least half a petrolhead.

Defining Sport

Thanks to Sportsfreak, I find out that hoary old chestnut - Is Chess a Sport? - is alive and well, this time in the UK as this article shows.

So the United Kingdom joins 124 other countries around the world in recognising chess as a sport. I'm pretty sure NZ has yet to do so but we're 20 years behind the motherland in everything anyway so that's no surprise.

In some ways it's a shame that Chess has campaigned long and hard for recognition as a sport. They do so primarily for financial reasons - to access government and grant funding - and you can't blame them - but chess has and never will fit the dictionary definition of "sport". Their campaign, and success, will invite other recreational pursuits e.g. poker, to try likewise.

It's a shame because we live in an age where we have trouble getting kids outside and away from their Xbox. Now thousands of geeky children when extolled by their parents to undergo a modicum of physical exertion can now turn around and say "But Dad, I play chess."

You might think it far-fetched, but in 50 or 100 years time when we're six foot under, computer wargaming will probably be admitted to the 2120 Olympics.

P.S. The article stated "The English Chess Federation says it will push for chess to be recognised as an Olympic sport" - can someone tell those duffheads that chess has been recognised as an Olympic sport already - for quite some time.

Well played luds

Regular readers may suspect I enjoy the odd pisstake now and then, and a target reasonably high up the list is New Zealand soccer, sorry football (the sport, not the organisation - the organisation is also a target but I digress).

So it is only fair that when proven wrong, when something glorious happens in the sport of football in this rugby-loving mad country of ours, I bow my head in shame and pay my penance.

The NZ Knights drew. AWAY FROM HOME! And to cap an orgasmic night for soccer fans, Auckland City, "a bunch of amateurs" as the commentator reminded us ad-nauseum, only lost 2-0 to some team from Africa who haven't lost since God knows when.

It almost ranks right up there with NZ's 4-0 loss to Brazil as the highlight of the year.

Well played luds.

(P.S. I honestly did watch some of these games - thanks to a floodlight failure in the cricket ODI in Pakistan. I had to do something to fill in the time waiting for them to come back on ...)

Offline

Have had an unexpected absence from home and computer over the last couple of days. Will be back in full voice tomorrow!

Cricket Preview

1st Test: New Zealand ($2.44) v Sri Lanka ($6.20) – Draw ($2.32)

Shock horror! New Zealand are about to play a TEST match!!! As per usual, preview split into three sections:

TEAMS

Both teams coming into a test series underdone – SL haven’t played test cricket since beating SAF at home 2-0 in August while NZ has to go back to an away series against SAF in May losing 2-0. Such collateral form I tend to ignore – playing home and away is chalk and cheese. Of more interest was SL’s effort in England earlier, drawing the test series 1-1 after opening up with a miraculous draw at Lord’s through some astonishing batting and perseverance in the last 2 days.

SL have a horrible away record – for the period 2000/05 4 wins, 13 losses and 6 draws might look “OK” until you see that all the away wins have been in Pakistan. Before Trent Bridge, their last win outside of Pakistan and home was at The Oval in 1998. A record that almost matches the West Indies for mediocrity.

However I don’t think they can be dismissed lightly, principally on the back of a strong batting line-up although it mysteriously goes missing in action at times away from home, and of course Muralitharan – with back-up from Vaas and other seamers. What effect that Murali has on this series will be interesting; he didn’t play in the last test series here 18 months ago and the magic he weaved over NZ batsmen at the ICC trophy will be fresh in their minds.

They will be a stronger side than when they last toured here, but are they good enough to win? If we turn our attention to the opposition and home side, I believe the 20% chance the bookies have given them is a little off the mark.

Let’s face it, New Zealand are not a good test side. Even with Bond and Vettori, we almost lost the first test to the West Indies earlier this year at home. Our top-order batting with the exception of Fleming you’d never put your house on to deliver the goods. The only reasons I’d have NZ as favourites are the home advantage and SL's team combination which has a wicketkeeper come batsmen at 7 and only 4 bowlers. But the disparity in current betting prices is too big.

PITCH

Listening to the radio yesterday provided some amusement as the groundsman’s interviews ranged from “if I won the toss I’d definitely bowl first” to “it will be good for both batting and bowling”. There are more quotes here and here where perhaps the real truth comes out.

Using a drop-in pitch is a little worrying but Christchurch has the best wicket (the one in the ground) in the country so you assume the curator does have half a clue as to what he’s doing. The pitch may be conducive to good batting but I suspect (as was the case against England) what the atmosphere is like will have just as much bearing as how the pitch behaves. Which brings me to the …

WEATHER

A cold front is expected through Christchurch Friday and with SW winds expect showers which may continue into Saturday. With the vagaries of NZ weather it’s hard to predict when the weather will arrive (and leave), and how much rain there will be – so it's not easy to ascertain how much play will be lost tomorrow. The rest of the forecast looks OK.

With a cold front comes cloud cover, so hopefully before and/or after the rain band the ball is swinging all over the place and habitual draw-layers can have an easy ride. Life is seldom that easy; but my current gut feeling is while there will be some play lost, it won’t be enough to unduly affect the chances of a result. That can change, and I’ll be keeping a close eye on forecast updates throughout today.

SUMMARY

Throwing it all into the mixing bowl, NZ should be favourites at home but Sri Lanka may be a little under-rated and the draw based on current weather forecasts is a bit short - certainly now that it has shortened from $2.52. My pre-toss prices are:

New Zealand $2.60
Sri Lanka $3.55
Draw $3.00

551 the new 666

Whilst looking through test records yesterday, came across the amusing stat that England have scored 551/6 declared batting first on another occasion this year and couldn't win that test either (draw v Sri Lanka at Lord's).

Its a funny ol' game

Cricket is an acquired taste - unfamiliarity can breed a lack of appreciation - as the Americans say, how can you have a game that lasts for 5 days and not have a winner at the end of it?

Then you can have days like yesterday, where after being bored shitless for 4 days a contest completely and unexpectedly explodes to life to a gripping conclusion that even the storywriters in international rugby league couldn't dream up. As someone on the radio just pointed out, how bizzare is it that you can watch a team crawling along at 0.8 runs an over truly transfixed to the events unfolding.

To be honest, I'm still a bit numb from yesterday - partly because I fucked up my betting on the match (don't ask), but partly because I don't think anyone - including the Australian cricketers - could see the eventual result actually happening. Their post match celebrations showed that.

So why did it happen? A question worth pondering - especially from a betting perspective as sometimes trying to work out what happened in the past helps in predicting the future (as much as you can predict sport).

So entering the world of supposition, here's what I take out of it all:

1. There was absolutely NO indication before the start of the last day that England would succumb like the proverbial lambs to the slaughterhouse. They had competed on an equal footing for 4 days, and in 19 overs before stumps on Day 4 had cruised to 59/1.

2. The pitch was a batting paradise, and the cooler weather over the first 2 days meant the pitch hadn't deteriorated to its normal extent, so batting was certainly not harder than the previous day.

3. But suddenly, on Day 5, negativity pervaded the English batsmen (despite Pietersen's morning comments that "yeah we'll play positive out there"). It took Australia 10 overs to get the first wicket of the day, and 10 runs were scored in that time. Sure, the bowling was good, but so are the English batsmen and the pitch was not a minefield.

4. Why the change in tactics? Everyone knows you don't show weakness to the Australian cricket team - that is what they thrive on - like the wild animal circling it's prey - and it's when they perform at their best. SOMEONE in the English dressing room decided to play for the draw - even though it's well known in cricket if you play for a draw, you more often than not end up losing.

5. The prime culprits have to be the coach (Fletcher) and/or the captain (Flintoff). I'll go with the former and I can just imagine the morning pep-talk - "OK luds, just play it cautious for the first hour or so and we'll be home and hosed". Whoever decided on the softly-softly approach needs to be shot - but of course we'll never find out who it was.

6. Even with such a negative attitude, the game still should have been a draw - but an extraordinary series of events - a bad umpiring decision, a comical runout and Pietersen falling to the first ball he faced from Warne (after having showed contempt for the 106 balls he faced in the first innings) - and suddenly the impossible became the possible.

7. Pietersen is the one person who would ignore team orders (I can see him now thinking "fuck off Fletch" during the pep-talk) but he didn't get the chance. His wicket was the turning point, and the remaining batsmen bar Collingwood - even Flintoff - were possums in headlights waiting to be squashed.

So now the 5-0 whitewash is down to $3.55 on Betfair and how, and will, England recover from this shattering defeat is the $64 question.

A question that I'll spend some time pondering but my initial thoughts is ownership of the team. If I'm right in my suspicion that Fletcher holds the whip, the English have a chance to turn things around if their captain grows some balls and takes over the reins when the players walk onto the field. I suspect there will be a fair amount of dissention within the ranks - initially through selection and now with tactics. If Freddie, KP and Co. decide "fuck this, lets do it our way", this series is far from a 5-0 certainty. Because they are a good test side - they showed that for 80% of this match.

Thankfully, the Poms have over a week before the next game starts and every day will help heal the wounds. Unfortunately, Fletcher has already come out in defence of Giles (yes, that spinner who can bat but showed yesterday he can't hold out under pressure and has no ability to dry up runs) and if he is picked for the third test ahead of Panesar, God help England.

It will be worth watching events over the next week before the next test starts - England will either go to pieces or bounce back better than most will expect - but to me the selection for the third test will tell me all I need to know.

P.S. Betting on Betfair during the last day was not for the faint-hearted: the draw was down to $1.02 before Strauss got shafted, and after Pietersen's wicket there was more mayhem than Black Monday at the NYSE.

P.P.S. I'm sorry stepdaughter for doubting your wisdom pre-game.

Well what a surprise

Pakistani pace bowlers Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif have been acquitted on appeal to their drugs ban.

That they tested positive to prohibited substances is not the issue. They have got off on a technicality, and a shaky one at that. In its wisdom, the appeals committee (by a 2-1 majority) have decided the anti-doping regulations of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) hold more weight than those of the International Cricket Council (ICC). The PCB anti-doping regulations allow a defence of "exceptional circumstances" which includes the situation where a "player held an honest and reasonable belief in a state of facts which, if they existed, would mean that the player did not commit a doping offence".

So in plain English, under the PCB anti-doping regulations, if you can prove that you honestly did not know you were breaking the law, you can get off - even if you did actually break the law.

What a crock of shit. In most justice systems in the word, ignorance of the law is no defence. Whether Shoaib and Asif are drug cheats or innocently caught up in the sporting world's anti-drug crusade is beside the point. Whether the appeals committee were feverishly looking for any loophole to get their star players acquitted or honestly believe in their judgement is also beside the point.

Apart from ignorance is no defence, what IS the point is the ICC are about to be put in a very uncomfortable position with the PCB (no doubt with support from their subcontinental friends) basically giving them the bird (our anti-doping regs hold sway more than yours, dear Papa), and I suspect on the other hand the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) will soon be telling the ICC this is definitely not on and do something about it.

This saga has a long way to go yet. If there is one sporting organisation in the world you do not piss off, it is WADA. And the Asian bloc that control international cricket are about to find that out (and also note cricket is not exactly in WADA's good books after giving Warne only a one-year ban; it should have been two).

If the ICC don't do anything about this (and the cynic in me suggests they won't), I predict WADA will take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport - and there they will find out that:

(a) regulations of an international sporting federation hold more clout than those of a member federation, and
(b) ignorance is no defence.

To borrow a line from a reader - **grabs some popcorn**

Positive spin

Example No. 352 for why I don't buy newspapers:

(Background: The New Zealand Knights is a "professional" soccer ... sorry, football team that plays in the Australian A-League. Last season they came last with a record of I think W1 D3 L17. This year so far, their record is W2 D2 L11, and yes - last. They rank right up with men's tennis players as New Zealand's biggest sporting embarrassment)

Headline: Knights in position to influence race for playoffs

Oh this should be good

The party-pooping New Zealand Knights have the chance of dishing out more of the same in five of their six remaining A-League fixtures.

About as much chance as I have of marrying Maria Sharapova

The 1-1 draw they took from the Newcastle Jets on Sunday could be a sign of things to come.

Or it could be the biggest sporting fluke since Bangladesh beat Australia in cricket

In denying the Jets all three points and with it the chance to move into the top four, the Knights showed they could yet influence the race not only for the Hyundai A-League title but the scrap for the two places available in the Asian Champions League ... But the scrap for the remaining three places will go to the wire with the Knights, if they can burgle some points, likely to have some influence.

Did this journo watch the game? The Knights were completely outplayed and got a draw thanks to a penalty - they have as much influence over the competition as I do over my stepson

They are away to Adelaide United on Sunday in a game which has more than passing interest for Adelaide coach John Kosmina and his team.

Of course the game has more than a "passing interest" - they are playing in the friggin' game fer chrissakes. Talk about stating the obvious

He will be still having nightmares over their round two 1-0 loss to the Knights and will only be a little happier when he looks back at their second meeting which they won 4-2 - the only time in 15 matches this season the Knights have scored more than one goal.

Anyone who loses to the Knights aren't having nightmares - they need a full course of therapy on the psychiatrist's couch. And to state the Knights scored more than one goal in that game is stretching the truth - one of the goals was an own goal so while it counts on the scoreboard, the Knights didn't score it. Splitting hairs maybe, but rather than an example of the Knight's scoring prowess it just shows even the most useless of sporting teams gets a break or two now and then

And so on. The rest of the article talks (thankfully) about other teams - but what I don't get is why put such a positive spin on possibly the worst professional football team on the planet. The article is a preview of the upcoming weekend's matches (why such preview has to appear in Tuesday's paper perhaps shows just how important it is - get it in early or not at all), and the Knights should warrant one sentence - maybe two, even to a NZ audience.

The Knights rank right up there with NZ's highest ranked men's tennis player at 474 or something as things the general NZ sporting public don't give a flying fuck about. And even if we did care, we certainly don't need our thought processes massaged into thinking the Knights have some "influence" in the competition. It is a waste of ink and newsprint.

In this SPARC-led era that winners are grinners and the rest can go and jump, will the newspapers please put our sporting embarrassments six feet under (where they belong) never to see the light of day. Thanks.

Trivia Update

The sons of All Blacks have something else in common:

Marc Boe +15 - 74 83 - missed cut.
Ryan Fox +17 - 82 77 - missed cut.

Perhaps they should have spent more time kicking a rugby ball around with Dad.

Following On

Thanks to a Sportsfreak poster, the penny has dropped.

Ever since Laxman and Co belted the Aussies around Calcutta and won a test after following on, teams have been reluctant to enforce it, citing giving the bowlers a rest and not wanting to potentially bat last on a deteriorating pitch.

Such excuses wear thin, especially last week at the Gabba where Oz had a 445 run lead and the bowlers had hardly raised a sweat in the 60 overs of "toil".

So the real reason? Well cricketers are partly paid from a percentage of revenue (in this case 25%) which includes such things as gate takings. In case you can't work it out, gate takings for a 5 day test are rather larger than takings for a 3 or 4 day test, especially when the ground is sold out before the game starts.

Players complaining about too much cricket should perhaps ensure tests are not dragged out unnecessarily if they want to be taken seriously.

Ha!

Last week a university sociologist came out suggesting "new lads" like Marc Ellis reinforce traditional male chauvinist attitudes to women. The full paper can be found here at Sportsfreak, although it is heavy going.

Ellis' mature response ? Describing the author as "ugly, wears bone carvings and her sexuality is questionable".

However note said sociologist is a former sports journalist so me thinks there is probably a bit of history here that we are not reading about. Perhaps they are both correct.

McGrath

There are more than a few people - including this one - who have had McGrath's obituary penned for a couple of years. After a lacklustre bowling performance at Adelaide, these old-scripted sheets come out for another airing, only to be proved wrong at some point in the future.

McGrath is not past it. He is injured. One test after taking 6-50 he is apparently due to head to the knacker's yard. As much as I think he is an arrogant twat, I hope his heel recovers and he has one more 5-for in this series to prove the knockers wrong - again.

Blaming the media

I'm not a huge fan of sporting journos - print journos especially (yes that is a generalisation and there are exceptions). At times I wonder whether the only reason that thing many people read in the morning was called "newspaper" was so we could differentiate it from "toilet paper" and not get confused between the two.

But despite many sporting media resembling little more than cheerleading squads one thing that winds me up more than bad journalism is seeing people blame the media for less than ideal publicity - Mark Inglis earlier this year being a prime example.

So I found this article from today's Herald an interesting little insight with its personal recounts of sportswriter meets sports administrator - and I'm on the side of the journo with this one.

When the High Performance Director of a sport that receives substantial SPARC funding is on the plane back home, it is news, journalists on behalf of the public do need to question why, and the public do have some right to ask. At times I wonder whether sporting administrators who receive these large cheques from SPARC have forgotten the dollars actually comes from the New Zealand taxpayer and not the organisation handing them the money.

Apology

I'm sorry. That's the last time I let my stepdaughter onto my computer - how she could write those last two cricket blogs predicting Australia to win the current Ashes test when it was obvious to every blind man and his dog England would come roaring back from its first test thrashing I don't know.

Ahhh the dangers of predicting sport. She should know better - sport is unpredictable at the best of times. The best you can do is assign probabilities and the rest is up to the Gods. And the Lord above must have a reasonable sense of humour to allow Paul Collingwood to score a double century as the Poms rack up 550 to kill this test as a contest.

Or is it dead? It will be if the Aussies use 130+ overs and/or score 450+ and while there is a reasonable chance of that occuring, I'm not so sure. Pressure can do funny things to sportspeople and it will be an interesting test of Ponting et al's top 6 inches over the next day or so.

Searching through recent test records, there's only been 2 occasions where Australia have given up over 500 runs when fielding first in a test (India's 705 in Jan 2004 where Ganguly delayed the declaration to allow Lee to bring up his double century as a bowler, and NZ's 534 in Dec 2001). Both games ended in a draw (in the latter case thanks to the umpires).

But more pertinent is Australia's response the last time England racked up a big score against them - 477 at Trent Bridge last year. Australia 218 all out, in less than 50 overs. Hmmmm.

While I don't particularly like the man and think his captaincy skills are shit, there is no doubt Ponting is one tough Aussie. So let's make this easy then - Ponting out before lunch today, England win. Still there at afternoon tea - draw. Anything in between, who knows.

Well said stepdaughter.

P.S. Aussie can still win this! <------------ (arse-covering exercise in case of a miracle)

Once upon a time

not too long ago, in a land not too far away (well, Christchurch actually) there was this game of cricket played between Australia and a team who thought they could beat Australia. On a good batting pitch, the non-Australian team got off to a great start - 265-3 after the first day.

They lost inside 4 days. I remember it well, as Australia's price during the game blew out to 4/1, and the draw was $1.50 when the tide turned, as it invariably does.

While England are stronger than NZ was in 2004/5, my money is still on the Aussies - at least for another day.

Sacked!

Well fuck me (for the second time this week). For the first time ever in my life, I've been sacked.

Yes, a nice e-mail yesterday from the IOF (International Orienteering Federation) informs me "following the announcement of your resignation as President of NZOF, Council determined not to reappoint you for a further term" on the IOF's FOC (Foot Orienteering Committee).

Following my resignation as Head Honcho? WTF???

The letter they probably wanted to send would have been along the lines of:

Rob, we do appreciate your work but you have a big mouth. We don't like people who don't toe the line. We don't like people who offer criticism, even if it is warranted. So naff off.

At least then I would have appreciated their honesty. That has to be the most lame-ass excuse for a dumping I've ever seen. Still, over the last couple of years I've tempered my criticism of IOF on various things because of my "position". Now, I can come out full guns blazing - heh.

Trivia

Mark Boe and Ryan Fox, two of the amateurs currently playing the NZ Open (Golf), have something in common. Their fathers (John and Grant) both played for the All Blacks as first five-eighths. John Boe was better known as a coach of Waikato and Samoa.