...And I'm Sure As Hell Neither Rich Nor Famous For It
Well, 10years is a long time. It's been across 3 blogs.
I'm thinking maybe I should consolidate everything into 1 big blog and slap it full of google ads. Let me know what you think.
MLB Opened 2014 In Sydney
I got asked for an opinion about the MLB staging their season opener at the Sydney Cricket Ground last weekend by Pleiades. I do have a bit to say about it but it's all tangential to what happened. What happened was that the LA Dodgers rolled into town with what we now know to be the highest payroll in baseball and beat Team Australia 4-2 in an exhibition warmup, then the Arizona Diamondbacks twice to open their season 2-0. Also in the fray was the game Team Australia won 5-0 against the D-Backs.
Some impressions of the Dodgers... Jeez they're a bunch of freeswingers. Apart from Adrian Gonzales and Scott Van Slyke, nobody really seemed to work the count at all. And they still won. So I guess that's talent. They did leave it to the very end when they were losing 0-2 to Team Australia before they broke open for a 4 run top of the 8th. They kept hacking at the first pitch and were being 1-hit by that time. Of course they went on to essentially beat the D-backs swinging that way so who's to say they're wrong? Maybe talent doesn't need strategem?
Team Australia acquitted themselves well. This was surprising. The 5-0 win over the D-Backs was really surprising. Until of course the D-Backs proceeded to get rolled by the Dodgers in the first two official games. This prompted great commentary from the ESPN commentators saying that more scouts will come to Australia looking for talent. John Smotlz in particular seemed incredibly keen on the idea.
The arrival of MLB, even for a glimpse should represent a threat to the cricket fraternity. If the awareness of baseball goes up, the kind o talent that goes into cricket might opt to go to baseball. The money and opportunities are certainly weighted that way. This isn't a discussion about which sport is better. Baseball has more money than cricket right now. When you combine other markets where it is played apart form North America, it's clear there's a lot of money out there.
Here's a comparison. Once-in-a-generation wicket keeper and batsman Adam Gilchrist probably earned about AUD$10million-15million in his career, an that's being generous. Roughly overlapping his carer was once-in-a-generation hitting catcher Mike Piazza whose lifetime earnings would be closer to US$100million. They most likely have never heard of each other, which reflects how far apart the worlds have been. Adam Gilchrist had what cricket commentators might call a 'tidy' career. Mike Piazza had a resplendent one. Yes, "there's money in them thar hills", as they say.
Of course it's s not all about the money. Lots of Australian kids have a knee-jerk reaction of hating on" Yank sports" so it might take a while. A very long while even; but eventually the money and interest from America is going to make its presence felt. So yeah, money does talk and bullshit does walk. It's making me think that the whole Kerry Packer World Series cricket thing was an attempt to stave off baseball from eating his favourite game of cricket. it probably worked in the 1970s. I doubt the numbers are there today and going forward.
A Gen-X View of the Universe.
"The Issue Isn't Pussy, It's Monkey" - from The Right Stuff
Film, Cinema, Movies, TV, Music, Rock
Showing posts with label Cricket. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cricket. Show all posts
2014/03/30
2013/02/10
Cultural Differences
No Leaks
It's been a weird week in Australian sport, what with the big press conference saying 'This is The Blackest Day in Australian Sport'.
The article goes on to say that all of our codes of sport probably have had doping going on. Lance Armstrong's name came up and some anonymous football player in some code even piped up during the week with an article saying what an edge it was to have the injection.
The declaration sent all these bodies scurrying for cover (how else do you explain the rush to declare "We're clear!"); and swimmers saying they refused injection in fear it was contaminated with banned substances.
It's interesting how the sport bodies have responded. the NRL has put together an 'Integrity Commission', which suggests, they're up to their eyeballs in the doping problem. The Minister for Sport says it's 'game over' for the cheats, but again you'd expect her to say it without any follow through - what else would we expect a Minister for Sport to say? "We give up?"
The strangest call of them all may be the call to name names mentioned in this one:
Given the nature of the witch hunt that is about to ensue it seems entirely understandable that some people want the messenger shot. But really, with Australia's insane libel laws, it would a brave ACC CEO who would start naming names. The way this normally goes is through leaks, starting at the biggest names in the various sports.
If this were America, somebody somewhere in the chain of information would leak to the press. After all, tat is how we found out about Barry Bonds and the clear and the cream; Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte using HGH; A-Rod being on some PEDs in his peak years in Texas; and ultimately Lance Armstrong as well. The cross-hairs a re firmly on performance-enhanced athletes now and the witch hunt is in full swing over there.
That such leaks have not happened seems to indicate that the ACC investigation was pretty subtle and went very deep. There also seems to be a cultural difference here as opposed America that the press are not willing to tarnish the names of the stars just yet. It maybe the case that the culture is about to change and professional sport will never again have the cozy relationship with the media as it does now.
It's been a weird week in Australian sport, what with the big press conference saying 'This is The Blackest Day in Australian Sport'.
AUSTRALIA'S top sporting codes have been rocked by revelations that organised crime is behind the increasing use of banned performance-enhancing drugs by ''multiple athletes'' across sporting codes and possible attempts to fix matches and manipulate betting markets.
The heads of all the main professional and participation sports expressed shock after being briefed on a 12-month investigation by the Australian Crime Commission that found professional sport in Australia was ''highly vulnerable to organised crime infiltration''
The article goes on to say that all of our codes of sport probably have had doping going on. Lance Armstrong's name came up and some anonymous football player in some code even piped up during the week with an article saying what an edge it was to have the injection.
The declaration sent all these bodies scurrying for cover (how else do you explain the rush to declare "We're clear!"); and swimmers saying they refused injection in fear it was contaminated with banned substances.
It's interesting how the sport bodies have responded. the NRL has put together an 'Integrity Commission', which suggests, they're up to their eyeballs in the doping problem. The Minister for Sport says it's 'game over' for the cheats, but again you'd expect her to say it without any follow through - what else would we expect a Minister for Sport to say? "We give up?"
The strangest call of them all may be the call to name names mentioned in this one:
The Australian Crime Commission's chief executive John Lawler hit back on Saturday at critics to clear up ''confusion'' as to why he did not name names, given the explosive nature of the allegations.
Mr Lawler said classified strategic assessments had been sent to all police agencies around the country and Commonwealth agencies, which were now responsible for pursuing action.
''Very detailed information, the names of the clubs, the names of all the persons, the details of how, when and why and where, based on the intelligence, the persons suspected, has been provided to the anti-doping agency ASADA and to the police. Particularly the NSW and Victorian police,'' he told Fairfax Media.
Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare echoed Mr Lawler's comments as a number of sporting identities and commentators questioned the investigation and motives behind the report's release along with its veracity.
Given the nature of the witch hunt that is about to ensue it seems entirely understandable that some people want the messenger shot. But really, with Australia's insane libel laws, it would a brave ACC CEO who would start naming names. The way this normally goes is through leaks, starting at the biggest names in the various sports.
If this were America, somebody somewhere in the chain of information would leak to the press. After all, tat is how we found out about Barry Bonds and the clear and the cream; Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte using HGH; A-Rod being on some PEDs in his peak years in Texas; and ultimately Lance Armstrong as well. The cross-hairs a re firmly on performance-enhanced athletes now and the witch hunt is in full swing over there.
That such leaks have not happened seems to indicate that the ACC investigation was pretty subtle and went very deep. There also seems to be a cultural difference here as opposed America that the press are not willing to tarnish the names of the stars just yet. It maybe the case that the culture is about to change and professional sport will never again have the cozy relationship with the media as it does now.
2011/03/30
The Bitter End
Ponting Retires From Captaincy
I feel like I've been watching Ricky Ponting for a long time. If there's one sporting figure that makes me feel old, it's actually Ricky Ponting. Not Derek Jeter or Roger Federer or even Tiger Woods. But then he's always made me feel that way since he broke into the test side as a 19 year old prodigy. It's very strange to see him at this point in his career being pushed out of his position which looked like a birthright on the way up. The vitriol poured on the man is even more remarkable given his accomplishments as a player. Everybody carries on about Don Bradman, but by all accounts he was equally obnoxious in person if not more so than Ricky Ponting. I get it that there's some part of a professional athlete's job description to be likeable, but I've always felt people are asking way too much of this guy.
Maybe I'm a bit weird that way. I can handle Barry Bonds being Bary Bonds, Canseco being Canseco, Clemens being Clemens; steroids and lies and bad attitudes and rudeness and all. I don't expect them to be role models. I liked John McEnroe at his rudest. I liked Michael Jordan at his most disdainful, Charles Barkley at his most pugnacious and Shane Heal for standing toe to toe with Sir Charles at the Atlanta Olympics, screaming back at his face. Ricky sledges? "Why not?" I thought. Sledge away, son. He wins ugly? Sure beats losing beautifully.
Anyway, he quit the captaincy today and the obits on his captaincy are in.
Well I've been saying for about 6years that we don't have as bright a future beyond Ponting as we once thought. So it surprises me a little bit that people are so keen to consign him to the dustbin.
I don't know about all that. Seems to me they should just let him bat and see what's left in the tank before kicking him to the curb. It's not as if there are better batsmen a-plenty. In its longest run, it's only going to be another couple of summers and then he will well and truly be gone. But you might wait another lifetime to see a batsman as amazing as Ricky Ponting play for Australia. I just don't get the vitriol. You'd think he slept with everybody's spouse - thrice.
I feel like I've been watching Ricky Ponting for a long time. If there's one sporting figure that makes me feel old, it's actually Ricky Ponting. Not Derek Jeter or Roger Federer or even Tiger Woods. But then he's always made me feel that way since he broke into the test side as a 19 year old prodigy. It's very strange to see him at this point in his career being pushed out of his position which looked like a birthright on the way up. The vitriol poured on the man is even more remarkable given his accomplishments as a player. Everybody carries on about Don Bradman, but by all accounts he was equally obnoxious in person if not more so than Ricky Ponting. I get it that there's some part of a professional athlete's job description to be likeable, but I've always felt people are asking way too much of this guy.
Maybe I'm a bit weird that way. I can handle Barry Bonds being Bary Bonds, Canseco being Canseco, Clemens being Clemens; steroids and lies and bad attitudes and rudeness and all. I don't expect them to be role models. I liked John McEnroe at his rudest. I liked Michael Jordan at his most disdainful, Charles Barkley at his most pugnacious and Shane Heal for standing toe to toe with Sir Charles at the Atlanta Olympics, screaming back at his face. Ricky sledges? "Why not?" I thought. Sledge away, son. He wins ugly? Sure beats losing beautifully.
Anyway, he quit the captaincy today and the obits on his captaincy are in.
The difference was as simple as Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, who played all the Waugh years, and all the Mark Taylor years before him, but only half of Ponting’s. Indubitably, a cricket captain is only as good as his team. Ponting’s was much turned over, became brittle and unstable, yet somehow was allowed to grow old and stagnant, too. It was also distracted by the Indian Premier League revolution.
It was said of Sir Donald Bradman that his unique advantage as captain was himself as batsman. It could be said of captain Ponting that he had only himself upon who to rely. Ponting batted at No. 3 throughout his tenure, indeed has batted in that keystone position exclusively for the past 10 years. It is a singular feat of shouldered responsibility; Sachin Tendulkar, for instance, has never played a Test innings at No. 3.
In his insistence to bat so high, Ponting was in the end too stubborn. The strain showed in other aspects of his captaincy, and grew. But Ponting’s fault was to care too much rather than too little. Besides, no likely usurper emerged, either as captain or No. 3, a detail that tells of Australia’s cricketing decline.
Well I've been saying for about 6years that we don't have as bright a future beyond Ponting as we once thought. So it surprises me a little bit that people are so keen to consign him to the dustbin.
Can he bat any better? Very doubtful. He might strike the occasional vein of form but they will be fewer and last less time with every passing season.
And, with every match he plays on, the reinvigoration of the Australian cricket team is further delayed. How many ageing batsmen can the team carry? Already there are Simon Katich and Mike Hussey, both almost 36. Age marks the prospects of both, yet Katich and Hussey have far more to prove and therefore more reason to play on than Ponting who, despite his record as a thrice-losing Ashes captain, has achieved everything in the game that he could have ever dreamed of.
Each night Julia Gillard must stick pins in her Kevin07 doll; Tony Abbott can doubtless see the face of Malcolm Turnbull every time he pounds the heavy bag. Don't make Michael Clarke carry the baggage of an old leader into a new future.
I don't know about all that. Seems to me they should just let him bat and see what's left in the tank before kicking him to the curb. It's not as if there are better batsmen a-plenty. In its longest run, it's only going to be another couple of summers and then he will well and truly be gone. But you might wait another lifetime to see a batsman as amazing as Ricky Ponting play for Australia. I just don't get the vitriol. You'd think he slept with everybody's spouse - thrice.
2010/06/15
Sport Nut Weekend
Get Some Perspective On The World Cup
The big news this morning is how dismally Australia lost to Germany in its first match in the World Cup. 4-0 sure is a whuppin', and nobody has anything nice to say about Australia's sons of the moment, the Socceroos.
Australia for all its posturing this time is mostly an older team of the same old guys from 2006. They couldn't have expected to do better than last time.
Which is a bit mean. I just want to write this post because I want us to get some perspective on what it is that the Socceroos were up against.
Firstly, without a shred of a doubt this tournament means more to Germans than any Australian. Germany is a three time winner of the World Cup and it's almost the only World Cup they contest. They don't contest the Cricket, Rugby World Cups, and they sure as hell don't send squads to the World Baseball Classic. I can't quite recall if they've ever threatened to win Olympic Gold in Ice Hockey. I don't think they even field a credible Basketball team, while Australia does. I don't even know if they have ever sent a team to the Netball World Cup. Soccer/Football is the it sport in Germany.
Australia on the other hand contest just about all of these World Comps except maybe Ice Hockey, but I'm sure there will eventually be a marsupially named squad in the future trying to get there. The point is, it's a bit rich for Australia to come at Football with the hopes of rolling with the top-5 nation of the sport. Or even Top-8. And if they don't, it's no slur on Australia's sporting prowess for not being within shouting distance of drawing with Germany. Being there, competing on the World Cup Stage is already an immense, towering accomplishment for the sport in Australia.
Some people are saying it's an embarrassing loss. I just can't go with that, even though a) I hate soccer and b) am no fan of soccer fandom, I have an appreciation of how deep the world's love for that sport is and where that depth is spread. There are nations out there that have no shot of being there, but it's still their no.1 sport. Think about that for a moment. It's like the no.5-6 sport in Australia in terms of exposure and we've got a team competing against the best of the best.
Talking about this match without that perspective is really disrespectful for an opponent that's steeped in the sport. It is inherently insane for Australia to think that it can equally be competitive at the ultimate level at Football. So much would have to change for Australia to be that good.
A World Cup Of What? - Part 1
This all got me to thinking about this notion of World Cups. Cricket's World Cup and the Baseball World Baseball Classic field 16 teams in the group stage. In either competition, the tail end of the 16 look a little ragged. It's really the top-8 in each competition that has a shot at the last 4 with few surprises. The gap between the top 8 and next 8 nations is in fact huge.
The same applies to the Rugby World Cup. Japan has been turning up to the Rugby World Cup each time but it's never gotten out of the group stage. Japan has the distinction of copping the worst hiding in Test matches, but it has also handed out the next worst hiding to minnows Taiwan. Should they be there or not? If they weren't there, would it still be a 'World Cup'? You could argue Rugby isn't too deep, but then there are such results as the horrible thrashing Australia handed out to Canada in cricket at the 1998 Commonwealth Games.
In each case, there's the Top 8 and the rest.
While it is true that the World Cup of Football fields 32 teams in the group stage from 200 odd nations, it is arguable that it is only the top-8 that have a serious shot at the finals. Yes, Football is deep and wide across the planet, but at its core it's still only about 8 nations. The rest of them are like window dressing to make the word 'World' stand up. We should revel in the fact that we make such good window-dressing.
A World Cup of What? - Part 2
Here are some rhetorical questions to go with the above:
Is it any surprise that Australia has won 2 Rugby World Cups?
Is it any surprise that Australia has won 4 Cricket World Cups?
Is it any surprise that Japan is a 2-time champion at the World Baseball Classic?
Is it any surprise that Brazil has won the FIFA World Cup 5 times?
Is it any surprise that Germany hasn't won a World Cup in Cricket or Rugby, or that it hasn't even fielded a team in the WBC?
Dare we even mention the Rugby League World Cup?
Is it reasonable/rational to expect Australia to get out of the Group Stage at the FIFA World Cup?
The Wrong Code
Australia will never relinquish League and AFL and Rugby in order to concentrate on one code of football. Therefore should we even hope to win the FIFA World Cup one day? We're the equivalent of the Kenyans at the Cricket World Cup.
In other news, the Yankees are on top of the AL East having swept the Astros. I'm pleased with that.
The big news this morning is how dismally Australia lost to Germany in its first match in the World Cup. 4-0 sure is a whuppin', and nobody has anything nice to say about Australia's sons of the moment, the Socceroos.
Australia for all its posturing this time is mostly an older team of the same old guys from 2006. They couldn't have expected to do better than last time.
That delusion lasted as long as it took for decoy forward Richard Garcia to snatch a shot on the turn, only to have it blocked. The rest of the match was benign tyranny, football royalty lording it over commoners. Or, eschewing empirical metaphors, the Germans' movements were intricate, precise and oily, like a German- engineered car. Australia bumped along in a paddock basher.
The goals hurt; of course, they did. But they were only to be expected, and deceptive in their simplicity; it was the simplicity that lies on the other side of complexity. The multitude of bookings hurt, because they had implications not only on the night, but for whatever Australia can hope to salvage from this tournament now. They also implied that Australia was a team of second resort.
But the red card for the talismanic Tim Cahill hurt most, because it was the massacre of hope.
Beneath the croaking of the vuvuzelas, there was now a hush. Even the German fans appeared shocked. The sentiment trapped inside the stadium now was more like a fart. Coach Pim Verbeek did not bother with Harry Kewell, or Josh Kennedy or Marco Bresciano; it would have been a waste of their time. A crowd of more than 60,000 thinned by half. Miserably, many of the Australians were going home to tents.
Australia thought it was better than this. Australia WAS better than this, four years ago. Hell, Australia was better than this in the 1974 World Cup when a team of amateurs played a stronger West German team than this German team, and lost by merely 3-0. It took more than 30 years to return to the World Cup as peers. This setback will have repercussions for a long time, on the field and off.
Which is a bit mean. I just want to write this post because I want us to get some perspective on what it is that the Socceroos were up against.
Firstly, without a shred of a doubt this tournament means more to Germans than any Australian. Germany is a three time winner of the World Cup and it's almost the only World Cup they contest. They don't contest the Cricket, Rugby World Cups, and they sure as hell don't send squads to the World Baseball Classic. I can't quite recall if they've ever threatened to win Olympic Gold in Ice Hockey. I don't think they even field a credible Basketball team, while Australia does. I don't even know if they have ever sent a team to the Netball World Cup. Soccer/Football is the it sport in Germany.
Australia on the other hand contest just about all of these World Comps except maybe Ice Hockey, but I'm sure there will eventually be a marsupially named squad in the future trying to get there. The point is, it's a bit rich for Australia to come at Football with the hopes of rolling with the top-5 nation of the sport. Or even Top-8. And if they don't, it's no slur on Australia's sporting prowess for not being within shouting distance of drawing with Germany. Being there, competing on the World Cup Stage is already an immense, towering accomplishment for the sport in Australia.
Some people are saying it's an embarrassing loss. I just can't go with that, even though a) I hate soccer and b) am no fan of soccer fandom, I have an appreciation of how deep the world's love for that sport is and where that depth is spread. There are nations out there that have no shot of being there, but it's still their no.1 sport. Think about that for a moment. It's like the no.5-6 sport in Australia in terms of exposure and we've got a team competing against the best of the best.
Talking about this match without that perspective is really disrespectful for an opponent that's steeped in the sport. It is inherently insane for Australia to think that it can equally be competitive at the ultimate level at Football. So much would have to change for Australia to be that good.
A World Cup Of What? - Part 1
This all got me to thinking about this notion of World Cups. Cricket's World Cup and the Baseball World Baseball Classic field 16 teams in the group stage. In either competition, the tail end of the 16 look a little ragged. It's really the top-8 in each competition that has a shot at the last 4 with few surprises. The gap between the top 8 and next 8 nations is in fact huge.
The same applies to the Rugby World Cup. Japan has been turning up to the Rugby World Cup each time but it's never gotten out of the group stage. Japan has the distinction of copping the worst hiding in Test matches, but it has also handed out the next worst hiding to minnows Taiwan. Should they be there or not? If they weren't there, would it still be a 'World Cup'? You could argue Rugby isn't too deep, but then there are such results as the horrible thrashing Australia handed out to Canada in cricket at the 1998 Commonwealth Games.
In each case, there's the Top 8 and the rest.
While it is true that the World Cup of Football fields 32 teams in the group stage from 200 odd nations, it is arguable that it is only the top-8 that have a serious shot at the finals. Yes, Football is deep and wide across the planet, but at its core it's still only about 8 nations. The rest of them are like window dressing to make the word 'World' stand up. We should revel in the fact that we make such good window-dressing.
A World Cup of What? - Part 2
Here are some rhetorical questions to go with the above:
Is it any surprise that Australia has won 2 Rugby World Cups?
Is it any surprise that Australia has won 4 Cricket World Cups?
Is it any surprise that Japan is a 2-time champion at the World Baseball Classic?
Is it any surprise that Brazil has won the FIFA World Cup 5 times?
Is it any surprise that Germany hasn't won a World Cup in Cricket or Rugby, or that it hasn't even fielded a team in the WBC?
Dare we even mention the Rugby League World Cup?
Is it reasonable/rational to expect Australia to get out of the Group Stage at the FIFA World Cup?
The Wrong Code
Australia will never relinquish League and AFL and Rugby in order to concentrate on one code of football. Therefore should we even hope to win the FIFA World Cup one day? We're the equivalent of the Kenyans at the Cricket World Cup.
In other news, the Yankees are on top of the AL East having swept the Astros. I'm pleased with that.
2010/01/10
Cricket Stuff - 10/01/10
C'arn Mr Roebuck!
I was at a barbecue gathering last night with some folks at Puncher And Wattman and the subject inevitably turned to cricket. It prompted a quick discussion on what people thought of this column by Peter Roebuck.
We just couldn't agree with Mr. Roebuck's position on the lesson to be drawn form the test. The way I saw it was that the pitch was diabolical, but Australia can still bat down to the tail. The Pakistanis were tentative and inexperienced and susceptible to the inevitable pressure. Ricky Ponting himself assessed that given how difficult the pitch was, he thought what the Australians were likely to do on the first day with the bat was going to be better than what the Pakistanis were likely to do on the last day. As events panned out, Ricky Ponting was right.
You'd be hard pushed to argue the toss with a result that worked out just as planned, even if the process looked ugly. Given that part of the thinking was that the process would be ugly, it's a bit much to argue that the ugliness of the process proves the side is deeply flawed.
But then Mr. Roebuck goes on to argue this point:
We just couldn't come at how this was even a point. The way I see it, it's a very well balanced side that can churn out runs with an even spread. They don't come along very often. Ditto with the bowling. At most, it says the Australian team is not built on the 'Stars & Scrubs' model.
I remember those sides in the mid to late 1980s, back when the batting was Allan Border, David Boon and waiting on the potential of the Waugh twins to blossom, plus some serious scrubs. Even with Border mounting many a rescue, those sides lost a lot until the side got more balanced with the addition of the likes of Healy and Tubby Taylor, and then the Waugh twins finally did blossom.
Conversely, I wouldn't want to count on single big partnerships and momentous innings all the time for a come back. If anything, the way the Australians did it shows the side is quite good and without an obvious weak link. But Mr. Roebuck argues this:
Wouldn't this suggest that the degrees to which the weakest links are considered weak, are a little over-stated? That, maybe the people they've selected are good at some aspects of the game enough to warrant their selection? The joke this summer has been that Hauritz has been the replacement level player, and anybody can get a 5 wicket haul once in a while, but the guy's done it several times in quick succession lately, I think it's possible he's getting the hang of playing at the Test level.
Anyway, we all agreed the column was a real headscratcher from a writer we all respected, and wondered if he's welcome in the Aussie clubhouse at all.
And One More Thing
Here's another Roebuck column where he suggests Ponting is in decline. Judging from his age, it's not surprising if he was, but then Allan Border and Steve Waugh played well, well into their late 30s, so I wouldn't dismiss Ponting just yet.
Anyway, the thing I've noticed is the media vitriol against Ponting has been more snarky than when Kim Hughes was Captain and his side kept losing. A lot of it is criticism about his personal style, which I can live with because I don't care if he's a bit dismissive to journalists as long as he can play. But this business has been going on some time now and the guys at Puncher And Wattman thought it was because Ponting lost the Ashes in England twice.
It's kind of weird to be singling out the winningest Test Captain on record and slamming him for the loss ledger. It's like the practice of American sports journalists where they single out the best player of a team and blame them for a losing season, as if to say they should have been a super-duper star to bail out a bad team from itself all the time - which is the similar kind of analysis to Mr. Roebuck's above. It's just absurd.
The proper understanding should be that the Australian side is in a rebuild and it's going to take some time to shake out the guys who are going to be there for the long haul. The task is harder all the more because Hayden, Langer and Martyn over-stayed their welcome and McGrath and Warne departing in quick succession has meant the side is starting from scratch. The Australian side hasn't been this young since the Kim Hughes days or the 1980s Border sides before the '89 Ashes tour. And you have to admit, Ponting has won a bit more than those guys in that era.
I was at a barbecue gathering last night with some folks at Puncher And Wattman and the subject inevitably turned to cricket. It prompted a quick discussion on what people thought of this column by Peter Roebuck.
On the form shown at the SCG against Pakistan, Ricky Ponting and his team will be hard-pressed to recapture the Ashes. At present, they ought to be cast as outsiders. England have a long batting list and are managing to retain a narrow lead over a reviving South African outfit.
Admittedly, the Poms have frailties of their own: they lack a fast bowler, and need Kevin Pietersen to recapture his former powers, but they will not wilt in the heat or be cowed by Australia's victories this season.
On paper, it looks good: four wins in five attempts and every reason to expect a clean sweep against shattered opponents in Hobart. But the tally is misleading. Australia ought not to read too much into their dramatic triumph at the SCG.
For most of the contest, Ricky Ponting and company were outplayed by the world's sixth-ranked side. Certainly it was an extraordinary victory, but sober reflection removes it from the list of great wins likely to remain in the memory. Australia's performance was too flawed to carry the weight assigned to it.
We just couldn't agree with Mr. Roebuck's position on the lesson to be drawn form the test. The way I saw it was that the pitch was diabolical, but Australia can still bat down to the tail. The Pakistanis were tentative and inexperienced and susceptible to the inevitable pressure. Ricky Ponting himself assessed that given how difficult the pitch was, he thought what the Australians were likely to do on the first day with the bat was going to be better than what the Pakistanis were likely to do on the last day. As events panned out, Ricky Ponting was right.
You'd be hard pushed to argue the toss with a result that worked out just as planned, even if the process looked ugly. Given that part of the thinking was that the process would be ugly, it's a bit much to argue that the ugliness of the process proves the side is deeply flawed.
But then Mr. Roebuck goes on to argue this point:
Certainly, Australia recovered from a much weaker position but even that tells a tale. Historically, turnarounds on that scale can only be achieved by incredible partnerships (Dravid and Laxman in Kolkata, Steyn and Duminy at the MCG) or momentous innings (Lara in the West Indies, Botham at Leeds) or stunning interventions with the ball. No such inspiring efforts were produced at the SCG.
None of the bowlers surpassed themselves, and Peter Siddle was downright ordinary. Nathan Hauritz invited batsmen to plunge into folly, and they obliged. The pitch did not break up, Pakistan did. Australia did take two commendable catches. Had Kamran Akmal had even a moderate match, though, the hosts would have been crushed. It was that close to calamity. Pakistan were the better side but did not believe it.
We just couldn't come at how this was even a point. The way I see it, it's a very well balanced side that can churn out runs with an even spread. They don't come along very often. Ditto with the bowling. At most, it says the Australian team is not built on the 'Stars & Scrubs' model.
I remember those sides in the mid to late 1980s, back when the batting was Allan Border, David Boon and waiting on the potential of the Waugh twins to blossom, plus some serious scrubs. Even with Border mounting many a rescue, those sides lost a lot until the side got more balanced with the addition of the likes of Healy and Tubby Taylor, and then the Waugh twins finally did blossom.
Conversely, I wouldn't want to count on single big partnerships and momentous innings all the time for a come back. If anything, the way the Australians did it shows the side is quite good and without an obvious weak link. But Mr. Roebuck argues this:
Nathan Hauritz's contribution was almost as hard to pin down as Hussey's. Clearly he has improved but he's not suddenly Jim Laker reincarnate. Rather he is a fine cricketer and a game bowler. But batsmen won't keep slogging catches to deep fieldsmen. All told, Pakistan lost eight wickets to skied hits.
Suddenly, Hauritz has taken five wickets in consecutive Test matches, results indicating the welcome and unexpected restoration of finger spin and flight. Yet he is no demon. He was never as bad as he seemed, and is not now as good as recent returns indicate.
The same applies to Australia. Alongside the misfiring Marcus North, the top performers seen at the SCG had been regarded as the team's weakest links. Apart from Brad Haddin's catch, the highlight of the match was Ponting's decision to persist with Hauritz after lunch despite his previous over costing 12 runs. Otherwise it was a mixed bag. Did everything change? Or nothing?
Wouldn't this suggest that the degrees to which the weakest links are considered weak, are a little over-stated? That, maybe the people they've selected are good at some aspects of the game enough to warrant their selection? The joke this summer has been that Hauritz has been the replacement level player, and anybody can get a 5 wicket haul once in a while, but the guy's done it several times in quick succession lately, I think it's possible he's getting the hang of playing at the Test level.
Anyway, we all agreed the column was a real headscratcher from a writer we all respected, and wondered if he's welcome in the Aussie clubhouse at all.
And One More Thing
Here's another Roebuck column where he suggests Ponting is in decline. Judging from his age, it's not surprising if he was, but then Allan Border and Steve Waugh played well, well into their late 30s, so I wouldn't dismiss Ponting just yet.
Anyway, the thing I've noticed is the media vitriol against Ponting has been more snarky than when Kim Hughes was Captain and his side kept losing. A lot of it is criticism about his personal style, which I can live with because I don't care if he's a bit dismissive to journalists as long as he can play. But this business has been going on some time now and the guys at Puncher And Wattman thought it was because Ponting lost the Ashes in England twice.
It's kind of weird to be singling out the winningest Test Captain on record and slamming him for the loss ledger. It's like the practice of American sports journalists where they single out the best player of a team and blame them for a losing season, as if to say they should have been a super-duper star to bail out a bad team from itself all the time - which is the similar kind of analysis to Mr. Roebuck's above. It's just absurd.
The proper understanding should be that the Australian side is in a rebuild and it's going to take some time to shake out the guys who are going to be there for the long haul. The task is harder all the more because Hayden, Langer and Martyn over-stayed their welcome and McGrath and Warne departing in quick succession has meant the side is starting from scratch. The Australian side hasn't been this young since the Kim Hughes days or the 1980s Border sides before the '89 Ashes tour. And you have to admit, Ponting has won a bit more than those guys in that era.
2009/05/05
Enhancing A-Rod
The Olympic Ideal of Performance
I was walking on a flat paved road a couple of days ago, pondering how a flat track pavement would have been a bit of a marvel to a caveman. Maybe it was a marvel even to a human being in the ancient world. You see, I walk across an uneven lawn park to get to the stretch of pavement that leads me to the place where I get lunch. So the difference is noticeable when it goes from the uneven grass in the park to the pavement.
I thought to myself that one could imagine that the ancient olympics might have started this way; that some guys boasting about how fast they ran or how far they could throw stuff, so they decided to create a neutral ground to eliminate the discrepancies of uneven grounds and came up with a flat track. And on this extremely artificial phenomenon of a flat track, they would standardise the conditions for the contestants and let them run.
Nobody really knows how the Ancient Olympics started in the ancient world, but you'd have to figure it had to be about settling who gets the bragging rights as fastest man over 100 cubits or whatever. The point is that the notion of fairness goes hand in hand with the notion of standardised conditions.
All the same, we compare records across time. When somebody breaks a record, it is often in slightly different conditions to when the previous record was set. For instance, in the modern Olympics have been getting tracks that are 'faster' then the older tracks. Swimming pools have bee built so as to remove adverse waves, which in turn produce faster results. Modern shoes have been engineered to better specifications than say those of Emil Zatopek. Do we dare even go into the engineering and technologies that go into regattas and bicycle riding?
In all of these cases, what nobody is saying out loud is that technology is helping the athlete more than for which the media or punters give credit. Nobody really questions the records that get broken by historically newer athletes, with better equipment, even though it seems mightily unfair to compare these numbers. After all, we'll never know what Dawn Fraser would have been able to do in the Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre's pool at her peak. Clearly technology is playing a part in all these accomplishments.
Which of course then brings us to PEDs, notably those used by the East Germans in the 1970s. Some of the records set then have taken a long time to break precisely because it has taken that long for the other technologies to compensate for the absence of the biochemical technology used by the East Germans way back when. Yes, it was grossly unfair that the East Germans were using them and the other athletes were not. Yet it seems to me today that the basis for this 'fairness' which creates the moral outrage is actually not quite as cut and dry as WADA and the IOC and the other anti-doping agencies make out.
For instance, Shane Warne underwent a year of being banned from the Cricket because he took a banned diuretic (to look better). It was doubtful he took it to enhance his performance, but he was banned on principle. We won't go into the fact that this is in stark contrast to Murali who regularly gets pinged for his dodgy action, or the unlikelihood of the diuretic assisting Warnie in getting wickets. The logical corollary of banning Shane Warne is that anybody who is a leggie bowling for the weekend club is going to have their performance enhanced. Not many people buy this corollary to be likely.
The point is that the benefit of the biochemical technology may not be as significant as people give it credit, while other technologies in sport are influencing the outcome to a degree that it might not just be the flat-track that people still believe it to be. As far as I know, nobody has been able to quantify just how much drugs are in sport, and yet any time a name gets linked to it, we turn it into a witch hunt, demonising the person.
Let's face it, games like cricket and baseball have actually been less influenced by technological agencies as say, even tennis or squash with their new-fangled racquets, or for that matter swimming. I mean, yes, PEDs in swimming might be a bigger problem than in cricket, but nobody talks about those pools and the borderline-buoyant swimming costumes.
Which brings me I guess to A-Rod. When I look at A-Rod's accomplishments, I can't imagine I could do what he has done even with PEDs. It's not just guess work, it's probably a statistical likelihood that had I taken gobs of PEDs since my teenage years, I still wouldn't have ended up playing baseball professionally, let alone reached the pinnacle of performance as he has. Seriously folks, I wanted to be the slugging 3B for the Yankees and be their franchise player but it sure wasn't to be! :)
That would be because I have insufficient talent, as in I suck; And I didn't try at all once I realised I sucked. Steroids and their ilk alone would not have carried me there.
Given that it does takes more than just getting injections of weird steroidal chemicals to get to where he has got, I think it's time to actually give some credit back to the effects of true talent and hard work. Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez and Roger Clemens and Mark Magwire are/were all amazingly talented dudes who made sacrifices to do what they did. We're over-rating the effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs every time we subscribe to the witch hunt.
I was walking on a flat paved road a couple of days ago, pondering how a flat track pavement would have been a bit of a marvel to a caveman. Maybe it was a marvel even to a human being in the ancient world. You see, I walk across an uneven lawn park to get to the stretch of pavement that leads me to the place where I get lunch. So the difference is noticeable when it goes from the uneven grass in the park to the pavement.
I thought to myself that one could imagine that the ancient olympics might have started this way; that some guys boasting about how fast they ran or how far they could throw stuff, so they decided to create a neutral ground to eliminate the discrepancies of uneven grounds and came up with a flat track. And on this extremely artificial phenomenon of a flat track, they would standardise the conditions for the contestants and let them run.
Nobody really knows how the Ancient Olympics started in the ancient world, but you'd have to figure it had to be about settling who gets the bragging rights as fastest man over 100 cubits or whatever. The point is that the notion of fairness goes hand in hand with the notion of standardised conditions.
All the same, we compare records across time. When somebody breaks a record, it is often in slightly different conditions to when the previous record was set. For instance, in the modern Olympics have been getting tracks that are 'faster' then the older tracks. Swimming pools have bee built so as to remove adverse waves, which in turn produce faster results. Modern shoes have been engineered to better specifications than say those of Emil Zatopek. Do we dare even go into the engineering and technologies that go into regattas and bicycle riding?
In all of these cases, what nobody is saying out loud is that technology is helping the athlete more than for which the media or punters give credit. Nobody really questions the records that get broken by historically newer athletes, with better equipment, even though it seems mightily unfair to compare these numbers. After all, we'll never know what Dawn Fraser would have been able to do in the Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre's pool at her peak. Clearly technology is playing a part in all these accomplishments.
Which of course then brings us to PEDs, notably those used by the East Germans in the 1970s. Some of the records set then have taken a long time to break precisely because it has taken that long for the other technologies to compensate for the absence of the biochemical technology used by the East Germans way back when. Yes, it was grossly unfair that the East Germans were using them and the other athletes were not. Yet it seems to me today that the basis for this 'fairness' which creates the moral outrage is actually not quite as cut and dry as WADA and the IOC and the other anti-doping agencies make out.
For instance, Shane Warne underwent a year of being banned from the Cricket because he took a banned diuretic (to look better). It was doubtful he took it to enhance his performance, but he was banned on principle. We won't go into the fact that this is in stark contrast to Murali who regularly gets pinged for his dodgy action, or the unlikelihood of the diuretic assisting Warnie in getting wickets. The logical corollary of banning Shane Warne is that anybody who is a leggie bowling for the weekend club is going to have their performance enhanced. Not many people buy this corollary to be likely.
The point is that the benefit of the biochemical technology may not be as significant as people give it credit, while other technologies in sport are influencing the outcome to a degree that it might not just be the flat-track that people still believe it to be. As far as I know, nobody has been able to quantify just how much drugs are in sport, and yet any time a name gets linked to it, we turn it into a witch hunt, demonising the person.
Let's face it, games like cricket and baseball have actually been less influenced by technological agencies as say, even tennis or squash with their new-fangled racquets, or for that matter swimming. I mean, yes, PEDs in swimming might be a bigger problem than in cricket, but nobody talks about those pools and the borderline-buoyant swimming costumes.
Which brings me I guess to A-Rod. When I look at A-Rod's accomplishments, I can't imagine I could do what he has done even with PEDs. It's not just guess work, it's probably a statistical likelihood that had I taken gobs of PEDs since my teenage years, I still wouldn't have ended up playing baseball professionally, let alone reached the pinnacle of performance as he has. Seriously folks, I wanted to be the slugging 3B for the Yankees and be their franchise player but it sure wasn't to be! :)
That would be because I have insufficient talent, as in I suck; And I didn't try at all once I realised I sucked. Steroids and their ilk alone would not have carried me there.
Given that it does takes more than just getting injections of weird steroidal chemicals to get to where he has got, I think it's time to actually give some credit back to the effects of true talent and hard work. Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez and Roger Clemens and Mark Magwire are/were all amazingly talented dudes who made sacrifices to do what they did. We're over-rating the effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs every time we subscribe to the witch hunt.
2009/03/20
WBC Update 19/03/09
Why Can't They Beat These Guys?
Japan beat China 4-0 and then demolished South Korea in the round 1 match, only to lose a 1-0 duel with the South Koreans in the seeding game. In Round 2, Japan then beat Cuba 6-0, a convincing effort at any time, only to play South Korea again and lost 4-1. Japan then played Cuba again and beat them 5-0, which must be giving Fidel Castro indigestion and fits.
Thus, the final 4 are Venezuela, USA, South Korea and Japan. It's kind of weird that Japan has shut out Cuba twice and can't seem to down Korea in the money matches. Now we find out the 2 Asian nations are going to face each other again for the seeding of Round 3. It's all a bit barmy and there's still a 1/4 chance they might play each other in the finals if they beat their respective opponents in the Semis.
Manny Dons The Pads
Nothing to do with the WBC, but this article came in from Walk-off HBP.
Fair enough. Manny being Manny, when he was told Marsh once had a 9hour stint at the crease, he said such an at-bat would be just too long. Of course, there's more to the story.
That's Manny.
Japan beat China 4-0 and then demolished South Korea in the round 1 match, only to lose a 1-0 duel with the South Koreans in the seeding game. In Round 2, Japan then beat Cuba 6-0, a convincing effort at any time, only to play South Korea again and lost 4-1. Japan then played Cuba again and beat them 5-0, which must be giving Fidel Castro indigestion and fits.
Defending champion Japan advanced to the World Baseball Classic semifinals Wednesday night, leaving mighty Cuba in the fog of another international failure.
Japan beat Cuba 5-0 on a foggy night at Petco Park to clinch the final spot in the semifinals this weekend at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles.
Japan scored two unearned runs with two outs in the fourth inning when Cuban center fielder Yoennis Cespedes committed a two-base error on Michihiro Ogasawara's high fly ball. Even though it was hit into heavy fog and Cespedes had a long run, he seemed to see the ball and had it in his glove before it popped out, glanced off his cap and rolled to the wall.
Norichika Aoki went 4-for-5 with two RBIs and one run scored. Ichiro Suzuki went 2-for-5 to raise his WBC average to .214. He tripled in the ninth and scored on Aoki's single.
Hisashi Iwakuma and Toshiya Sugiuchi combined to five-hit the Cubans.
Baseball long has been Cuba's soul, and the WBC and Olympics are among the few major forums it has to show off the country's talent away from home.
But the Cubans are in a funk.
The WBC elimination came seven months after South Korea upset Cuba to win the gold medal at the Beijing Olympics.
Three years ago at Petco Park, Japan beat Cuba 10-6 to win the inaugural WBC.
Thus, the final 4 are Venezuela, USA, South Korea and Japan. It's kind of weird that Japan has shut out Cuba twice and can't seem to down Korea in the money matches. Now we find out the 2 Asian nations are going to face each other again for the seeding of Round 3. It's all a bit barmy and there's still a 1/4 chance they might play each other in the finals if they beat their respective opponents in the Semis.
Manny Dons The Pads
Nothing to do with the WBC, but this article came in from Walk-off HBP.
The made-for-the-media event took place on a sunsplashed field often used by the Arizona Cricket Club, one of an estimated 750 cricket teams in this country. The event paired two men who make their living with a bat -- although the bat wielded by Ramirez on Wednesday had an elongated handle and was flat, like a paddle.
Marsh is a left-handed opening bat who plays for his country and for Kings XI Punjab in the Indian Premier League. Like Ramirez, Marsh is coming back from a hamstring injury that he said had sidelined him for about six weeks.
Marsh said he had been looking forward to meeting Ramirez.
"I've heard a little bit about him, but I really don't follow baseball too much," Marsh said. "I read up about him when I was coming over here. He's certainly an icon in American sport."
Marsh gave Ramirez a few quick pointers on the rules.
"It's pretty simple, mate," Marsh said. "You just make sure you're nice and relaxed. You keep your eyes on the ball, just like you do in baseball."
With Marsh standing nearby, Ramirez swung and missed at his first pitch before lining the second one past the bowler's ear as yellow-jerseyed members of the Arizona Cricket Club chased down the ball.
On the third delivery, Ramirez let the ball hit the wicket, which would have been an out in an actual game.
"That's an out?" Ramirez said. "Give me one more chance."
A few minutes later, Bhuta fired a ball that bounded behind Ramirez, who danced out of the way.
"Am I allowed to charge the mound?" Ramirez said.
It was a funny line, but cricket uses a shiny 5½-ounce ball that feels every bit as hard as a horsehide. Marsh said later he wasn't worried that the Dodgers' expensive property might take a ball in the noggin.
"They weren't bowling too quick," Marsh said.
Fair enough. Manny being Manny, when he was told Marsh once had a 9hour stint at the crease, he said such an at-bat would be just too long. Of course, there's more to the story.
But, after the last pictures were taken, Ramirez turned back toward the field and said, "Can I hit some more?"
That's Manny.
2009/03/09
Phil Hughes News
Breaking Records, Eclipsing The Don
The Aussie Phil Hughes became the youngest player in history to score a century in each innings of a Test as Australia cruised by South Africa. That's pretty remarkable. Here's the report.
If this form stays good, the reconstruction of the Australian Test side seems to be going at a good pace. It kind of did better than Rachel Hunter's advice about shampoo: it did happen over night.
The Aussie Phil Hughes became the youngest player in history to score a century in each innings of a Test as Australia cruised by South Africa. That's pretty remarkable. Here's the report.
The 20-year-old Hughes followed up his first innings 115 with an unbeaten 136 to break West Indian George Headley's record set against England in 1930 and move Australia to 3 for 292 at stumps, an overall lead of 506.
Hughes could scarcely have been more impressive in besting Headley's mark by almost six months, striking 13 boundaries and two sixes in a virtually chanceless innings.
In a day of milestones for Australia, Ricky Ponting earlier surpassed his predecessor Steve Waugh as the fourth-highest Test run-scorer of all-time behind Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara and Allan Border.
If this form stays good, the reconstruction of the Australian Test side seems to be going at a good pace. It kind of did better than Rachel Hunter's advice about shampoo: it did happen over night.
2009/03/07
Take Me Out To The Ball Game
A-Rod Circus Continues
This week saw the WBC begin, and with it, some Yankees scattered to national squads. Jeter went to captain Team America and even took on the Yankees in a warm up match. A-Rod went to the Dominican squad, watched Jose Reyes and decided he looked the like of Reyes and said he wished he was with the Yankees. It was a colossally stupid thing to say because the press went to town on it.
After that, A-Rod went to meet the MLB authorities about his steroid admission, following which nothing seemed to come of it, except that now he is going to get hip surgery and will be out 10 weeks. During the last 72 hours it's gone form a cyst to a torn labrum; from being able to play through the season with the injury, to must-operate-now.
One imagines that the MLB reps told A-Rod he has to take 10 weeks off, even if it wasn't in their power to suspend him for steroid use when there weren't any regulations against it. A-Rod in turn probably said, "fine, in that case I'll get my hip looked at because it didn't get any better this winter".
Who knows?
The guy seems to be a headline magnet no matter what he does, and he does choose to do and say some stupid things that by their nature make him newsworthy in ways almost tangential to playing baseball. One wonders what kind of movie Billy Crystal would make out of the Derek Jeter- & A-Rod thing, having seen his take on Mantle and Maris in '61*'.
The media is jumping the gun in trying to find a replacement, but there is no replacing A-Rod in the lineup. That's the point of his $275m over 10 year contract. A-Rod didn't grow on some tree, and even if he did, there's not another one waiting to be picked.
World Baseball Classic Begins
It's here again, the fast-tracked arbitrary international professionals' Baseball Comp. For what it's worth, this is the one Ichiro takes seriously - he's never taken any interest in the Olympics, but he's always been dreaming of this kind of competition. It's fast-tracked in the sense that it's only been 3 years since the last one (my, how time flies!) but from here on in, it is once every 4 years.
Japan won the last one and kicked off this tourney with a shutout over China. Korea beat Taiwan and everything is rolling now. Things are going as predicted even as we speak.Apparently it's all part of a bid to repatriate baseball at the IOC. I can't imagine two organisations more diametrically opposed in attitude than professional baseball the world over and the largely amateurism-worshipping Olympic movement.
I enjoyed baseball's moment at the Olympics, but it just seems wrong to have those guys compete alongside people who need sponsorship from Uncle Toby's to live while training. Even having professional Tennis in the fold with the likes of Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer alongside th Uncle Tobys Non-Stars is pretty daft. Worse still, even if say, Derek Jeter or A-Rod were to turn up, it's not like the Olympic audience is going to appreciate them more. Furthermore, winning the gold medal for their country at the Olympics is not going to be more important than... even the WBC. So really, they should all collectively let that one go. Baseball ought not go back to the Olympics - and it's no great loss., now that there's the WBC
The only thing is that the IOC should reinstate Women's Softball. There's no reason why those Uncle-Toby gals should be punished for Barry Bonds' and A-Rod's and Roger Clemens' perceived faults.
Outrage In Pakistan
Not to do with Baseball now, but Cricket. The week's big news was how a bunch of terrosist unleashed a hale of bullets on the visiting Sri Lankan team's bus. Some guards and drivers were killed, some players were injured. The greater part of it hs been the shock of how they actually took to shooting professional athletes. Apparently there was a common understanding that athletes were off-limits.
I had no idea such a tacit agreement was in place. It was probably more wishful thinking. That attack has torn asunder such day-dreams about world terrorism, and with it the notion that the Australians were somehow cowardly in not wanting to tour Pakistan. They had good reasons, as it turns out. Pakistan is likely to miss out on hosting a part of the 2011 World Cup. It's a total mess.
On another level, you wonder why it took them so long to attack professional sport. It's the pinnacle of our capitalist entertainment-led lifestyle ideology. There's us sitting in our couches watching the big-screen TV, eating our fatty foods and scoffing nutrition drinks, as professional athletes earning mega-bucks do some athletic thing on screen; meanwhile angry bearded jihadist terrorists with minimal education and nutrition live in muddy caves polishing their AK-47s wanting to kill us all and take it all back to the Dark Ages.
This week saw the WBC begin, and with it, some Yankees scattered to national squads. Jeter went to captain Team America and even took on the Yankees in a warm up match. A-Rod went to the Dominican squad, watched Jose Reyes and decided he looked the like of Reyes and said he wished he was with the Yankees. It was a colossally stupid thing to say because the press went to town on it.
After that, A-Rod went to meet the MLB authorities about his steroid admission, following which nothing seemed to come of it, except that now he is going to get hip surgery and will be out 10 weeks. During the last 72 hours it's gone form a cyst to a torn labrum; from being able to play through the season with the injury, to must-operate-now.
One imagines that the MLB reps told A-Rod he has to take 10 weeks off, even if it wasn't in their power to suspend him for steroid use when there weren't any regulations against it. A-Rod in turn probably said, "fine, in that case I'll get my hip looked at because it didn't get any better this winter".
Who knows?
The guy seems to be a headline magnet no matter what he does, and he does choose to do and say some stupid things that by their nature make him newsworthy in ways almost tangential to playing baseball. One wonders what kind of movie Billy Crystal would make out of the Derek Jeter- & A-Rod thing, having seen his take on Mantle and Maris in '61*'.
The media is jumping the gun in trying to find a replacement, but there is no replacing A-Rod in the lineup. That's the point of his $275m over 10 year contract. A-Rod didn't grow on some tree, and even if he did, there's not another one waiting to be picked.
World Baseball Classic Begins
It's here again, the fast-tracked arbitrary international professionals' Baseball Comp. For what it's worth, this is the one Ichiro takes seriously - he's never taken any interest in the Olympics, but he's always been dreaming of this kind of competition. It's fast-tracked in the sense that it's only been 3 years since the last one (my, how time flies!) but from here on in, it is once every 4 years.
Japan won the last one and kicked off this tourney with a shutout over China. Korea beat Taiwan and everything is rolling now. Things are going as predicted even as we speak.Apparently it's all part of a bid to repatriate baseball at the IOC. I can't imagine two organisations more diametrically opposed in attitude than professional baseball the world over and the largely amateurism-worshipping Olympic movement.
I enjoyed baseball's moment at the Olympics, but it just seems wrong to have those guys compete alongside people who need sponsorship from Uncle Toby's to live while training. Even having professional Tennis in the fold with the likes of Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer alongside th Uncle Tobys Non-Stars is pretty daft. Worse still, even if say, Derek Jeter or A-Rod were to turn up, it's not like the Olympic audience is going to appreciate them more. Furthermore, winning the gold medal for their country at the Olympics is not going to be more important than... even the WBC. So really, they should all collectively let that one go. Baseball ought not go back to the Olympics - and it's no great loss., now that there's the WBC
The only thing is that the IOC should reinstate Women's Softball. There's no reason why those Uncle-Toby gals should be punished for Barry Bonds' and A-Rod's and Roger Clemens' perceived faults.
Outrage In Pakistan
Not to do with Baseball now, but Cricket. The week's big news was how a bunch of terrosist unleashed a hale of bullets on the visiting Sri Lankan team's bus. Some guards and drivers were killed, some players were injured. The greater part of it hs been the shock of how they actually took to shooting professional athletes. Apparently there was a common understanding that athletes were off-limits.
I had no idea such a tacit agreement was in place. It was probably more wishful thinking. That attack has torn asunder such day-dreams about world terrorism, and with it the notion that the Australians were somehow cowardly in not wanting to tour Pakistan. They had good reasons, as it turns out. Pakistan is likely to miss out on hosting a part of the 2011 World Cup. It's a total mess.
On another level, you wonder why it took them so long to attack professional sport. It's the pinnacle of our capitalist entertainment-led lifestyle ideology. There's us sitting in our couches watching the big-screen TV, eating our fatty foods and scoffing nutrition drinks, as professional athletes earning mega-bucks do some athletic thing on screen; meanwhile angry bearded jihadist terrorists with minimal education and nutrition live in muddy caves polishing their AK-47s wanting to kill us all and take it all back to the Dark Ages.
2009/02/06
Phil Hughes Makes Australian Side
And Just Like That He's In
What's in a name, seriously? 20y.o. budding NSW batsman Phil Hughes has cracked the Australian Test side. He's the youngest player since a teenaged Craig McDermott made the side in 1984.
That's pretty cool news. As for the Yankee Phil Hughes, pitchers and catchers report in a matter of days!
What's in a name, seriously? 20y.o. budding NSW batsman Phil Hughes has cracked the Australian Test side. He's the youngest player since a teenaged Craig McDermott made the side in 1984.
The 20-year-old has been rewarded for a stellar season in the NSW side having scored 891 runs at 74.25, including four centuries and a highest score of 198.
His selection in the touring squad all but confirms he will become the youngest Australian since Craig McDermott to make his Test debut when the first Test begins in Johannesburg on February 26.
The Australian also understands that Bryce McGain, the 36-year-old Victorian leg-spinner, has also been chosen in the squad.
Since Hayden's retirement at the end of the domestic three-Test series against South Africa, the question of who would replace the big Queenslander has been the biggest talking point in Australian cricket.
Hughes, who won the Bradman Young Cricketer of the Year award on Tuesday night, has had glowing reports from all quarters, including Greg Chappell who has worked with him. Steve Waugh also backed the young batsman.
That's pretty cool news. As for the Yankee Phil Hughes, pitchers and catchers report in a matter of days!
2009/01/08
Once Were Dreadful
They Used To REALLY Suck
It's so damn hot I can' sleep. The Green Curry I cooked for dinner isn't helping either. So I've decided to charge up my newish laptop and type some thoughts down about... cricket!
Australia secured a face-saving win in the dead rubber Test at the SCG. Amazingly, it took until the second last over to manage it, and the Aussies had to claim the wicket of Graeme Smith who went to the crease in pain with a broken hand. When it was all said and done, I had a chat to PJ and his gal Mu, only to find they were still pretty down about *how* the win was secured and how much they still intensely disliked Ricky Ponting.
It's weird. I keep finding that Ponting gets scant emotional support from average Aussie cricket fans. You'd think he'd slept with their girlfriends (or boyfriends). They tell me that he might be a great batsman but he's an arrogant captain who does not do them proud. All this got me to thinking about the last time Australia had to win a face-saving Test in Sydney and I think that was back in 1987. The Poms had whipped Australia in the Ashes series as the likes of Gooch, Botham and Gatting were doing a Victory lap. It wasn't long after Kim Hughes had quit as Captain in tears. A reluctant Allan Border had been put into his place, and was heading a ragtag collection of questionable players that included some guy called Peter Taylor who was a spin-bowler they found from relative obscurity.
The couple of years preceding that 1987 Sydney Test were worse. Every Test seemed to bring a loss and every loss brought a barrage of press ridicule. Even a complete novice fan like me couldn't miss the viciousness. Those were awful days for Aussie cricket. They seemed to lose and lose and lose - and the press took so much delight in ridiculing those squads. I imagine they're the same kind of journos busily writing negative pieces about Ponting's persona these days. Peter Roebuck was then, as he is today, full of wonderful insight as to what the Australian cricket selectors, team, and audiences were doing wrong against the proper spirit of cricket. Going to the Test in 1987 was a sure way to disappointment, because you knew that they'd get done.
The Sydney Test of 1987 then, was just as likely to end in defeat. Yet, somehow the ragtag bunch of Aussies pulled off an unlikely victory. It was quite the occasion; and had they had a player like Ponting back then, They sure would have won a whole bunch more.
The point is, Ponting right now might not look like it, but he's actually been handed the same difficult task of rebuilding the Australian team, pretty much from scratch - and I don't think he's the worst guy for the job. If today's desperate, loopy, borderline, dodgy win meant anything, it's that the generational change underway has found purchase. The rookie bowlers did very well, and so perhaps we are beginning to see how winning in the post-Warner-McGrath era might look like. This is a very good thing.
Ponting In The Firing Line
When he wins, he's described as arrogant. When he loses, he's described ass sore loser. Yet, he's cast from the mold of winning cricketers that Allan Border seeked to forge back in the late 1980s. Allan Border decided the chumming around had to stop. In order to win, they had to be rudely confrontational and not give and inch to the poms. It took David Gower by surprise in 1989, but the results showed through the years. Even during the Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh captaincies, Australia played a brand of hard-nosed, sledge-ridden, confrontational cricket. It is the aussie way. It's only in this decade that some people have started to question whether this is necessary. Allan Border of 1989 would probably tell such questioners to stick a sock in their mouths and go leap off the Gap.
Ponting came into the squad as a 19 year old prodigy in 1994-5. It seems like not long ago, but it's also seems like forever. This is a guy who grew up in that environment of Aussie cricket's winning ways and he probably knows no other way. To criticise him for arrogance in winning is a little like complaining that winning isn't good enough, that you have to win wit style as well. It's inherently indulgent to ask that of a win. And to complain that he's s sore loser when he loses is a bit much too. There's nothing to like in a loss, when the stakes are so high.
People of other nations complain bitterly about the Australian approach to the game in the last 20 years, but Ponting has never shown that he is anything less than the best of the system that produced him as a player and captain. If other countries' players can't handle the heat, they should get off the field. I find the demand that Ponting be a better sportsman according to some idealised vision of a gentlemanly cricketing culture to be entirely misguided. The man is who he is, and I think he represents us very well. He's there to win. Unlike the journos who move the metaphorical goal posts for the sake of a good story, he is out there foremost to win or lose, with the expectations of a sports-nut nation on its flagship sport.
We've always had hard-nosed guys captaining. It' not like Bobby Simpson or the Chappells or AB or Steve Waugh were any less confrontational or aggressive for a win than Ricky Ponting. The exception was Mark Taylor who had a cultivated public persona, but he was the exception to the rule in as much as his public persona was so affable. Nonetheless he didn't exactly take it easy on the field either. Why should Ponting be any different?
He's now 32-33. He might not be around for a whole deal longer. He'll probably see out the reconstruction of the Aussie side and that's it. So like it or not, we've only got a little bit more of Ponting. Those two or three summers will go in a flash. It's going to be a shame when he leaves, just as it was when AB, Boonie, Marsh, McDermott, Mark Taylor, the Waugh twins, Warnie and McGrath left, one by one. We might not see the likes of him again. The least we could do right now is to appreciate him for the glory of Australian cricket that he is, instead of complaining about his public persona. He's much, much more valuable than that.
It's so damn hot I can' sleep. The Green Curry I cooked for dinner isn't helping either. So I've decided to charge up my newish laptop and type some thoughts down about... cricket!
Australia secured a face-saving win in the dead rubber Test at the SCG. Amazingly, it took until the second last over to manage it, and the Aussies had to claim the wicket of Graeme Smith who went to the crease in pain with a broken hand. When it was all said and done, I had a chat to PJ and his gal Mu, only to find they were still pretty down about *how* the win was secured and how much they still intensely disliked Ricky Ponting.
It's weird. I keep finding that Ponting gets scant emotional support from average Aussie cricket fans. You'd think he'd slept with their girlfriends (or boyfriends). They tell me that he might be a great batsman but he's an arrogant captain who does not do them proud. All this got me to thinking about the last time Australia had to win a face-saving Test in Sydney and I think that was back in 1987. The Poms had whipped Australia in the Ashes series as the likes of Gooch, Botham and Gatting were doing a Victory lap. It wasn't long after Kim Hughes had quit as Captain in tears. A reluctant Allan Border had been put into his place, and was heading a ragtag collection of questionable players that included some guy called Peter Taylor who was a spin-bowler they found from relative obscurity.
The couple of years preceding that 1987 Sydney Test were worse. Every Test seemed to bring a loss and every loss brought a barrage of press ridicule. Even a complete novice fan like me couldn't miss the viciousness. Those were awful days for Aussie cricket. They seemed to lose and lose and lose - and the press took so much delight in ridiculing those squads. I imagine they're the same kind of journos busily writing negative pieces about Ponting's persona these days. Peter Roebuck was then, as he is today, full of wonderful insight as to what the Australian cricket selectors, team, and audiences were doing wrong against the proper spirit of cricket. Going to the Test in 1987 was a sure way to disappointment, because you knew that they'd get done.
The Sydney Test of 1987 then, was just as likely to end in defeat. Yet, somehow the ragtag bunch of Aussies pulled off an unlikely victory. It was quite the occasion; and had they had a player like Ponting back then, They sure would have won a whole bunch more.
The point is, Ponting right now might not look like it, but he's actually been handed the same difficult task of rebuilding the Australian team, pretty much from scratch - and I don't think he's the worst guy for the job. If today's desperate, loopy, borderline, dodgy win meant anything, it's that the generational change underway has found purchase. The rookie bowlers did very well, and so perhaps we are beginning to see how winning in the post-Warner-McGrath era might look like. This is a very good thing.
Ponting In The Firing Line
When he wins, he's described as arrogant. When he loses, he's described ass sore loser. Yet, he's cast from the mold of winning cricketers that Allan Border seeked to forge back in the late 1980s. Allan Border decided the chumming around had to stop. In order to win, they had to be rudely confrontational and not give and inch to the poms. It took David Gower by surprise in 1989, but the results showed through the years. Even during the Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh captaincies, Australia played a brand of hard-nosed, sledge-ridden, confrontational cricket. It is the aussie way. It's only in this decade that some people have started to question whether this is necessary. Allan Border of 1989 would probably tell such questioners to stick a sock in their mouths and go leap off the Gap.
Ponting came into the squad as a 19 year old prodigy in 1994-5. It seems like not long ago, but it's also seems like forever. This is a guy who grew up in that environment of Aussie cricket's winning ways and he probably knows no other way. To criticise him for arrogance in winning is a little like complaining that winning isn't good enough, that you have to win wit style as well. It's inherently indulgent to ask that of a win. And to complain that he's s sore loser when he loses is a bit much too. There's nothing to like in a loss, when the stakes are so high.
People of other nations complain bitterly about the Australian approach to the game in the last 20 years, but Ponting has never shown that he is anything less than the best of the system that produced him as a player and captain. If other countries' players can't handle the heat, they should get off the field. I find the demand that Ponting be a better sportsman according to some idealised vision of a gentlemanly cricketing culture to be entirely misguided. The man is who he is, and I think he represents us very well. He's there to win. Unlike the journos who move the metaphorical goal posts for the sake of a good story, he is out there foremost to win or lose, with the expectations of a sports-nut nation on its flagship sport.
We've always had hard-nosed guys captaining. It' not like Bobby Simpson or the Chappells or AB or Steve Waugh were any less confrontational or aggressive for a win than Ricky Ponting. The exception was Mark Taylor who had a cultivated public persona, but he was the exception to the rule in as much as his public persona was so affable. Nonetheless he didn't exactly take it easy on the field either. Why should Ponting be any different?
He's now 32-33. He might not be around for a whole deal longer. He'll probably see out the reconstruction of the Aussie side and that's it. So like it or not, we've only got a little bit more of Ponting. Those two or three summers will go in a flash. It's going to be a shame when he leaves, just as it was when AB, Boonie, Marsh, McDermott, Mark Taylor, the Waugh twins, Warnie and McGrath left, one by one. We might not see the likes of him again. The least we could do right now is to appreciate him for the glory of Australian cricket that he is, instead of complaining about his public persona. He's much, much more valuable than that.
2009/01/02
Transition Phase Blues
Like It Or Lump It
Which ever way you look at it, the current summer of discontent for Australian Cricket is a function of the changing of the guard that's been under way since the Ashes defeat in 2005. One of the things that's amazed me during this time is not the departures of McGrath and Warne at the same time or the shock retirement of Damien Martyn or Stuart McGill, but the persistent selection of Mathew Hayden.
I have a running joke with an old school friend of mine wherein I say, 'everybody knows Hayden's washed up. I've been saying it since 1991 but he keeps proving me wrong."lately he's looked more like the guy who probably should go. Even some older, wiser heads are thinking the same thing.
Anyway, it's an added pisser for me because my newer Phil Hughes doesn't get to make his Test Debut in Sydney. Certainly not this year. There's even this bit:
There's no point holding it together for now if they can't beat South Africa at home on the WACA and the MCG. At this point in the cycle of this team, they have no choice but to invest in the future players - and they're certainly there. It's often said that it's hard to get into the Australian Test side so it should be hard to get out. To me, that's a total non-sequiteur. The latter in no way follows on from the former.
The fact is, it's hard to get in because the competition is fierce - an that is good. By the same token the competition should be fierce enough that an aging player should be axed as soon as they start declining. The problem is, this team's veterans are greatly in decline and the young guys haven't found their feet just yet. In this context, the team selectors have to wield a tougher knife.
We're not talking about Mark Taylor hanging on for one series too long or not. We're talking about a general mindset that isn't engaged with what the Australian Test side is going to look like, one year, 3 years, and 5 years from now. In that sense, holding over Hayden for the 3rd test against South Africa is a terrible, terrible decision.
Which ever way you look at it, the current summer of discontent for Australian Cricket is a function of the changing of the guard that's been under way since the Ashes defeat in 2005. One of the things that's amazed me during this time is not the departures of McGrath and Warne at the same time or the shock retirement of Damien Martyn or Stuart McGill, but the persistent selection of Mathew Hayden.
I have a running joke with an old school friend of mine wherein I say, 'everybody knows Hayden's washed up. I've been saying it since 1991 but he keeps proving me wrong."lately he's looked more like the guy who probably should go. Even some older, wiser heads are thinking the same thing.
In persevering with Hayden for the Sydney Test, Benaud said the selectors had missed a chance to introduce 20-year-old opening prodigy Phil Hughes in a dead rubber in preparation for tours of South Africa and England.
"I'm not sure how the selection for this next Test fits into the rebuilding program unless they have made a decision that Matthew Hayden is going to be there in the long term and that Nathan Hauritz is the answer to their spin-bowling problems," he said.
"[Simon] Katich has assumed the senior opening role and I think they have missed an opportunity to use a dead Test to trial an opening batsman. It seems they are being nice to Hayden because he's been a great player. Well, that is putting the individual ahead of the good of Australian cricket. It shows the players or the sentimentality are being put ahead of the hard-nosed approach that's needed.
"When you have a heroic team, it is like the West Indies, people get edgy about leaving heroes out even if those heroes might be in decline. There is a sense of that about this selection panel."
Anyway, it's an added pisser for me because my newer Phil Hughes doesn't get to make his Test Debut in Sydney. Certainly not this year. There's even this bit:
Benaud was on the panel that picked Warne for an underwhelming debut in 1992 and said the current panel of Hilditch, David Boon, Hughes and Cox had been too conservative.
"Shane Warne, God bless him, came along and he took 1-150 in his first Test but we still took him to Sri Lanka," he said. "Now Jason Krejza has been discarded for what I would call a more conservative option. You have to back yourself as a selection panel.
"How could they have been taken by surprise by MacGill's retirement? He was as old as Warne. I think they have been tardy there. They've had an opportunity to be a bit more aggressive about trialling a young spinner and I don't think anyone sees Nathan Hauritz as someone who is going to be a match-winner. Jason Krejza is head and shoulders above as a spinner and a cricketer.
"They're in spin chaos to me."
Greg Chappell, head coach of Cricket Australia's Centre of Excellence and a former selector, was also involved with the panel that gambled on youngsters such as Boon, Geoff Marsh and Steve Waugh in the mid-'80s. He said the current selectors faced a choice. "The big difference between now and then is that in the '80s, the next level of experienced players went to South Africa for the rebel tours so it forced their hand to go with youth and go to the next generation. I suppose that is the challenge now: Do they try and hold it together or go to the future?" Chappell said.
There's no point holding it together for now if they can't beat South Africa at home on the WACA and the MCG. At this point in the cycle of this team, they have no choice but to invest in the future players - and they're certainly there. It's often said that it's hard to get into the Australian Test side so it should be hard to get out. To me, that's a total non-sequiteur. The latter in no way follows on from the former.
The fact is, it's hard to get in because the competition is fierce - an that is good. By the same token the competition should be fierce enough that an aging player should be axed as soon as they start declining. The problem is, this team's veterans are greatly in decline and the young guys haven't found their feet just yet. In this context, the team selectors have to wield a tougher knife.
We're not talking about Mark Taylor hanging on for one series too long or not. We're talking about a general mindset that isn't engaged with what the Australian Test side is going to look like, one year, 3 years, and 5 years from now. In that sense, holding over Hayden for the 3rd test against South Africa is a terrible, terrible decision.
2008/12/28
Double Your Phil Hughes
Why Settle For One?
To me, an ardent Yankee fan, the name 'Phil Hughes' spells promise. Ever since the Yankees started drafting more high-ceiling talent since 2004, Phil Hughes has been that promise that more home-grown Yankees were on the way. He's shown stretches of that brilliance at the MLB level, but his story is largely yet to be writ. It's going to be interesting and exciting watching Phil Hughes come into his own, hopefully as an Ace-calibre pitcher for the Yankees.
He's even got a blog!
Of course, living in Australia, my sports fandom also extends to Cricket, and this summer I've become aware of another Phil Hughes that is knocking on the elite level of Cricket.
I started seeing his name in the last few weeks as my Google News kept spitting out this other Phil Hughes to the New York Yankee Phil Hughes. It's a common name and I might have just ignored it; but even when I know it's pure coincidence I want to ask what's in a name? To top it all off The latter Phil Hughes it seems is a New South Welshman. Well damnit, I'd better be rooting for him too, especially if he starts opening for Australia. It's not as if he's a South African or a Kiwi or Pom! :)
So that's my present for this Christmas. I get a second young Phil Hughes to root for in the coming years. I'm warning you all that if things get a litle confusing, well, you read about it here first.
To me, an ardent Yankee fan, the name 'Phil Hughes' spells promise. Ever since the Yankees started drafting more high-ceiling talent since 2004, Phil Hughes has been that promise that more home-grown Yankees were on the way. He's shown stretches of that brilliance at the MLB level, but his story is largely yet to be writ. It's going to be interesting and exciting watching Phil Hughes come into his own, hopefully as an Ace-calibre pitcher for the Yankees.
He's even got a blog!
Of course, living in Australia, my sports fandom also extends to Cricket, and this summer I've become aware of another Phil Hughes that is knocking on the elite level of Cricket.
PHIL HUGHES didn't really need a coach. After school each day from age 14 to 17 he'd just drag his father, Greg, down to the oval at Macksville and have him feed the ball machine. Phil knew which shots he needed to work on. Then he'd have Greg wait while he did his fitness program. Alone. Almost every day.
"If we'd had a big weekend away he might miss the Monday, and maybe some Fridays he'd have off," Greg Hughes says. "But apart from that it was a daily ritual. It must have worked: he's scored 53 hundreds so far."
Phil had reason to work hard. Despite his tender years, he knew he had a rare talent. At 12, playing in a 50-over primary schools carnival final, he hit 159 not out, commanding attention similarly to earlier child prodigies Adam Gilchrist, Dean Jones and Michael Slater.
"That's the innings that started off all the talk about him," Greg says. "When Cricket NSW say they knew him from when he was 12, well, that's where that started. It was probably also about when I first realised he could play."
After that game Phil met Merv Hughes. Greg has a photo of the moment and marvels at the coincidence of his son meeting one of the men who now can control if or when he plays for Australia.
The thought of playing for Australia was first realistically conveyed to Hughes by Neil D'Costa, his coach since arriving in Sydney. D'Costa, who mentored Michael Clarke to stardom, planted the idea in Hughes's mind that "in a few years Matthew Hayden is going to retire and you should make that position yours". The pair have forged a solid link and mapped out a plan for Hughes's career.
"We looked at how he would attack his rise in cricket with a mental and technical approach," D'Costa says. "It's working for him - look at how many people said he would fail in his second year. But I don't see any second-year blues."
I started seeing his name in the last few weeks as my Google News kept spitting out this other Phil Hughes to the New York Yankee Phil Hughes. It's a common name and I might have just ignored it; but even when I know it's pure coincidence I want to ask what's in a name? To top it all off The latter Phil Hughes it seems is a New South Welshman. Well damnit, I'd better be rooting for him too, especially if he starts opening for Australia. It's not as if he's a South African or a Kiwi or Pom! :)
So that's my present for this Christmas. I get a second young Phil Hughes to root for in the coming years. I'm warning you all that if things get a litle confusing, well, you read about it here first.
2008/11/12
On Armistice Day
At The Eleventh Hour Of The Eleventh Day of The Eleventh Month...
I found myself supping on coffee at work, watching planes land on the third runway. I get a spectacular view of planes as they land. From the moment I see their nose cones to when they hit the tarmac sending up smoke is 15-20 seconds. But I stopped to check that moment because it was the 90th anniversary when the Great War to end them all finally finished. And we're still warring all over the globe. In fact we're fighting ever more than before as we sell ever more weapons to needy countries. It's a drag but it's worth reflecting on for a moment.
Being Gen-X, our constant gripe is that we get over-looked for the babyboomers. When you look at the Inkling-Modern generation (the JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, Max Ernst & Dada generation who found themselves on the battlefields in Europe in 1914-1918), they had a good chunk wiped out through the incompetence of their generals. As for me, having shoved the word 'Gen-X' into the masthead above, I'm already forced to ponder how pithy, petty and insignificant my generational gripes are today. We've got it relatively good in the scheme of things.
So here's to World Peace. Honestly.
That Action Guy Link
I've added a link under the cinema section on the right, to 'That Action Guy Blog'. It's a very active blog with lots of stuff going on all the time, so go have a look. You won't be bored. If you're a budding screenwriter, drop him a line. Brian M. Logan (aka 'Monologan' is ) full of good advice on how not to choose an agent and how not to get shafted by your manager who is the best man at your agent's wedding (and other conflict of interest issues that arise).
And if you're just interested in what it's like to be a screenwriter, then there's plenty of gold in thar hills at 'That Action Guy'. I'm waiting for him to plug this blog soon when I actually get a few worthy cinema-related posts up. BTW I plead Rachel Hunter on that: "It won't happen over night, but it will happen!"
Hot For Teacher
There are several types of strange stories I keep track of because I think our society has trouble handling the material, which makes for interesting critiques. One is the constant reports on Great White Shark attacks, and the other is the 'Don't Stand So Close to Me/Hot For Teacher' phenomenon. I guess I'm interested in predators. Anyway...
Today's story is from yahoo.
A Melbourne teacher had sex with a student while on strike and urged him to treat her like a sex slave, a court has been told.
The other bit gets a little warped and racy like some Frank Zappa song lyrics:
The science teachers WalkOff-HBP, Gra-gra, and I had back in the day were nothing quite like this. I'm now thinking of all the education I have missed... Hang on, they're the words to 'Hot For Teacher'. Anyway, at this juncture I just want to say is that the youth of today have got it good. :)
I'm not so sure if I were 15 that I'd turn down the teacher above. She's not the prettiest thing, but she's kind of cute. So I wonder if the judge takes that into account in some way. I mean, if an ugly fat teacher forced herself on to a boy, that's got to be somewhat different t if a cute chick teacher seduced a 15 year old boy, no? The law says... we all know what the law says, it's the same thing, but I get the feeling that's pretty willfully keeping the blindfold on the justice statue. What do you all think?
Tough Cheese On Punter
Nobody likes a friggin' loser in Oz, and yes, the public is being told to turn on the Captain responsible for the loss of the Border-Gavaskar trophy, Ricky Ponting. Peter Roebuck in particular was scathing about some of Ponting's decisions. Now that the Aussies lost, there's a bit of media unrest going on. Ponitng, for his part has hit back.
Seriously, in any game, you win some and you lose some. So what if they lost a couple in India? They're not good any more? I'm not convinced as some of these guys who are pronouncing that the current crop of Indians will supersede the Aussies. They have to do it first instead of talk about it, and by doing, they have to knock Australia over, over here.
As for the press, I have a few things to say. After some years in which Australian team showed some dominance, the press is gleefully taking to the possibility that the Australian team is not what it once was. I don't quite get that, but I've always been a fan of Ponting since he first came up as a 19 y.o.. Having watched a healthy load of 1980s cricket where Australia didn't have stroke-makers and let's face it, couldn't play for shit, it's been a good couple of decades watching some great hitters of the ball play. I just don't get this tear-down-Ponting thing going on in the press. It's a form of insanity.
I found myself supping on coffee at work, watching planes land on the third runway. I get a spectacular view of planes as they land. From the moment I see their nose cones to when they hit the tarmac sending up smoke is 15-20 seconds. But I stopped to check that moment because it was the 90th anniversary when the Great War to end them all finally finished. And we're still warring all over the globe. In fact we're fighting ever more than before as we sell ever more weapons to needy countries. It's a drag but it's worth reflecting on for a moment.
Being Gen-X, our constant gripe is that we get over-looked for the babyboomers. When you look at the Inkling-Modern generation (the JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, Max Ernst & Dada generation who found themselves on the battlefields in Europe in 1914-1918), they had a good chunk wiped out through the incompetence of their generals. As for me, having shoved the word 'Gen-X' into the masthead above, I'm already forced to ponder how pithy, petty and insignificant my generational gripes are today. We've got it relatively good in the scheme of things.
So here's to World Peace. Honestly.
That Action Guy Link
I've added a link under the cinema section on the right, to 'That Action Guy Blog'. It's a very active blog with lots of stuff going on all the time, so go have a look. You won't be bored. If you're a budding screenwriter, drop him a line. Brian M. Logan (aka 'Monologan' is ) full of good advice on how not to choose an agent and how not to get shafted by your manager who is the best man at your agent's wedding (and other conflict of interest issues that arise).
And if you're just interested in what it's like to be a screenwriter, then there's plenty of gold in thar hills at 'That Action Guy'. I'm waiting for him to plug this blog soon when I actually get a few worthy cinema-related posts up. BTW I plead Rachel Hunter on that: "It won't happen over night, but it will happen!"
Hot For Teacher
There are several types of strange stories I keep track of because I think our society has trouble handling the material, which makes for interesting critiques. One is the constant reports on Great White Shark attacks, and the other is the 'Don't Stand So Close to Me/Hot For Teacher' phenomenon. I guess I'm interested in predators. Anyway...Today's story is from yahoo.
A Melbourne teacher had sex with a student while on strike and urged him to treat her like a sex slave, a court has been told.
Nazira Rafei, 26, a science teacher at a suburban high school, allegedly urged the student to pinch her nipples and disrespect her, and helped him cheat on a maths test.
But the pupil decided to contact authorities when the teacher threatened to "stuff up" his grades if he ended the relationship, the Melbourne Magistrates Court was told on Tuesday.
Rafei was committed to stand trial on one count of sexual penetration of a child under 16 whilst under her care or supervision, and four counts of an indecent act with a child.
She has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The other bit gets a little warped and racy like some Frank Zappa song lyrics:
It is alleged they hugged, kissed and rubbed genitals through clothes in her car.
On the first of these meetings the teacher is claimed to have said: "Treat me like I'm your sex slave, abuse me, tell me to shut the f*** up and to pinch ... my nipples."
During their relationship the teacher also allegedly said: "Disrespect me. Say shut the f*** up to me and stuff like that. Just say it, you know, it makes me feel like - like I'm your girlfriend."
It is also claimed the teacher took the student's partially-completed test from another teacher's desk and filled out answers in grey lead for the student.
The test was then put back on the teacher's desk and the student got 98 per cent for the test.
The science teachers WalkOff-HBP, Gra-gra, and I had back in the day were nothing quite like this. I'm now thinking of all the education I have missed... Hang on, they're the words to 'Hot For Teacher'. Anyway, at this juncture I just want to say is that the youth of today have got it good. :)
I'm not so sure if I were 15 that I'd turn down the teacher above. She's not the prettiest thing, but she's kind of cute. So I wonder if the judge takes that into account in some way. I mean, if an ugly fat teacher forced herself on to a boy, that's got to be somewhat different t if a cute chick teacher seduced a 15 year old boy, no? The law says... we all know what the law says, it's the same thing, but I get the feeling that's pretty willfully keeping the blindfold on the justice statue. What do you all think?
Tough Cheese On Punter
Nobody likes a friggin' loser in Oz, and yes, the public is being told to turn on the Captain responsible for the loss of the Border-Gavaskar trophy, Ricky Ponting. Peter Roebuck in particular was scathing about some of Ponting's decisions. Now that the Aussies lost, there's a bit of media unrest going on. Ponitng, for his part has hit back.
Ponting was adamant Australia deserved to retain their No.1 ranking despite the 2-0 series loss and predicted his team would play "some of the best Test cricket we've seen for a while" in the upcoming home Tests against New Zealand and South Africa.
He said it was absolutely vital for the team to come out and make a positive statement after admitting India had played the more consistent cricket over the course of the four Test series.
"We have to play at a higher level than we did through the India tour, there's no doubt about that, and there's no excuses and there's no reason why we can't," Ponting said at Sydney Airport tonight.
"Just seeing the look on some of the guys faces on the plane, there is genuine excitement about moving on from the Indian series.
"It's important we put that series behind us as quickly as we can and we start focussing on whatever positives there were out of the Indian series and start looking ahead to New Zealand and South Africa in Australia.
Seriously, in any game, you win some and you lose some. So what if they lost a couple in India? They're not good any more? I'm not convinced as some of these guys who are pronouncing that the current crop of Indians will supersede the Aussies. They have to do it first instead of talk about it, and by doing, they have to knock Australia over, over here.
As for the press, I have a few things to say. After some years in which Australian team showed some dominance, the press is gleefully taking to the possibility that the Australian team is not what it once was. I don't quite get that, but I've always been a fan of Ponting since he first came up as a 19 y.o.. Having watched a healthy load of 1980s cricket where Australia didn't have stroke-makers and let's face it, couldn't play for shit, it's been a good couple of decades watching some great hitters of the ball play. I just don't get this tear-down-Ponting thing going on in the press. It's a form of insanity.
2005/08/30
More Thoughts On The Aussie Cricket Team
Slater Says Hayden's Got To Go
Once upon a time, the Australian opening pair was built on Mark Taylor and Michael Slater. They were an interesting pair to watch and certain;y the amassed total Test runs of both men stand as testament to their once amazing skills. So in the dying days of Michael Slater's career, there was a sense of "Is that it? Is that all we're going to see of this guy?" when he was dropped by the selectors in the previous Ashes Tour to England.
In retrospect it wasn't a bad decision at all as it allowed the duo of Justin Langer and Matthew Hayden to set the pace, and set the pace they did for 2 years. Today, Michael Slater's in the papers saying Hayden should go.
At the same time, Matthew Hayden was coming off 2 great calendar years of scoring 1000 test runs. The selectors probably felt secure in letting him continue, thinking he was due for another big year in spite of his age; by that logic, Sir Don would still be batting for Australia if only he were alive. It all stands to reason with 20-20 hindsight; but it's also the flip-side of being conservative or worse, nostalgic and perhaps a little too inert. Losing the Ashes would be a big price to pay.
Just for reference, this is The Australian's preferred team:
Once upon a time, the Australian opening pair was built on Mark Taylor and Michael Slater. They were an interesting pair to watch and certain;y the amassed total Test runs of both men stand as testament to their once amazing skills. So in the dying days of Michael Slater's career, there was a sense of "Is that it? Is that all we're going to see of this guy?" when he was dropped by the selectors in the previous Ashes Tour to England.In retrospect it wasn't a bad decision at all as it allowed the duo of Justin Langer and Matthew Hayden to set the pace, and set the pace they did for 2 years. Today, Michael Slater's in the papers saying Hayden should go.
"The time has come for Australia to drop Matthew Hayden," Slater said.Well, it's really kind of predictable, when you stop to think about it. Steve Waugh probably overstayed by 18months. The first blush of Ponting's captaincy was essentially coasting on the Waugh Team. The selectors have been trying to avoid the debacle of the 1980s when Dennis Lillee and Greg Chappell all retired at once. So in effect this delayed the generation change for the same amount of time that Steve Waugh over-stayed. Now that's not a knock on Steve Waugh himself; it's just that when he left was probably the best time to embark on re-modeling the team.
"He has struggled to make runs all series, as he did in 2001 in English conditions, and, in truth, has been out of form now for 12 months.
"I've been a big supporter of his but with the Ashes on the line it is time to make changes.
"Because there is no spare opener in the squad, I would bring Simon Katich up to open the innings.
"He has done the job in four-day cricket and in one-day matches, and has the technique to cope well.
"In his place at No. 6, I would bring in all-rounder Shane Watson because he gives Australia a fifth bowling option, something England have had all series."
Hayden, at 33 a veteran of 71 Tests, has been befuddled by the swinging ball and clever field placings, which have blocked his scoring avenues.
Slater, who played in 14 Tests with the left-hander, said changes had to be made after yesterday's three-wicket defeat at Trent Bridge or the Ashes would return "home" for the first time in 16 years.
"I would also think seriously about playing another leg-spinner, Stuart MacGill, alongside Shane Warne because England have struggled against spin," Slater said.
"That would mean leaving out Shaun Tait, even though he did pretty well on debut.
"Australia must do something to change things because right now they are staring down the barrel at losing the Ashes.
"I believe we will lose the Ashes unless the selectors make changes."
Slater praised Warne, with a series-high 28 wickets and the bonus of 249 runs, and Brett Lee, with 19 wickets and 152 runs, for their efforts.
But the former opener, who was controversially dropped on the 2001 Ashes tour, felt too much was being left to too few.
At the same time, Matthew Hayden was coming off 2 great calendar years of scoring 1000 test runs. The selectors probably felt secure in letting him continue, thinking he was due for another big year in spite of his age; by that logic, Sir Don would still be batting for Australia if only he were alive. It all stands to reason with 20-20 hindsight; but it's also the flip-side of being conservative or worse, nostalgic and perhaps a little too inert. Losing the Ashes would be a big price to pay.
Just for reference, this is The Australian's preferred team:
Preferred fifth Test team: Justin Langer, Michael Hussey, Ricky Ponting (c), Damien Martyn, Michael Clarke, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Watson, Shane Warne, Brett Lee, Glenn McGrath, Stuart MacGill.That's a team that could have been fielded and blooded 12 months ago; that alone tells you how conservative and nostalgic the selectors have been.
2005/08/28
The Turning Wheel Of ... Sport
Aussie Debacle
Let's face it. When the tabloids in Australia announce on the backpages that Andrew Flintof is the best batsman in the world you know the home side is in the deepest pits. For the first time in 17 years, the Australian side has had to follow on. And while the resistance is happening, the truth is, England have yelled "check!" on getting the Ashes back.
Okay, last year, I had to weather the Red Sox bust their 86-year hoodoo (and it was my fave hoodoo in all of sport too), but now I'm getting to see the Australian side as spent and depleted.
Not suprisingly, the Ausralians are losing their cool . Mark Butcher, the 'celebrated' hacker during England's long dormancy had this to say:
All in all, it's not such a bad thing. As I've been pointing out, the side has been due for a sea-change for some time. This is going to make Test Cricket a lot more interesting too.
The Other Dynasty Fights on
The Yankees are still in their bun-fight for the post-season. Since taking the series against the Chisox last week, they've won 3 of 4 from Toronto and 2 of 3 from Kansas City. Okay, beating the Kansas City Royals might not look like much, but here are the facts: The Royals have put together a 5 game winning streak since coming out of their worst losing streak in history and they put some of those wins against Bosox. They were a suddenly hot team. And while Randy Johnson turned up as himself to guide the yanks to one of the wins 3-1, the Yankees had to pull out a 5-run ninth to beat the Royals 8-7. The Royals were so hot they scored 7 runs off Jaret Wright and Aaron Small in 7.2 innings.
Let's face it. When the tabloids in Australia announce on the backpages that Andrew Flintof is the best batsman in the world you know the home side is in the deepest pits. For the first time in 17 years, the Australian side has had to follow on. And while the resistance is happening, the truth is, England have yelled "check!" on getting the Ashes back.
Okay, last year, I had to weather the Red Sox bust their 86-year hoodoo (and it was my fave hoodoo in all of sport too), but now I'm getting to see the Australian side as spent and depleted.
Not suprisingly, the Ausralians are losing their cool . Mark Butcher, the 'celebrated' hacker during England's long dormancy had this to say:
Body language can be more expressive than a Van Morrison lyric. It has certainly told us something about the state of Australia during this Test, no more so perhaps than at the start of play on Friday morning.Butcher is right. These hungry Englishmen are out for blood, and boy are our boys ill-equipped to deal with this adversity. After all, the last Australian dynasty was built from the burning husks left from the glorious 1970s team that burnt down to the ground by the middle of the 1980s. The dynasty was built on hungry young guys who were sick of losing. In stark contrast, looking at the current Australian roster, there's no longer anybody who was there to take the stick from England in the '80s. Ponting is going to have take on the role that Alan Border once took upon himself; to guide the next generation of Australian Cricketers back to the light.
England were four wickets down with not much more than 200 on the board. A couple of early breakthroughs then and if Australia were not exactly through, they would have made fairly serious inroads. But they did not attack to get those wickets, they placed sweepers on the off and leg sides from the start.
It was as if they feared what England could do to them, rather than thinking what Australia could do to England. Believe me, I know that feeling well from having played Australia over the years. It colours your decision-making, you can become fearful. It can be fraught with irksome possibilities. So that, for example, you take out third slip because you feel you ought to defend and the next minute the ball goes in the air where third slip would have been. Then it is too late, the chance has gone.
Over the course of a series, a side play the game in their captain's image. Now, in the case of Australia it is said of Ricky Ponting that he has had to set the in-out fields he has because he can hardly trust his bowlers. But that is part and parcel of the quality of England's play and the pressure they have exerted.
Before the Trent Bridge Test started, England had had the best of the previous eight or nine days of Test cricket. The gap between the Third and Fourth Tests allowed England to get over the tourists' great escape at Old Trafford and to clear their minds and ensure that they were able to dwell on their superiority over so long.
One other thing we have disproved over the past few weeks, whether the Ashes come home or not, is the perception that to have any hope of beating Australia we had to prepare seaming, sporting pitches. In its way it was a good kind of theory, but I was always suspicious of it. If the opposition had Glenn McGrath in their side then wasn't he likely to take rather significant advantage of a pitch working in his favour?
All in all, it's not such a bad thing. As I've been pointing out, the side has been due for a sea-change for some time. This is going to make Test Cricket a lot more interesting too.
The Other Dynasty Fights on
The Yankees are still in their bun-fight for the post-season. Since taking the series against the Chisox last week, they've won 3 of 4 from Toronto and 2 of 3 from Kansas City. Okay, beating the Kansas City Royals might not look like much, but here are the facts: The Royals have put together a 5 game winning streak since coming out of their worst losing streak in history and they put some of those wins against Bosox. They were a suddenly hot team. And while Randy Johnson turned up as himself to guide the yanks to one of the wins 3-1, the Yankees had to pull out a 5-run ninth to beat the Royals 8-7. The Royals were so hot they scored 7 runs off Jaret Wright and Aaron Small in 7.2 innings.
"I've seen these guys do this so many times, be down four runs and then work their magic," said Lawton, who was traded to the Yankees from the Chicago Cubs on Friday and contributed a single and a run during the rally. "I've got something to talk about now. I've got a lot to tell my friends."The good news is that Boston dropped one today against Detroit. As it turns out, the schedule down the stretch favors the Yankees according to the Replacement Level Yankee Weblog:
Manager Joe Torre, seated in his clubhouse office afterward, called the game "as good as any we've played all year, as far as winning this type of ballgame."
The victory - the Yankees' seventh in nine games - kept them pointed toward the postseason. They entered the game trailing the Boston Red Sox by two and a half games in the American League East, and tied with the Cleveland Indians and the Oakland Athletics for the wild-card spot. Rodriguez, who drove in his 103rd run of the season, said that coming back from a 7-3 deficit in the bottom of the ninth seemed unrealistic, regardless of the opponent.
But the Royals, who had erased a 3-0 deficit against Yankees starter Jaret Wright, all but chaperoned the Yankees around the bases.
Prior to the game it was announced that the Yankees had acquired Matt Lawton from the Cubs for minor league pitcher Justin Berg. Berg's a low A pitcher who hasn't demonstrated much, and is not considered much of a prospect, so this was probably just a salary dump. Lawton's not a bad pickup. He's not a very good defensive player, but in his career he has demonstrated an ability to get on base at a decent clip (.366 this season), and gives the Yankees some depth in the OF. The Yankees don't consider him a CF, but they feel that he can play LF with Matsui shifting to CF. If the Yankees can do that, they can run the following lineup out there:Yeah. Right On. This is actually interesting as the Yankees now sit 1.5 games back. :)
Jeter, SS
Matsui, CF
Sheffield, RF
Rodriguez, 3B
Giambi, 1B
Williams, DH
Posada, C
Lawton, LF
Cano, 2B
I don't know about you, but to me that's the best lineup they will have had all year.
Larry ran some numbers to estimate the strength of schedules for the AL playoff contenders through year end as of yesterday, which I'm going to post here.
Using actual records
Strength of Schedule the rest of the season:
Red Sox: .503
Athletics: .500
Twins: .498
Angels: .493
Indians: .487
White Sox: .484
Yankees: .467
Adjusted for .540 Home Field Advantage:
Athletics: .505
Twins: .500
Angels: .496
Red Sox: .489
White Sox: .488
Indians: .485
Yankees: .471
Projected Records using log5:
Boston: 94-67
Yankees: 91-71
White Sox: 100-61
Indians: 90-72
Twins: 86-77
Angels: 93-69
Athletics: 90-72
Using “adjusted” records (Adjusted records come from Baseball Prospectus's adjusted standings.
Strength of Schedule the rest of the season:
Red Sox: .522
Athletics: .521
Angels: .516
Twins: .508
White Sox: .505
Yankees: .491
Indians: .488
Adjusted for .540 Home Field Advantage:
Athletics: .525
Angels: .519
Twins: .510
White Sox: .510
Red Sox: .507
Yankees: .494
Indians: .485
Projected Records using log5:
Boston: 93-68
Yankees: 91-71
White Sox: 96-65
Indians: 91-71
Twins: 85-78
Angels: 92-70
Athletics: 90-72
Basically, all this tells me is that it's too close to call, and that Cleveland, the Yankees, and Oakland will be in a dogfight for the Wild Card. It also tells me that the division is still very much in play, particularly with 6 games remaining between Boston and the Yankees. Regardless, this should be the most exciting September that we have had as Yankee fans in quite some time, so sit back and enjoy it.
2005/08/24
Esoteric Headlines
I'm Not The Only One
Here's an interesting article comparing the Yankees and the Australian cricket team.
I know I said the dynasties are over a week ago, but these dynasties seem to be refusing to go into the night quietly; and that's what we like from our sporting heroes. A good deal of fight and fire in their bellies. :)
Nutbar Central
You know it: The Christian Right in US politics is about 50 cards short of a full deck. Former Presidential Hopeful (delusional perhaps) Pat Robertson called for the assassination of the President of Venezuela. The repercussions are coming hard and fast.
Here's an interesting article comparing the Yankees and the Australian cricket team.
Within their sport, this Australian cricket team has been likened to Bradman’s Invincibles and Clive Lloyd’s West Indians. Outside their sport, an apt contemporary comparison of sporting dynasties would be to the New York Yankees baseball team since 1995.There's a tone there that seems to declare that both the Yankees and the Australian cricket teams are done; perhaps a little wishful. Of course, unlikely as it seemed three days ago, the Yankees have earned sole-possession of the Wild Card lead after edging out Toronto 5-4 today.
It wasn’t just that they mostly won, it was the way they won: with self-belief that sometimes bordered on brashness. Their fans saw their belief and embraced them. Others saw brashness — plus, in the case of the Yankees, owner George Steinbrenner’s cheque book that underwrote championships — and loathed them.
All these years, on the highway to success, the Aussies and the Yankees charted similar paths. Today, at a crossroads, they face similar questions. Depending on what you see and whom you believe, both teams are either in slow decline or in a slump. All summer, they have been threatening to perform, but have been consistently losing the plot.
The Aussies we know. For the Yankees, the first half of the long-winding baseball season was their most miserable in the past decade, prompting Steinbrenner to fire tirades and sign more cheques.
Both teams revolve around ageing veterans, who’ve been there and done that but are struggling to string it together this season or series. There have been rumblings to make wholesale changes and consign these teams to history but the men who matter have placed their faith in the tried and tested to play catch up.
On Monday, the Yankees did catch up, moving into a tie for the ‘wildcard’ lead in their American Division — basically the fourth and final playoff spot on their side of the draw. Still, after the numerous false dawns, few, if any, are saying they look like a championship team.
But there are some telling signs. For the first time in the season, three of their five original starting pitchers — the most important men in a baseball team — are healthy and throwing freely. Similarly, Australia are done backing one under-performing veteran. At Trent Bridge, for the first time in the series, they will have four bowlers, not three bowlers and a passenger called Gillespie.
Of all the tests they have had to collectively endure, this is among the hardest. The stakes are high. On it hinge some reputations, some careers, and the future of two great teams.
Felix Escalona's bases-loaded single with two outs in the ninth inning gave the New York Yankees a 5-4 victory over the Toronto Blue Jays on Tuesday night and sole possession of the AL wild-card lead.So Al Leiter pitched a gritty seven-plus innings, Rivera blew a save again, but the bats bailed him out for the win. Meanwhile, Australia heads into yet another test match on their Ashes Tour, this time at Trent Bridge
Hideki Matsui hit a tying homer in the ninth, and Derek Jeter had two hits in his return to the lineup for the Yankees (69-55), who scored in each of the final four innings to win for the ninth time in 12 games and reach 14 games over .500 for the first time this season.
New York, which didn't lead until the final hit, had been tied for the wild-card lead with Oakland, which lost at Detroit.
Vernon Wells had three hits, including a homer, as the Blue Jays wasted a strong start by Josh Towers.
Toronto took a 4-3 lead off Mariano Rivera (6-3) in the ninth, but Matsui led off the bottom half with his 20th homer, a drive off Miguel Batista (5-5). Jorge Posada walked with one out, and Robinson Cano walked with two outs. Batista then intentionally walked Jeter to load the bases for Escalona, who singled to center.
After New York tied it in the eighth, Orlando Hudson singled off Rivera with one out in the ninth when Escalona came off first base to grab Jeter's throw. Hudson took second on an infield out and scored on Reed Johnson's single, beating Matsui's throw.
Al Leiter gave up three runs and six hits with one walk and five strikeouts in seven-plus innings.
Australia will certainly make one change, axing fast bowler Jason Gillespie and ushering young tearaway Shaun Tait to his dressing-room peg. The 22-year-old is expected to pose more problems in swinging conditions.
Gillespie's lack of zip has been shocking. For years, he has been the unsung hero of the Australian attack.
During the last five weeks, however, he has been treated dismissively by English batsmen, his three wickets costing 300 runs and bucketfuls of self-esteem.
By this time during the 2002-3 Ashes, the contest was already over. It took barely 11 days for Australia to go 3-0 up in that five-match series.
Everything was different then, not least the press coverage.
England, beset by one injury after another (Andrew Flintoff did not get on the pitch and Simon Jones lasted one session), were lampooned in Australia as the most physically and mentally brittle bunch of losers ever to show their red faces Down Under.
Mockery, of course, is the preserve of undisputed world champions.
In 2005, however, the Australians have spent more time anxiously studying their navels. Adam Gilchrist's lack of dazzle has been as perplexing as Matthew Hayden's shortage of runs.
Former captain Ian Chappell has suggested the side may not be quite as good as they imagined, having spent so many years subsidised by the twin genius of Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath. Dennis Lillee has talked of an ageing team in decline.
There have also been injury worries, with McGrath missing the second test and playing in Manchester only half fit, while Michael Clarke spent more time in bed than on the pitch during the third test.
England have stayed fit and with the same 11 that began the series. In their last home series, they used 19 players.
Trent Bridge, though, is not one of England's favourite Ashes haunts with only three wins there in 19 tests. In 1997 and 2001, Australia wrapped up the series in Robin Hood country. The last English champagne was uncorked in 1977.
I know I said the dynasties are over a week ago, but these dynasties seem to be refusing to go into the night quietly; and that's what we like from our sporting heroes. A good deal of fight and fire in their bellies. :)
Nutbar Central
You know it: The Christian Right in US politics is about 50 cards short of a full deck. Former Presidential Hopeful (delusional perhaps) Pat Robertson called for the assassination of the President of Venezuela. The repercussions are coming hard and fast.
There's an old Southern saying that you dance with the one that brung ya, but as the Bush administration found out this week, sometimes you don't want to dance too close. The administration quickly distanced itself Tuesday from the suggestion by religious broadcaster and Bush backer Pat Robertson that the United States assassinate a leftist Latin American head of state.This is just so sad. As an aside I can't resist a little kicker: I guess The Angry Fatman could put a spin on this to make it all acceptable to himself. *Ugh*. More Disgust.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Robertson's remarks about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ``inappropriate,'' but stopped short of condemning them.
``This is not the policy of the United States government,'' McCormack said. ``We do not share his views.''
The Bush administration does share many of Robertson's views on other matters, such as stem cell research, and Robertson's largely conservative, evangelical audience overlaps with the core of Bush's political base.
About nine of 10 white evangelicals voted for Bush in the 2004 election - about as high as his support from any group of voters, according to exit polls. This group also supported Bush overwhelmingly in the 2000 election.
McCormack tiptoed around the question of whether the rest of the world might assume that Robertson speaks, if not directly for Bush, at least for a sizable share of the Republican Party.
``I would think that people around the world would take the comments for what they are,'' McCormack said. ``They're the expression of one citizen.''
Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 1988, supported Bush's re-election last year and said he believed Bush is blessed by God. Robertson also told viewers of his ``700 Club'' television program that God had told him Bush would win re-election in a ``blowout.''
Speaking on the same program Monday, Robertson said killing Chavez would be cheaper than starting a war to oust him. Getting rid of Chavez would stop Venezuela from becoming a ``launching pad for communist influence and Muslim extremism,'' Robertson said.
``We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,'' Robertson said. ``We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator.''
A Robertson spokeswoman, Angell Watts, said he would not do interviews Tuesday and had no statement elaborating on his remarks.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the Pentagon isn't in the business of killing foreign leaders, but he also did not denounce Robertson or his remarks.
``He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time,'' Rumsfeld said.
Venezuela's ambassador to the U.S., Bernardo Alvarez, said of Robertson's remarks: ``We are concerned about the safety of the president.'' Alvarez said measures should be taken to guarantee Chavez's safety any time he visits the United States. The Venezuelan leader is expected to attend the special session of the U.N. General Assembly next month in New York.
Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials have been linking Chavez with Cuban leader Fidel Castro as destabilizing troublemakers in teetering Latin American democracies. En route home from visits earlier this month to Paraguay and Peru, Rumsfeld told reporters, ``There certainly is evidence that both Cuba and Venezuela have been involved in the situation in Bolivia in unhelpful ways.''
2005/08/15
The End Of The Dynasty
It Ain't Just The Yankees
Australian cricket is at a turning point. After 15 years of winning and 10 years of being the world's best, they are being found out by a young, resurgent English cricket squad. If you compare the woes of Yankees to the Australians, there is something very similar going on, namely, the age factor, the inflexibility of the roster and vulnerability to injuries as a result of the two problems being ignored.
I saw this article by the great Peter Roebuck in The Independent that seemed to underscore the very problems I've been predicting for some time:
Not since The Prince And The Pauper have roles so decisively been reversed. A rapidly deteriorating Australian side faces a formidable task as it attempts to save this crucial Test match. Mental disintegration could be detected in their work in the field and that bodes ill for their prospects. Ricky Ponting, especially, has looked rattled. Sometimes, though, it only takes one stirring innings to turn things around. At present Shane Warne is holding the side together. The time has come for vaunted colleagues to pull their weight.Peter Roebuck then goes on to write:
Australia's senior batsmen must make a stand. Fifth-day heroics alone can atone for their failures. Extras have contributed more runs than four members of a highly regarded order. No one has scored a hundred. No one has scored ugly runs. Only Justin Langer has made the bowlers dig him out. Lower-order rallies have stood between Australia and batting ignominy. Reputations and records are coming under scrutiny. Naked figures are no longer enough. Performances against strong sides in tough situations are a better guide.
Confronted with the toughest bowling some of them have faced in their Test careers, a supposedly powerful line-up has wilted. Even at Lord's it was clear that England - more appropriately the British Lions - had the capacity to launch a more physical and varied attack than Australia had encountered for years. It was a throwback to the early days of Steve Waugh's career, when batsmen spent much of their time fending off bumpers. It was a reminder of how impoverished international bowling had become.
Suddenly this Australian team is looking its age. Sometimes, when the end comes, it is quick. Regardless of the outcome of this series - and it is worth remembering that England stand second in the rankings and that Australia lost by only two runs in Birmingham and that the score is level - the selectors will need to take stock.Well, exactly my point. There have been a couple of really bad trends in the Australian squads since the last days of the Steve Waugh captaincy. Waugh himself probably over-stayed by 18-months as there was nothing that he accomplished in that period that added to his legacy. It was 18months that was better spent with blooding a younger player. The age factor has been particularly prominent, but mostly been ignored. The average age of this Australian squad is higher than at any point in the last 15 years because it's basically been the same guys for a good decade. And while Steve Waugh was eased out of the squad 18 months ago, the side still has over-30 players in Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath, and Gillespie. These guys are older than captain Ricky Ponting, and while there is some value to their veteran presence, some of these names date back to the very early 90s. Let's face it, they remind one of the stodginess of Graham Gooch, Ian Botham and Michael Gatting at the end of their days. England are coming at the Aussies full-tilt, and our guys look a little like rabbits cuaght in the headlights.
Michael Hussey's time may be at hand. Rejuvenation is needed. Not that Australian cricket has an abundance of emerging talent. Nor is the series over. Australia might yet retain the Ashes. Right now they would settle for that. Harder days, though, lie ahead.
The younger guys in the squad are Brett Lee, Michale Clarke, Simon Katich. The latter two really need to be given time and space to grow into their roles. There are probably any number of names that could be thrown into the mix instead of the stalwarts who created the golden age. Based on the results, we can announce the golden age as closed. Win lose or draw the Ashes, it's time for the selectors to get bold and engineer the next generation. however, that takes guts to make the roster more flexible.
The Australian cricket squad is a lot more inflexible than one would imagine for the simple reason that the whole country is asked to invest its emotions into this group of players. So the selection policy is always, "hard to get in, hard to get out". Now, with Warne and McGrath having amassed a colossal number of Test wickets between them, it should be clear that the selectors err on the side of veteran players. Now, what escapees scrutiny is that while they have collected the numbers at a great rate across their careers, there's nothing to say the last 100-200 wickets couldn't have been taken by other players at a similar rate. Yet there's a feeling that the current Test Squad is somehow a young squad in need of growth pains.
"Whatever happens on this Ashes series," Australia's coach John Buchanan told his interlocutors on Saturday evening, "we will grow as a group as a result."One worries about this perception problem. The thing is, it's not the young guys who are creating the big problems. It's that Warne is still there to have the ball tossed to him by Ponting after all these years. It's not his fault for having been a great player; it's the selectors' collective fault for wanting to have him do it one more time, once too often.
This great Australian team is certainly broadening its life experiences, with yesterday's another distinctly unfamiliar one: trying to restrict the building of a potentially match-winning lead.
And though they have stormed Gallipoli, visited Villers-Bretonneux and penned more bad poetry than a tortured teenager, the challenge that Ricky Ponting's side face today is as acute, and for them as rare, as any: batting all day to save a Test.
For Australians in recent years, time has flown; today it may drag. This Ashes tour has become such compulsive viewing as to outdo reality television. What began as Celebrity Love Island, when Shane Warne's private life became public knowledge, has now become an edition of Survivor.
There is even talk of a rift in the lute of the Australian team, specifically between Warne and Ponting. This is perhaps inevitable. Steve Archibald, or maybe his literary ghost, came up with a memorable line about team spirit always being "the illusion glimpsed in the aftermath of victory". The corollary is that disunity is the impression usually gleaned in the event of adversity.
It made for a day that hummed with speculation when not buzzing with activity. After an edge from Andrew Strauss off Brett Lee bisected Warne and Ponting at first and second slip just before lunch, for instance, there was what seemed a pregnant silence in the Australian cordon. Were they simply disappointed, or contemplating how to blame one another in their tour diaries?
When Ponting tossed Warne the ball for the seventh over of the innings, was it is a case of "let's do it for the baggy green" or "if you're so clever you bloody win it for us, fat boy". When Warne wrapped an arm round Ponting's shoulders before an over after tea, was there just the hint of a headlock?
It may not matter overmuch. There have been bones of contention in Australian teams on their last few visits: over the form of Mark Taylor in 1997, over the omission of Warne in 1999, over the eventual omission of Michael Slater in 2001. Victory, as it were, washed away all sins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)