Below is a transcript from a speech made by Sir Bobby Robson upon accepting the Lifetime Achievement award at the 2007 BBC Sports Personality of the Year ceremony. May he rest in peace, a true and dedicated servant of the great game of football.
"Ladies and gentlemen,
I’m absolutely delighted to be here to receive this prestigious award. It’s a terrific honour - I’m totally flattered. It’s a privilege, it’s an honour that I respect. I’m grateful to you and thank you very much. I was completely unaware that Sir Alex (Ferguson) was here tonight to present this to me so it makes the evening ever more thrilling and staggering and I’m grateful to Sir Alex for coming like he did (applause).
You know, nobody wins everything on his own. Even Tiger Woods has a caddy. And this award really is an extension and an opportunity for me to say thank you very much to everybody that has supported me, everybody that I’ve played with, everybody that I managed. I’ve had a fabulous career, I’ve played with and managed some of the greatest players in the world - of that there is no doubt.
I remember my Fulham days, my West Bromwich days, my England days. I remember particularly Ipswich Town where I went first as a manager - some of the players are here tonight. I think Roger is here, tell me Roger, are you here? Well Mickey Mills is here, the captain, so I had a great time at Ipswich (laughter)… and I went to Barcelona and so forth but without the players, without the people I worked for and that I inherited, I wouldn’t be here tonight. I worked with some fantastic chairmen. I always had around me a great coaching and technical staff, a great medical staff, a great scouting staff. I didn’t suffer fools, this is for them of course.
I’d like to thank my mother and father. My mother brought me into this world, my father brought me to football - I think my father brought me into the world as well (laughter). But he would have loved this tonight. If he would have been alive, he would have been there in the front row. He wouldn’t have come by car, he wouldn’t have come by train. He would have somersaulted all the way from Durham to here. And I tell you this it would have taken him about 16 and a half minutes.
I’d like to thank my wife Elsie who has stuck with me for about 52 years. I thank her for her loyalty, her support, her patience, her understanding - without her I wouldn’t be what I am (applause).
And so it’s been an absolute joy for me to have worked in association football all these years, more than fifty years, and to have met and to have played with and to have worked with all these fantastic international footballers. I’d like to mention them all by name but it would take me 17 and a half years to do it. I’ve got that time but you haven’t (laughter).
So it remains for me to say thank you Gary (Lineker), than you Sir Alex, thank you to the BBC for this magnificent presentation and for giving me one of the greatest evenings of my life. Thank you very much indeed (standing applause)."
To watch a video of the speech, click here.
31 July 2009
How going unnoticed can sometimes be a good thing
England, dare I say it, are playing some electrifying cricket in this series, epitomised in its entirety by the devastating spell of bowling this morning that reduced Australia from last night's untroubled 126-1 to a worrying 263 all out.
That Graham Onions carried out the initial devastation speaks a lot for his sudden progression from county workhorse to international star. He's not just getting wickets, he's prizing out big name players too. Shane Watson lbw; Michael Hussey bowled; Ricky Ponting edged behind; these are not just tail end wickets. The backbone of the tourist's batting order was ripped out by Onions in a spell that perfectly demonstrated the value of hitting a good line and maintaining your accuracy.
The crowd were also treated to a five-wicket haul from swing merchant James Anderson as England's star bowler ensured Australia wouldn't recover from Onions' initial burst. Anderson's ascension to leader of the attack has been a joy to watch over the last year and his performances in the series thus far have confirmed he can work his magic against the very best. He may be a tad fruitless in less swing-condusive conditions but his value to the side is priceless - he is often of more worth than Andrew Flintoff.
Andrew Strauss continued his man-possessed style of batting, scoring runs in abundance as if he is personally responsible for England's fortunes with the bat. And it's just as well; with Kevin Pietersen out of the team, England need a batsman to be reliable nine times out of ten so they can play around him. With Alastair Cook unable to provide that consistency, Ravi Bopara still coming to terms with the spectacle of playing in the Ashes and Ian Bell now a three-time newbie in Test match cricket, Strauss could be the sole anchor with which England build their innings around.
But for all these wonderful things for which we should all be thankful for, amidst all the positive signs coming from England's play and in the middle of the fact that a few more good days and England could be on their way to winning the Ashes, one aspect is drifting along unnoticed.
Anyone seen any high-profile drops or spills from Matt Prior? Witnessed any sky-high figures in the extra's column? Caught sight of any byes racing away to the boundary having been missed by the England keeper? Nope. Not at all. Zilch.
Prior, a dashing batsman but a nerve-inducing wicketkeeper, has done his primary job to a very high standard so far this series. Gone are the mystifying dives across first slip to drop catches. Gone are the ugly fumbles behind the stumps as the ball darts away for bye after bye. Prior has done an efficient job and the best part about it is that no-one has mentioned it. For a wicketkeeper, the best piece of news can often be no news at all, especially a keeper with a chequered past such as Prior.
Before the series, a lot of focus was placed on Prior and the question seemed to be not whether he'll drop someone crucial but when. But the only column inches Prior has occupied thus far are for his brisk and superb batting. His punchy 56 helped gain England the iniative on the first day in Cardiff while his 61 at Lord's was imaginative, resourceful and thoroughly entertaining. Today he even pulled off a tremendous one-handed catch to dismiss Marcus North; he is continuing, day by day, to compound his critics.
I've no doubt jinxed the Sussex man - if at Headingley he drops Ponting who goes on to make a hundred, you can hold me responsible. But if he continues to perform in this vein then he'll face none of the questions over his long term England place that he's had to contend with in his career so far. As far as Prior is concerned, he'll be hoping to stay out of the limelight so long as he's crouched behind the stumps and not wielding the willow in front of them.
That Graham Onions carried out the initial devastation speaks a lot for his sudden progression from county workhorse to international star. He's not just getting wickets, he's prizing out big name players too. Shane Watson lbw; Michael Hussey bowled; Ricky Ponting edged behind; these are not just tail end wickets. The backbone of the tourist's batting order was ripped out by Onions in a spell that perfectly demonstrated the value of hitting a good line and maintaining your accuracy.
The crowd were also treated to a five-wicket haul from swing merchant James Anderson as England's star bowler ensured Australia wouldn't recover from Onions' initial burst. Anderson's ascension to leader of the attack has been a joy to watch over the last year and his performances in the series thus far have confirmed he can work his magic against the very best. He may be a tad fruitless in less swing-condusive conditions but his value to the side is priceless - he is often of more worth than Andrew Flintoff.
Andrew Strauss continued his man-possessed style of batting, scoring runs in abundance as if he is personally responsible for England's fortunes with the bat. And it's just as well; with Kevin Pietersen out of the team, England need a batsman to be reliable nine times out of ten so they can play around him. With Alastair Cook unable to provide that consistency, Ravi Bopara still coming to terms with the spectacle of playing in the Ashes and Ian Bell now a three-time newbie in Test match cricket, Strauss could be the sole anchor with which England build their innings around.
But for all these wonderful things for which we should all be thankful for, amidst all the positive signs coming from England's play and in the middle of the fact that a few more good days and England could be on their way to winning the Ashes, one aspect is drifting along unnoticed.
Anyone seen any high-profile drops or spills from Matt Prior? Witnessed any sky-high figures in the extra's column? Caught sight of any byes racing away to the boundary having been missed by the England keeper? Nope. Not at all. Zilch.
Prior, a dashing batsman but a nerve-inducing wicketkeeper, has done his primary job to a very high standard so far this series. Gone are the mystifying dives across first slip to drop catches. Gone are the ugly fumbles behind the stumps as the ball darts away for bye after bye. Prior has done an efficient job and the best part about it is that no-one has mentioned it. For a wicketkeeper, the best piece of news can often be no news at all, especially a keeper with a chequered past such as Prior.
Before the series, a lot of focus was placed on Prior and the question seemed to be not whether he'll drop someone crucial but when. But the only column inches Prior has occupied thus far are for his brisk and superb batting. His punchy 56 helped gain England the iniative on the first day in Cardiff while his 61 at Lord's was imaginative, resourceful and thoroughly entertaining. Today he even pulled off a tremendous one-handed catch to dismiss Marcus North; he is continuing, day by day, to compound his critics.
I've no doubt jinxed the Sussex man - if at Headingley he drops Ponting who goes on to make a hundred, you can hold me responsible. But if he continues to perform in this vein then he'll face none of the questions over his long term England place that he's had to contend with in his career so far. As far as Prior is concerned, he'll be hoping to stay out of the limelight so long as he's crouched behind the stumps and not wielding the willow in front of them.
27 July 2009
Time to say goodbye
I'm not a massive fan of David Beckham and, frankly, never have been. It's not that I don't think he's any good - far from it. I fully appreciate and respect his achievements in the modern game. Some of my greatest memories in football revolve around the man with possibly the sweetest right foot I've ever witnessed.
The last minute free-kick against Greece in 2001 was about as heart-stopping and dramatic as, well, your heart actually stopping. His emphatic, if slightly badly directed, penalty against Argentina at the 2002 World Cup was one of only a few moments where I've actually leapt from my sofa during a game and 'gone mental'. In either case, it was as if I was celebrating right there and then with Becks himself. It's a unique ability that he and few others possess - as if he picks and chooses his most dramatic moments in concurrence with what his audience would want to see. He is simply one of the finest players to ever play for England.
Hell, he's played for Manchester United, Real Madrid and AC Milan, three of Europe's best and most prestigious clubs. When he eventually retires, it'll be tough for him to look back and lament many aspects of what he did, although once suspects he'll wish he kept his temper in check that night in St Etienne just over ten years ago.
But that's where my approval of him unfortunately ends and there's a multitude of reasons why. In some countries, Beckham is better known for his celebrity image rather than his exploits with a football. 'Brand Beckham' is a commercial juggernaut, a limitless roll call of advertising and sponsorships deals that plasters his face on billboards and magazine covers all over the world. Long ago, Beckham outgrew the restraints of being a simple footballer and branched outside of the sporting bubble and onto the world scene.
His relationship with his pop star wife Victoria is possibly responsible for the archetypal footballer and musician relationship that tabloids and gossip magazines now thrive on. Beckham enjoys global recognition and his every move is covered, written about and photographed.
And it's all a bit much for me. I'm all for the bloke trying to make a bit of money outside of football - if you've a marketable image then why not make best use of it. But it strikes me as too much power for a mere sportsman. The second he is decorated for his celebrity achievements rather than bending a ball into the back of a net, then the football becomes superfluous and we're not just discussing a very good right midfielder, we're discussing a world symbol - an icon for an assembly of industries.
Ever since his move to Los Angeles, where he commands a lucrative salary playing for LA Galaxy, his face is becoming more and more recognisable on the other side of the pond but not exactly for sporting reasons. In the 'soccer-unfirendly' climate in the US, Beckham is known for hobnobbing with movie stars and attending award ceremonies.
The move to America was doubtless fuelled by the lure of money and I'm sure a word or two in his ear from Victoria would have pushed him into signing on the dotted line. The decision to choose substandard Major League Soccer football over the other offers he was considering at the time was difficult to comprehend and contributed to my slight disapproval of him.
Having said all of that, one can't help be impressed by his insatiable quest to regain his England place in time for next summers World Cup. And I suspect he needs to leave LA in order to both make that dream more concrete and for his own well-being. When he's played for England of late, mainly as an impact sub, he's done his job to the best of his ability. Gone may be the energy and pace of his youth but what remains is match winning experience and the ability to play pitch-length passes that many are unable to. He's not an automatic starter anymore and rightly so but he still offers value to the side and that cannot be underestimated.
When Beckham went on loan to Milan last spring, his motives were transparent; the standard of football was infinitely better than in the MLS and a good run of performances would ultimately impress his national coach and get him back into some kind of competitive shape. So it's entirely understandable that he would want to return to Italy should the opportunity arise or at least to another club back in Europe. Even he must realise now that his American experiment has not gone entirely to plan and that it's time to come home.
Beckham has made his desire to return east public in America and fans at LA Galaxy haven't taken to it all too well. Having already alienated himself from his team-mates, he's also made a few enemies in the stands as demonstrated by both the angry confrontation between himself and a group of fans last week and another altercation, this time with a man in an England shirt, ironically. Beckham was fined $1000 (£600) for the first incident and it appears he is fast running out of friends. Maybe he can give Tom Cruise a call for emotional support?
Hollywood buddies aside, it's hard to see how Beckham can continue plying his trade out in the States, with conditions how they are now. He knows the level of football isn't good enough for him and now he has lost the support of the public, he cannot flourish in such a potentially aggressive environment. A host of clubs would be happy to take Beckham on. Milan have stated their desire to see him back with them, Chelsea have been linked due to Beckham's relationship with new boss Carlo Ancelotti and Tottenham and Manchester City have also been named as potential suitors.
Beckham is, as always, not short of options. But, one things for certain, in order to thrive and to make the best of his waning years in the game, he needs to leave LA Galaxy sharpish. One can understand the fans frustration with his desire to leave but they need to understand, he's simply better than their league.
His World Cup dream could still be alive but nevertheless, it promises to be an interesting few weeks for Goldenballs.
The last minute free-kick against Greece in 2001 was about as heart-stopping and dramatic as, well, your heart actually stopping. His emphatic, if slightly badly directed, penalty against Argentina at the 2002 World Cup was one of only a few moments where I've actually leapt from my sofa during a game and 'gone mental'. In either case, it was as if I was celebrating right there and then with Becks himself. It's a unique ability that he and few others possess - as if he picks and chooses his most dramatic moments in concurrence with what his audience would want to see. He is simply one of the finest players to ever play for England.
Hell, he's played for Manchester United, Real Madrid and AC Milan, three of Europe's best and most prestigious clubs. When he eventually retires, it'll be tough for him to look back and lament many aspects of what he did, although once suspects he'll wish he kept his temper in check that night in St Etienne just over ten years ago.
But that's where my approval of him unfortunately ends and there's a multitude of reasons why. In some countries, Beckham is better known for his celebrity image rather than his exploits with a football. 'Brand Beckham' is a commercial juggernaut, a limitless roll call of advertising and sponsorships deals that plasters his face on billboards and magazine covers all over the world. Long ago, Beckham outgrew the restraints of being a simple footballer and branched outside of the sporting bubble and onto the world scene.
His relationship with his pop star wife Victoria is possibly responsible for the archetypal footballer and musician relationship that tabloids and gossip magazines now thrive on. Beckham enjoys global recognition and his every move is covered, written about and photographed.
And it's all a bit much for me. I'm all for the bloke trying to make a bit of money outside of football - if you've a marketable image then why not make best use of it. But it strikes me as too much power for a mere sportsman. The second he is decorated for his celebrity achievements rather than bending a ball into the back of a net, then the football becomes superfluous and we're not just discussing a very good right midfielder, we're discussing a world symbol - an icon for an assembly of industries.
Ever since his move to Los Angeles, where he commands a lucrative salary playing for LA Galaxy, his face is becoming more and more recognisable on the other side of the pond but not exactly for sporting reasons. In the 'soccer-unfirendly' climate in the US, Beckham is known for hobnobbing with movie stars and attending award ceremonies.
The move to America was doubtless fuelled by the lure of money and I'm sure a word or two in his ear from Victoria would have pushed him into signing on the dotted line. The decision to choose substandard Major League Soccer football over the other offers he was considering at the time was difficult to comprehend and contributed to my slight disapproval of him.
Having said all of that, one can't help be impressed by his insatiable quest to regain his England place in time for next summers World Cup. And I suspect he needs to leave LA in order to both make that dream more concrete and for his own well-being. When he's played for England of late, mainly as an impact sub, he's done his job to the best of his ability. Gone may be the energy and pace of his youth but what remains is match winning experience and the ability to play pitch-length passes that many are unable to. He's not an automatic starter anymore and rightly so but he still offers value to the side and that cannot be underestimated.
When Beckham went on loan to Milan last spring, his motives were transparent; the standard of football was infinitely better than in the MLS and a good run of performances would ultimately impress his national coach and get him back into some kind of competitive shape. So it's entirely understandable that he would want to return to Italy should the opportunity arise or at least to another club back in Europe. Even he must realise now that his American experiment has not gone entirely to plan and that it's time to come home.
Beckham has made his desire to return east public in America and fans at LA Galaxy haven't taken to it all too well. Having already alienated himself from his team-mates, he's also made a few enemies in the stands as demonstrated by both the angry confrontation between himself and a group of fans last week and another altercation, this time with a man in an England shirt, ironically. Beckham was fined $1000 (£600) for the first incident and it appears he is fast running out of friends. Maybe he can give Tom Cruise a call for emotional support?
Hollywood buddies aside, it's hard to see how Beckham can continue plying his trade out in the States, with conditions how they are now. He knows the level of football isn't good enough for him and now he has lost the support of the public, he cannot flourish in such a potentially aggressive environment. A host of clubs would be happy to take Beckham on. Milan have stated their desire to see him back with them, Chelsea have been linked due to Beckham's relationship with new boss Carlo Ancelotti and Tottenham and Manchester City have also been named as potential suitors.
Beckham is, as always, not short of options. But, one things for certain, in order to thrive and to make the best of his waning years in the game, he needs to leave LA Galaxy sharpish. One can understand the fans frustration with his desire to leave but they need to understand, he's simply better than their league.
His World Cup dream could still be alive but nevertheless, it promises to be an interesting few weeks for Goldenballs.
24 July 2009
Kevin Pietersen and the rather large void he leaves
Much has been said of Kevin Pietersen ever since he was ruled out of the remaining three Ashes Tests and it seems those that constantly have it in for him are maximising the opportunity to stick the knife in regarding his form.
But, for someone who was apparently batting with all the fluency and cohesion of a blind man with no hands, it's not as if he wasn't scoring runs. Though so clearly hampered by his Achilles injury, KP still accrued 152 runs in four innings this series, at a pretty reasonable average of 38. Lest anyone forget that (brainless dismissal aside) it was his 69 that initially rescued England's first innings at Cardiff and even though he was clearly below his best at Lord's, he still churned out scores of 32 and 44 - hardly embarrassing.
KP's problem is that he sets such staggeringly high standards. Quite simply the most talented English batsman in eons, he walks to the wicket with a sky-scraping level of expectation on his shoulders. It's not necessarily a bad thing; it's likely that his status as England's best player has time and again motivated him to keep producing such vital innings.
But a few scores below fifty and suddenly the knives came out in full force.
Alistair Cook had a similar situation last year, when he was scoring fifties by the bucket load but couldn't buy a century - yet he was declared by the powers that be in the media to be 'out of form'. For the purposes of consistency, I'll say the same thing now that I said then: If these are the scores Pietersen makes when out of form then we should be eternally grateful when things are going better.
The void Pietersen leaves in the England line-up is worryingly vast. Whether he was playing badly or not, the absence of his name on the team sheet is eerily ominous. KP hasn't missed a Test since his debut, ironically, at Lords against Australia in 2005 and whoever is drafted to take his place the batting now looks thin. Pietersen's value was so enormous that in a team where the wicket keeper unusually bats at number six, the middle order still looked firmly resolute. With all due respect to the likely replacement Ian Bell, who on his day is an outstanding batsman, he won't fill fans with confidence in the way that only Pietersen does.
Still, it's best not to wallow or make too big a deal about it. The tourists are taking a different approach, however.
They've already decided to launch a feeble media campaign about their take on the loss of England's best batsman. Aussie bowler Peter Siddle, in his blog for The Wisden Cricketer, has made it clear that Australia couldn't be happier that KP is a goner and also that Bell will likely be taking his place.
Still, Australia are naturally going to be privately buoyed that they won't have to bowl at Pietersen anymore. But gone are the days when they would publicly state their desire to play against an opposition's best player. When Andrew Flintoff was racing to be fit for the 2006/07 Ashes, a plethora of quotes came out from the team saying how desperate they were for Flintoff to take part so they could face the best possible challenge.
I suppose when you start losing your way it puts a different slant on things. It's all well and good trying to appear noble and sporting when you're in a period of sporting impregnability - not 1-0 down in a series you should be cruising. Say what you like about the decline of Australian cricket of late and whether they're still the best side in the world or not; their aura of invincibility both on and off the pitch is disappearing quicker than a Mitchell Johnson wide down the leg side.
So on to Edgbaston, a ground where England normally do the business. If omens from the past are of any use, then they can call upon that victory over the Aussies in '05. England are 1-0 to the good and are playing some effective, if inconsistent, cricket. They should head into the game relishing the chance to exploit some more Australian failings father than fearing the occasion. They should not focus on the loss of Pietersen no matter how much it may affect them.
I wrote previously that England could not win the Ashes without Pietersen in improved form. They're now going to have to find a way to win without him completely. It looks a tall order but the Ashes stirs something unique in English cricketers and I wouldn't write them off completely.
But, for someone who was apparently batting with all the fluency and cohesion of a blind man with no hands, it's not as if he wasn't scoring runs. Though so clearly hampered by his Achilles injury, KP still accrued 152 runs in four innings this series, at a pretty reasonable average of 38. Lest anyone forget that (brainless dismissal aside) it was his 69 that initially rescued England's first innings at Cardiff and even though he was clearly below his best at Lord's, he still churned out scores of 32 and 44 - hardly embarrassing.
KP's problem is that he sets such staggeringly high standards. Quite simply the most talented English batsman in eons, he walks to the wicket with a sky-scraping level of expectation on his shoulders. It's not necessarily a bad thing; it's likely that his status as England's best player has time and again motivated him to keep producing such vital innings.
But a few scores below fifty and suddenly the knives came out in full force.
Alistair Cook had a similar situation last year, when he was scoring fifties by the bucket load but couldn't buy a century - yet he was declared by the powers that be in the media to be 'out of form'. For the purposes of consistency, I'll say the same thing now that I said then: If these are the scores Pietersen makes when out of form then we should be eternally grateful when things are going better.
The void Pietersen leaves in the England line-up is worryingly vast. Whether he was playing badly or not, the absence of his name on the team sheet is eerily ominous. KP hasn't missed a Test since his debut, ironically, at Lords against Australia in 2005 and whoever is drafted to take his place the batting now looks thin. Pietersen's value was so enormous that in a team where the wicket keeper unusually bats at number six, the middle order still looked firmly resolute. With all due respect to the likely replacement Ian Bell, who on his day is an outstanding batsman, he won't fill fans with confidence in the way that only Pietersen does.
Still, it's best not to wallow or make too big a deal about it. The tourists are taking a different approach, however.
They've already decided to launch a feeble media campaign about their take on the loss of England's best batsman. Aussie bowler Peter Siddle, in his blog for The Wisden Cricketer, has made it clear that Australia couldn't be happier that KP is a goner and also that Bell will likely be taking his place.
"It looks like Ian Bell is going to replace him. He played against us for theYes Peter, he hasn't had a lot of success against you. And by 'you', I mean Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Brett Lee. Best get him out at least once before shouting your mouth off. I'm nursing a rapid dislike for Siddle. I'm all for a bit of aggression and bravado on the pitch but Siddle is an international rookie and has about as much Test experience as I do (okay, maybe a game or two more). Might be time to earn a bit of respect for his bowling rather than his on and off field talking.
Lions and we assumed that if anything went wrong batting-wise he would be the
man to come in. He hasn’t had a lot of success against us in the past, and it
was pleasing that we were able to continue that by getting him out first-ball at
Worcester. When you take out a bloke that averages 50 in Test cricket for a
bloke that struggles against you it always makes you happier."
Still, Australia are naturally going to be privately buoyed that they won't have to bowl at Pietersen anymore. But gone are the days when they would publicly state their desire to play against an opposition's best player. When Andrew Flintoff was racing to be fit for the 2006/07 Ashes, a plethora of quotes came out from the team saying how desperate they were for Flintoff to take part so they could face the best possible challenge.
I suppose when you start losing your way it puts a different slant on things. It's all well and good trying to appear noble and sporting when you're in a period of sporting impregnability - not 1-0 down in a series you should be cruising. Say what you like about the decline of Australian cricket of late and whether they're still the best side in the world or not; their aura of invincibility both on and off the pitch is disappearing quicker than a Mitchell Johnson wide down the leg side.
So on to Edgbaston, a ground where England normally do the business. If omens from the past are of any use, then they can call upon that victory over the Aussies in '05. England are 1-0 to the good and are playing some effective, if inconsistent, cricket. They should head into the game relishing the chance to exploit some more Australian failings father than fearing the occasion. They should not focus on the loss of Pietersen no matter how much it may affect them.
I wrote previously that England could not win the Ashes without Pietersen in improved form. They're now going to have to find a way to win without him completely. It looks a tall order but the Ashes stirs something unique in English cricketers and I wouldn't write them off completely.
18 July 2009
Bopara and Pietersen in need of quick repair
Anyone completely mystified by England's Ashes turnaround in performance from their Cardiff nightmare?
You shouldn't be. If the England team was a person, it's middle name would be 'inconsistent'. This is a team that can spend three days hammering South Africa all over Lords before struggling to take three wickets in the last two days. This is a team that can dominate a Test match in India, of all places, for the best part of four days, manage to set a massive total and somehow still lose the game. The negativity and doom-predicting in the press surrounding England's Cardiff performance was premature, a touch foolish and certainly naive.
You shouldn't be. If the England team was a person, it's middle name would be 'inconsistent'. This is a team that can spend three days hammering South Africa all over Lords before struggling to take three wickets in the last two days. This is a team that can dominate a Test match in India, of all places, for the best part of four days, manage to set a massive total and somehow still lose the game. The negativity and doom-predicting in the press surrounding England's Cardiff performance was premature, a touch foolish and certainly naive.
In any eventuality, England have performed extremely credibly in the first three days at Lords - especially so when you consider just how dominant Australia were last week and how strong their record over England is at this grand old ground. England's openers batted with excellent authority and although the middle order weren't able to replicate that success, the tail wagged, just as it did in Wales, and England had a challenging score.
The attack, so maligned in the first Test, did their jobs perfectly this time, led by the irrepressible James Anderson and galvanised by a frighteningly quick Andrew Flintoff. Having confirmed his inevitable retirement from Tests, Flintoff tore in at the Aussies with controlled fury, touching 95 mph at times and resembling the pumped up, hostile Flintoff of '05. All the pacemen settled into their roles nicely with Stuart Broad improving on his poor show last time out (though he was, again, dreadful towards the end of the innings) and Graham Onions slotting into the fourth seamers role with a nagging and accurate line.
England have batted themselves into a match-winning position and should make up for the multitude of failures to convert winning positions from the last year. Lords against South Africa, Chennai against India, Antigua against the West Indies; three times England have lacked the application to put away the opposition when it matters and it's a criticism that will dog Andrew Strauss' captaincy until he sets it right.
Pretty much every department of the team has stepped up in the wake of the disappointment from the first Test - pretty much, at least. There are concerns over two England batsman and the worries were illustrated nicely today in a turgid afternoon session. Technically, Ravi Bopara and Kevin Pietersen are the two best batsmen in the side but the former has looked a touch out of his depth so far in both games while the latter's once formidable batting has looked scratchy and doubt-ridden.
Of course, there are valid explanations for both drops in form. Bopara is playing his first Ashes series and only recently inherited the much coveted number three position. His place is one that inherits great responsibility and requires great focus and ability under pressure - perhaps the reason Ian Bell and Owais Shah never succeeded there? It's understandable for Bopara to have been slightly overwhelmed by the occasion; anyone who thought he would come out and immediately peel off big hundreds would have been delusional.
He will get better eventually - he's too good a batsman to not. The question is how soon will it be? England need their number three to be scoring runs and having a nervous incumbent is undesirable. While it is crucial for Bopara to be given an extended run in the position, how long before that patience runs out? One suspects he just needs a bit of luck and time at the crease. After all, Michael Vaughan's form was severely questioned after four poor innings in the opening two Tests in '05. His fifth innings? 166 at Old Trafford.
Pietersen, aside from his 69 in the first innings at Cardiff, has looked thoroughly out of sorts. It's doubtless that his much documented Achilles injury is inhibiting his normally free-flowing batting and this is turning out to be a major problem, as anyone who witnessed his slow innings today will attest too. The good thing about Bopara and Pietersen's snail paced partnership today was that it gave them both time to bat long and get accustomed to the game, the opposition and themselves. One suspects that it'll do Bopara (27 off 93) more good than harm. Sure, he was dropped and had moments of fortune but it would have been better than a first ball dismissal. Pietersen will have the break between this Test and the next to assess his injury and recuperate - you'd have to say his fitness is crucial to England's chances of victory.
In fact, the fortunes of both these players are fundamental to England's Ashes campaign. Whether they win at Lords or not, they will not be able to triumph in the series with both Pietersen and Bopara out of nick. England need Pietersen, their best batsman, to be at his paramount and if Bopara keeps getting out cheaply, their top order loses vigour. It's possible for both players to bounce back and, whilst Pietersen has the experience to cope, one can only hope that Bopara is not subjected to the predicable media bombardment of criticism.
Until England get these two to play to their potential, England's hopes for the series are grim. As much as we'd like it, we can't rely on James Anderson with the bat for much longer.
Meanwhile, Simon Hughes has written an excellent piece for The Telegraph on the plight of Pietersen that's definately worthy of your attention and Oliver Brett has penned his thoughts on Bopara in his BBC Sport column.
Meanwhile, Simon Hughes has written an excellent piece for The Telegraph on the plight of Pietersen that's definately worthy of your attention and Oliver Brett has penned his thoughts on Bopara in his BBC Sport column.
13 July 2009
Ponting's legacy in danger of being tarnished
Ricky Ponting - a sublime batsman he may be but recent events and incidents from the past show him to have somewhat sieve-like memory and to be a player with a questionable ethical base.
The time wasting accusation that he childishly levelled at England in the wake of yesterday's thrilling draw really does takes the cake. Ponting, no doubt internally enraged at his team's inability to force the victory that they should have, chose to call into question England's sportsmanship after crucial seconds were eaten up by the involvement of England's physio and 12th man.
They appeared on the pitch in the 102nd and 103rd overs, despite little indication that James Anderson and Monty Panesar had called upon their services. There was nothing illegal in England's behaviour, even if it is quite obvious that the intention was for a little stalling. Whether they were right to do it or not, Ponting, inevitably, chose to bring his grievances to light of the media, no doubt in the hope that the moral high ground would firmly be his.
This is the same Ponting that was earlier in the day trying to con the umpire into giving a catch off England hero Paul Collingwood. As an LBW appeal was rejected, Ponting went haring off like a petulant child in the direction of the umpire, claiming that the ball had taken the edge of Collingwood's bat and had been caught by one of his fielders. Correctly, and thankfully, the officials weren't interested.
Ponting has a chequered past when it comes to sportsmanship - it's hard to envisage him being called upon to deliver the MCC's annual Spirit of Cricket lecture as former team mate Adam Gilchrist did last month. His expletive laden outburst after being run out by sub fielder Gary Pratt during the 2005 Ashes is now famous. Ponting was throwing a considerable amount of toys out of the pram and the incident only enhanced his reputation as a sore loser.
For the Australian captain to critique the gamesmanship of an opposition side smacks of incredible hypocrisy. The colossal row in with the Indians in 2008 is a sorry chapter in Ponting's history. On an incredible final day in Sydney, controversy followed him around; he was castigated for raising his finger in the direction of the umpire, as if to give the batsman out, when Michael Clarke took a disputed catch off Sourav Ganguly. He was also slammed in several quarters for reporting to the match officials his take on the Harbhajan Singh/Andrew Symonds race row.
Yesterday's Cardiff incident has illuminated Ponting's ability to whinge when things don't go his own way. It's natural - when your team is on top of the world for so long and things start going wrong, there's bound to be some residing animosity. But Ponting's antics are beginning to make him look more and more foolish. It'll be a crying shame for fans of the game if he ends up being remembered for his lack of sportsmanship rather than his phenomenal batting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a side note, there's been several striking similarities drawn between yesterday's match and famous drawn game at Old Trafford in 2005. And the matches are remarkably alike, especially in terms of great tension and entertainment. There were great individual innings played on both days; Ponting's 156 saved the game for Australia in '05 whereas Paul Collingwood's superb 74 was the glue with which England's batting was held together in Wales.
But, there is one significant difference. Ponting, in his post match interview, asserted that there would probably be some 'celebrating and jumping up and down' in the England dressing room. Perhaps, he was remembering the euphoric nature of Australia's celebrations back in Manchester.
Yet, upon Anderson blocking the last ball of the game, the England balcony offered a round of generous, standing applause for the two batsman and the whole team wore the look of extreme relief. There was precious little fist-pumping or back slapping - England realised that they had been extremely lucky to escape the game and that to have wildly celebrated would have been a tad farcical.
England may not be on a par with the Australian's when it comes playing the game but in the humility stakes, they might just have the edge. If only that meant a series victory.
The time wasting accusation that he childishly levelled at England in the wake of yesterday's thrilling draw really does takes the cake. Ponting, no doubt internally enraged at his team's inability to force the victory that they should have, chose to call into question England's sportsmanship after crucial seconds were eaten up by the involvement of England's physio and 12th man.
They appeared on the pitch in the 102nd and 103rd overs, despite little indication that James Anderson and Monty Panesar had called upon their services. There was nothing illegal in England's behaviour, even if it is quite obvious that the intention was for a little stalling. Whether they were right to do it or not, Ponting, inevitably, chose to bring his grievances to light of the media, no doubt in the hope that the moral high ground would firmly be his.
"I'm not sure what the physio was doing out there. I didn't see anyone call
for the physio to come out. As far as I'm concerned, it was pretty ordinary,
really. But they can play whatever way they want to play. We came to play by the
rules and the spirit of the game. A few guys were questioning the umpires, a few
guys were questioning the 12th man, but it's not the 12th man's fault. Someone
from upstairs was sending him out there. That's where it needs to be taken up.
We had to get them off as quick as we could and get a couple more overs. I was
unhappy with it, but it lasted a couple of minutes, and we got them off the
ground. I'm sure others will be taking it up with the England hierarchy, as
they should."
This is the same Ponting that was earlier in the day trying to con the umpire into giving a catch off England hero Paul Collingwood. As an LBW appeal was rejected, Ponting went haring off like a petulant child in the direction of the umpire, claiming that the ball had taken the edge of Collingwood's bat and had been caught by one of his fielders. Correctly, and thankfully, the officials weren't interested.
Ponting has a chequered past when it comes to sportsmanship - it's hard to envisage him being called upon to deliver the MCC's annual Spirit of Cricket lecture as former team mate Adam Gilchrist did last month. His expletive laden outburst after being run out by sub fielder Gary Pratt during the 2005 Ashes is now famous. Ponting was throwing a considerable amount of toys out of the pram and the incident only enhanced his reputation as a sore loser.
For the Australian captain to critique the gamesmanship of an opposition side smacks of incredible hypocrisy. The colossal row in with the Indians in 2008 is a sorry chapter in Ponting's history. On an incredible final day in Sydney, controversy followed him around; he was castigated for raising his finger in the direction of the umpire, as if to give the batsman out, when Michael Clarke took a disputed catch off Sourav Ganguly. He was also slammed in several quarters for reporting to the match officials his take on the Harbhajan Singh/Andrew Symonds race row.
Yesterday's Cardiff incident has illuminated Ponting's ability to whinge when things don't go his own way. It's natural - when your team is on top of the world for so long and things start going wrong, there's bound to be some residing animosity. But Ponting's antics are beginning to make him look more and more foolish. It'll be a crying shame for fans of the game if he ends up being remembered for his lack of sportsmanship rather than his phenomenal batting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a side note, there's been several striking similarities drawn between yesterday's match and famous drawn game at Old Trafford in 2005. And the matches are remarkably alike, especially in terms of great tension and entertainment. There were great individual innings played on both days; Ponting's 156 saved the game for Australia in '05 whereas Paul Collingwood's superb 74 was the glue with which England's batting was held together in Wales.
But, there is one significant difference. Ponting, in his post match interview, asserted that there would probably be some 'celebrating and jumping up and down' in the England dressing room. Perhaps, he was remembering the euphoric nature of Australia's celebrations back in Manchester.
Yet, upon Anderson blocking the last ball of the game, the England balcony offered a round of generous, standing applause for the two batsman and the whole team wore the look of extreme relief. There was precious little fist-pumping or back slapping - England realised that they had been extremely lucky to escape the game and that to have wildly celebrated would have been a tad farcical.
England may not be on a par with the Australian's when it comes playing the game but in the humility stakes, they might just have the edge. If only that meant a series victory.
The Cardiff climax - as told by the BBC's newest (possible) recruit
Yesterday was a frenetic day to say the least - my presence at Wembley Stadium to watch Oasis perform a scintillating set meant that I missed the heart stopping First Test finale at Cardiff. In hindsight, this was perhaps a relief. As James Anderson and Monty Panesar dug in spectacularly to deny the Australians a deserved victory, my nerves would have been torn to shreds.
Still, as it happens, I was kept informed of events through the medium of text messages. A good friend, who just so happens to be the author of Transfer Watch, kept me right on the edge of my seat with his excellent 'Twitter style' updates on what was happening as the overs and the minutes counted down slowly in the south of Wales.
Test Match Special have their own 'Twitter-er' in the form of Alison Mitchell. But should they ever need a replacement or a new over-by-over web commentator, they need to get this man in. Below are the updates he sent us, in chronological order, as England, against all odds, saved the match. Top drawer, son.
4.39 pm - 'Colly is battling away. Siddle is all over Swanner, battering him. 32 overs to hang on.'
5.27 pm - '20 overs left, 24 behind, new ball came in. 20 behind, Colly hit a four.'
5.30 pm - 'It's so tense, Johnson is not bowling well though. 19 left, Swann has gone lbw.'
6.00 pm - '7 behind, 12 overs to go, Jimmy and Colly holding on. You lose two overs for the change over if we set them a total...'
6.03 pm - 'Colly is gone, caught at gully. We're done for basically. Monty is in.'
6.09 pm - '10 left, 4 behind, Siddle is bowling at Monty. He just kept one out.'
6.13 pm - 'I don't know who Monty thinks he is but he just took a single and kept the strike. 9 left.'
6.19 pm - 'We're five ahead! 7 overs left. Take two away. Game on if Monty can hang in there.'
6.27 pm - 'Five overs to go, six ahead. Anderson on strike. We need to get to 6.40 still in!'
6.31 pm - 'Monty hits a four!'
6.37 pm - 'Two overs left, less than five minutes to play! 12 ahead!'
6.40 pm - 'Just about time for the last over! Anderson on strike. Madness! Hauritz is bowling.'
6.43 pm - 'We've bloody done it! We've snatched mediocrity from the jaws of defeat! Monty is our king! Ponting looks like a right muggy ****! Yes!'
6.47 pm - 'Just got a text from TMS, the job's mine if I want it. Unbelievable end! Brilliant.'
BBC, with all due respect to your current employees, you need this man on your staff. He'll even cut down on the foul language if you ask nicely. See to it.
Still, as it happens, I was kept informed of events through the medium of text messages. A good friend, who just so happens to be the author of Transfer Watch, kept me right on the edge of my seat with his excellent 'Twitter style' updates on what was happening as the overs and the minutes counted down slowly in the south of Wales.
Test Match Special have their own 'Twitter-er' in the form of Alison Mitchell. But should they ever need a replacement or a new over-by-over web commentator, they need to get this man in. Below are the updates he sent us, in chronological order, as England, against all odds, saved the match. Top drawer, son.
4.39 pm - 'Colly is battling away. Siddle is all over Swanner, battering him. 32 overs to hang on.'
5.27 pm - '20 overs left, 24 behind, new ball came in. 20 behind, Colly hit a four.'
5.30 pm - 'It's so tense, Johnson is not bowling well though. 19 left, Swann has gone lbw.'
6.00 pm - '7 behind, 12 overs to go, Jimmy and Colly holding on. You lose two overs for the change over if we set them a total...'
6.03 pm - 'Colly is gone, caught at gully. We're done for basically. Monty is in.'
6.09 pm - '10 left, 4 behind, Siddle is bowling at Monty. He just kept one out.'
6.13 pm - 'I don't know who Monty thinks he is but he just took a single and kept the strike. 9 left.'
6.19 pm - 'We're five ahead! 7 overs left. Take two away. Game on if Monty can hang in there.'
6.27 pm - 'Five overs to go, six ahead. Anderson on strike. We need to get to 6.40 still in!'
6.31 pm - 'Monty hits a four!'
6.37 pm - 'Two overs left, less than five minutes to play! 12 ahead!'
6.40 pm - 'Just about time for the last over! Anderson on strike. Madness! Hauritz is bowling.'
6.43 pm - 'We've bloody done it! We've snatched mediocrity from the jaws of defeat! Monty is our king! Ponting looks like a right muggy ****! Yes!'
6.47 pm - 'Just got a text from TMS, the job's mine if I want it. Unbelievable end! Brilliant.'
BBC, with all due respect to your current employees, you need this man on your staff. He'll even cut down on the foul language if you ask nicely. See to it.
5 July 2009
An open letter to the England selectors
To Geoff Miller, Ashley Giles, James Whitaker, Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss,
I've always been a big fan of you guys. Don't get me wrong; that's not to say I've agreed with all of your selectorial decisions but the majority of the time you're getting it spot on. If only they'd start repaying your faith in them, eh?
This Ashes business is a great time for cricket in this country. Success or at least a good fight and there could be a boom not seen since those heady days in 2005. People in this country are fickle when it comes to sport. Vis-รก-vis successful England equals public interest. Which we all know effectively means more money. Since the ECB is these days heavily reliant on economical income (shouldn't have got into bed with that Stanford bloke!), you'd say that this series represents a pretty big opportunity for English cricket.
As selectors, you gentlemen have a big responsibility for that, although ultimately the burden will fall on the players. Still, the choices you make will have a significant impact on the coming summer. Like I mentioned before, you generally get it correct. Picking Rashid for the World Twenty20? Inspired. Promoting Bopara up to number three against the Windies? A masterstroke. We'll discreetly skirt past that Pattinson nonsense from last year - everyone makes mistakes.
And, so to your most recent piece of work: the 13 man squad for the First Test at Cardiff on Wednesday. And, I have to say I think you've more or less done a good a job. I'm all for the squad consistency argument and I think that since Andy Flower took over, team selection has given players the best possible chance to settle into their positions.
I think the decision to leave out Steve Harmison is fully justified, although I'm a big fan of the Durham paceman. Yes, he roughed up the Australians at Worcester but we all know what he's like - one session he's a lethal Curtly Ambrose, the next he's a disinterested Saj Mahmood. He'll come to fruition at some point in the series (Edgbaston or The Oval, perhaps?) but I'm sure in your infinite wisdom that you know that already.
I've previously advocated the inclusion of Adil Rashid over Monty Panesar but again, I can see your train of thought. Panesar is the more experienced and to have played Rashid would surely be throwing him into the deepest end possible. Still, this brings me onto the point of this letter.
I know the media are playing up the notion that the pitch at the Swalec Stadium is going to provide more spin than Alistair Campbell and it must be tempting to pair up Graeme Swann and Panesar in tandem. But I implore you to select Graham Onions instead and play four seamers. And, lest you question, I have my reasons.
I'm not Panesar's biggest fan, admittedly. I find his childish appealing to be, well, childish and the monotony and general uniformity of his bowling leaves me distinctively underwhelmed. The prospect of him churning out a 42 over spell leaving him with 2-140 as the Aussies pile up 560 in the first innings is not one I want to be realising come this week. And, it's not as if the conditions will definitely make him a more potent bowler. Remember that last innings in Chennai last December? Or how about Colombo the year before that? Ideal spinning conditions both times and precious little from Monty.
I'm not saying for a second that Monty's England hurrah is over, not by a long shot. But I question whether he's ready to face the Australians in this current stage of his career.
Onions is untested and inexperienced, yes. It's all well and good doing it at county level and against a shockingly poor West Indies side - the Australians are a different prospect althogether. But the impact he made a few months ago on debut was indicative of his talent. It wasn't just a flash in the pan (excuse the pun). I feel that he has the resources to make life difficult for the tourists and I'd much rather seen him play than Panesar because of the balanced nature his inclusion would bring to the attack.
Consider this: Anderson - swings it late both ways and at high pace. Broad - useful seam movement and can provide pace and bounce with his additional height. Flintoff - raw pace, plus an expert at utilising reverse swing. Swann - lethal to left-handers, bowls an attacking line to right-handers and can vary his pace intelligently. Add Onions, with his wicket-to-wicket style bowling and nagging accuracy and you have the make-up of a fine attack.
I think one spinner will be enough. Swann has shown his capability to flourish as a lone spinner and will be relishing the challenge. I genuinely feel that Panesar doesn't have the tools necessary to really threaten and if the Aussies get set then he isn't the bowler to break their rhythm.
I know you'll make the right call come Wednesday morning and whichever way you decide to go you'll, as always, have my full support. But do ensure that you consider every variable when choosing and don't be swayed by Panesar's high-fiving, back-slapping 3-10 against Warwickshire - tougher challenges await. Best of luck, chaps.
Regards,
The Last Word
I've always been a big fan of you guys. Don't get me wrong; that's not to say I've agreed with all of your selectorial decisions but the majority of the time you're getting it spot on. If only they'd start repaying your faith in them, eh?
This Ashes business is a great time for cricket in this country. Success or at least a good fight and there could be a boom not seen since those heady days in 2005. People in this country are fickle when it comes to sport. Vis-รก-vis successful England equals public interest. Which we all know effectively means more money. Since the ECB is these days heavily reliant on economical income (shouldn't have got into bed with that Stanford bloke!), you'd say that this series represents a pretty big opportunity for English cricket.
As selectors, you gentlemen have a big responsibility for that, although ultimately the burden will fall on the players. Still, the choices you make will have a significant impact on the coming summer. Like I mentioned before, you generally get it correct. Picking Rashid for the World Twenty20? Inspired. Promoting Bopara up to number three against the Windies? A masterstroke. We'll discreetly skirt past that Pattinson nonsense from last year - everyone makes mistakes.
And, so to your most recent piece of work: the 13 man squad for the First Test at Cardiff on Wednesday. And, I have to say I think you've more or less done a good a job. I'm all for the squad consistency argument and I think that since Andy Flower took over, team selection has given players the best possible chance to settle into their positions.
I think the decision to leave out Steve Harmison is fully justified, although I'm a big fan of the Durham paceman. Yes, he roughed up the Australians at Worcester but we all know what he's like - one session he's a lethal Curtly Ambrose, the next he's a disinterested Saj Mahmood. He'll come to fruition at some point in the series (Edgbaston or The Oval, perhaps?) but I'm sure in your infinite wisdom that you know that already.
I've previously advocated the inclusion of Adil Rashid over Monty Panesar but again, I can see your train of thought. Panesar is the more experienced and to have played Rashid would surely be throwing him into the deepest end possible. Still, this brings me onto the point of this letter.
I know the media are playing up the notion that the pitch at the Swalec Stadium is going to provide more spin than Alistair Campbell and it must be tempting to pair up Graeme Swann and Panesar in tandem. But I implore you to select Graham Onions instead and play four seamers. And, lest you question, I have my reasons.
I'm not Panesar's biggest fan, admittedly. I find his childish appealing to be, well, childish and the monotony and general uniformity of his bowling leaves me distinctively underwhelmed. The prospect of him churning out a 42 over spell leaving him with 2-140 as the Aussies pile up 560 in the first innings is not one I want to be realising come this week. And, it's not as if the conditions will definitely make him a more potent bowler. Remember that last innings in Chennai last December? Or how about Colombo the year before that? Ideal spinning conditions both times and precious little from Monty.
I'm not saying for a second that Monty's England hurrah is over, not by a long shot. But I question whether he's ready to face the Australians in this current stage of his career.
Onions is untested and inexperienced, yes. It's all well and good doing it at county level and against a shockingly poor West Indies side - the Australians are a different prospect althogether. But the impact he made a few months ago on debut was indicative of his talent. It wasn't just a flash in the pan (excuse the pun). I feel that he has the resources to make life difficult for the tourists and I'd much rather seen him play than Panesar because of the balanced nature his inclusion would bring to the attack.
Consider this: Anderson - swings it late both ways and at high pace. Broad - useful seam movement and can provide pace and bounce with his additional height. Flintoff - raw pace, plus an expert at utilising reverse swing. Swann - lethal to left-handers, bowls an attacking line to right-handers and can vary his pace intelligently. Add Onions, with his wicket-to-wicket style bowling and nagging accuracy and you have the make-up of a fine attack.
I think one spinner will be enough. Swann has shown his capability to flourish as a lone spinner and will be relishing the challenge. I genuinely feel that Panesar doesn't have the tools necessary to really threaten and if the Aussies get set then he isn't the bowler to break their rhythm.
I know you'll make the right call come Wednesday morning and whichever way you decide to go you'll, as always, have my full support. But do ensure that you consider every variable when choosing and don't be swayed by Panesar's high-fiving, back-slapping 3-10 against Warwickshire - tougher challenges await. Best of luck, chaps.
Regards,
The Last Word
The hidden meaning behind Peter De Villiers' comments
De Villiers-gate. Like it? It's the term I've chosen to categorise the whole Schalk Burger eye gouging affair from the Second Test in Pretoria. Let's recap quickly: South African Burger was banned for eight weeks after it was judged that he tried to gouge the eyes of Lions winger Luke Fitzgerald. Video replays provide damning evidence against the flanker and everyone from Lions centre Brian O'Driscoll to former coach Sir Clive Woodward has had their say on the matter.
As has South African coach Peter De Villiers. Eyebrows were most definitely raised when De Villers launched an impassioned defence of his player - his 'it's rugby, not ballet' comments are now certain to be immortalised in the game for the next few years at least. His point was that rugby is a contact sport, perhaps more than any other, and that a little rough play is part and parcel of the game.
Putting my diplomatic tie on for a second, it is possible to see De Villiers' point of view. Having witnessed his side go 2-0 up the series and with the superior, 'we're morally better than you' attitude of the British media, De Villiers may have been wound up by the stinging criticism of his player. It's symptomatic of the media in this country to seize upon a controversial incident in the wake of a sporting defeat. Perhaps it speaks volumes for our inability to accept defeat - either way, that's our problem.
Having said that, De Villiers' comments were ridiculously out of line. While the replays are hardly definitive, there is more than enough evidence to suggest Burger is guilty. Contact sport or not, eye gouging can have no possible place in modern rugby. De Villiers' assertion that Burger was not capable of such an offence is understandable for a coach wanting to defend his man but the heat of battle can force players to do injudicious things.
One thing strikes me, however, and it's a point I haven't yet seen in the popular press. Whether he was right or not, De Villiers' comments have had a profound effect on events. By creating such a media storm, he has deflected attention away from Burger himself. He may have been controversial in his words but he has ensured that the majority of the criticism will now focus on him - at least until the furore dies down.
It's a classic case of excellent man management and demonstrates De Villiers' fine ability as a coach. As much as I hate to praise the South African coach in light of what has happened, I'm betting Burger is profoundly grateful to his boss for averting the media spotlight away from him. If only he hadn't seen the need to go for poor Fitzgerald's eyes, there'd be no need for any of it.
Meanwhile, The Telegraph have taken matters into their own hands with an open letter to De Villiers himself - well worth a read.
As has South African coach Peter De Villiers. Eyebrows were most definitely raised when De Villers launched an impassioned defence of his player - his 'it's rugby, not ballet' comments are now certain to be immortalised in the game for the next few years at least. His point was that rugby is a contact sport, perhaps more than any other, and that a little rough play is part and parcel of the game.
Putting my diplomatic tie on for a second, it is possible to see De Villiers' point of view. Having witnessed his side go 2-0 up the series and with the superior, 'we're morally better than you' attitude of the British media, De Villiers may have been wound up by the stinging criticism of his player. It's symptomatic of the media in this country to seize upon a controversial incident in the wake of a sporting defeat. Perhaps it speaks volumes for our inability to accept defeat - either way, that's our problem.
Having said that, De Villiers' comments were ridiculously out of line. While the replays are hardly definitive, there is more than enough evidence to suggest Burger is guilty. Contact sport or not, eye gouging can have no possible place in modern rugby. De Villiers' assertion that Burger was not capable of such an offence is understandable for a coach wanting to defend his man but the heat of battle can force players to do injudicious things.
One thing strikes me, however, and it's a point I haven't yet seen in the popular press. Whether he was right or not, De Villiers' comments have had a profound effect on events. By creating such a media storm, he has deflected attention away from Burger himself. He may have been controversial in his words but he has ensured that the majority of the criticism will now focus on him - at least until the furore dies down.
It's a classic case of excellent man management and demonstrates De Villiers' fine ability as a coach. As much as I hate to praise the South African coach in light of what has happened, I'm betting Burger is profoundly grateful to his boss for averting the media spotlight away from him. If only he hadn't seen the need to go for poor Fitzgerald's eyes, there'd be no need for any of it.
Meanwhile, The Telegraph have taken matters into their own hands with an open letter to De Villiers himself - well worth a read.
4 July 2009
Procrastination
As a soon-to-be third year student, the dreaded 'D' word is looming like a large cloud over my sun-filled summer - the 'D' word being, of course, dissertation. Having been told to research and come up with a proposal over said summer break, I've started scouring the web looking for media blogs and journals, anything that may give me a glimmer of inspiration.
I'll cut to the chase; during my searching, and please don't ask me how, I found Wordle. It's relevance to what I was actually doing is, shall we say, miniscule. But it gave me great pleasure in an otherwise prolonged affair. Here's their artistic take on words found on my blog, with the large words being the ones more consistently used. Click here for a better full screen image.
I'll cut to the chase; during my searching, and please don't ask me how, I found Wordle. It's relevance to what I was actually doing is, shall we say, miniscule. But it gave me great pleasure in an otherwise prolonged affair. Here's their artistic take on words found on my blog, with the large words being the ones more consistently used. Click here for a better full screen image.
Cool? I think so. Dissertation study will continue tomorrow very soon.
"There was a time ages ago where England were unbeatable at cricket."
Five days. Just five days are left until that first Ashes ball in Cardiff, barring a biblical downpour on said first day. In many ways, it's a crying shame. The start of the Ashes ultimately coincides with the end of all the waiting and build-up - the most enjoyable part of the whole shebang.
With that in mind, The Guardian have taken to providing their online users with a collection of YouTube videos all focused on the Ashes. The best of which is an animated Aussie-centric history of the old rivalry, created just before the series Down Under a few years back. It's bloody hilarious. I felt compelled to share it.
Five days to go.
With that in mind, The Guardian have taken to providing their online users with a collection of YouTube videos all focused on the Ashes. The best of which is an animated Aussie-centric history of the old rivalry, created just before the series Down Under a few years back. It's bloody hilarious. I felt compelled to share it.
Five days to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
