Thoughts while watching a couple of Russians dancing around in fake plants to the sounds of Didgeridoos...
Eddie Maguire may have gotten in trouble for making fun of figure skaters, but he incessant ranting during the snowcross made one thing perfectly clear to me: most commentators at a niche sporting event like the Winter Olympics are just there to avoid silence. They don't know enough about the sport, so it sounds like someone doing a race call, and little else.
Why do we have a Winter Olympics anyway? Imagine if the real Olympics was just "summer" sports?
"That was great action from the sandcastle making finals. Coming up later tonight, beach volleyball as the Brazillians take on our Aussie girls, but first the Surf Lifesaving preliminary rounds, after this break."
And another thing ... it seems the great majority of sports are judged. Doesn't that sort of make them pseudo-sports? Figure skating, ski jumping, moguls, aerials, half-pipe & ice dancing all rely on judges viewing the contest and handing out a score to determine who wins.
Sorry guys, but in a real sport, you either go faster, jump or throw something further or higher, lift a greater weight, put something in a goal more often, hit a target more often, or beat the crap out of someone else. These are real sports.
While I agree that these pseudo-sports have a significant physical component, the judging rules it for me.
However, both versions of the Olympics are the only places where one can see athletes as varied as figure skaters and ice hockey players competing at the same event. Yeah, I said it.
Recently added to the list of things that are offensive: being a ridiculous looking Russian couple on skates.
Recently removed from the list of things that are harmless fun: luge.
Least envied body part at the Winter Olympics: Moguls competitor's knees. Second least envied: aerial's competitor's head.
When it is all said and done, the Biathlon is my favourite Winter sport invented by the Nazis.
Winner of the Martin Vinnecombe Award for Australian (!) Athlete most unhappy at winning a Olympic Silver Medal: Dale Begg-Smith.
And finally, does anyone remember what the Winter Olympics were like before they became the Winter X Games? Me neither, but it has something to do with Eddie The Eagle and Katarina Witt.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Not in the Olympic Spirit
The Australian two-person female Bobsled team will compete at the Olympic Winter Games starting on Saturday, Australian time. I'm sure the ladies involved are very happy, and I'm also sure the Irish team are happy that the Aussies have been included as an extra team, and not at the exclusion of the Irish.
But I'm not. Not because I don't care about winter sports, or because the Court of Arbitration for Sport was required to make a ruling in regard to this matter. No, I'm unhappy because I think that the people involved haven't truly embraced the Olympic Spirit.
The rules with regard to bobsledding at the Olympics state that one team from both Asia and Oceania are entitled to compete, as well as the best eighteen performing bobsled teams. Australia argued successfully they were entitled to the Oceania spot in the competition. I'm sure many Olympic events would have similar rules allowing competitors who could not qualify, but come from weak areas for the sport, to attend and compete at the Olympics.
However, weren't these rules created to ensure teams that struggle to compete at the Olympics can? While Australia are a minnow when it comes to bobsledding, that is certainly not the case when it comes to the Olympics overall.
Australia have never had a problem sending a conventially-qualified team to any Olympics. We've won gold medals at the last three Winter Olympic Games. We've competed in 16 Winter Olympic Games. We've won 438 Olympic Medals overall.
These spots were created so people like Eric Moussambani could compete at the Olympics. He's from Equatorial Guinea, a nation that has never won an Olympic medal, and in all likelihood, never will. Hardly anyone from Equatorial Guinea would compete at the Olympics if not for these spots.
Sorry if I'm not terribly concerned by a couple of Aussies missing out on an opportunity to finish in the last two in an Olympic Event. It's not in the spirit in which these rules were created, and not in the spirit of the Olympics.
But I'm not. Not because I don't care about winter sports, or because the Court of Arbitration for Sport was required to make a ruling in regard to this matter. No, I'm unhappy because I think that the people involved haven't truly embraced the Olympic Spirit.
The rules with regard to bobsledding at the Olympics state that one team from both Asia and Oceania are entitled to compete, as well as the best eighteen performing bobsled teams. Australia argued successfully they were entitled to the Oceania spot in the competition. I'm sure many Olympic events would have similar rules allowing competitors who could not qualify, but come from weak areas for the sport, to attend and compete at the Olympics.
However, weren't these rules created to ensure teams that struggle to compete at the Olympics can? While Australia are a minnow when it comes to bobsledding, that is certainly not the case when it comes to the Olympics overall.
Australia have never had a problem sending a conventially-qualified team to any Olympics. We've won gold medals at the last three Winter Olympic Games. We've competed in 16 Winter Olympic Games. We've won 438 Olympic Medals overall.
These spots were created so people like Eric Moussambani could compete at the Olympics. He's from Equatorial Guinea, a nation that has never won an Olympic medal, and in all likelihood, never will. Hardly anyone from Equatorial Guinea would compete at the Olympics if not for these spots.
Sorry if I'm not terribly concerned by a couple of Aussies missing out on an opportunity to finish in the last two in an Olympic Event. It's not in the spirit in which these rules were created, and not in the spirit of the Olympics.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Religion and Sport
Tim Tebow is a champion quarterback for the University of Florida football team. He's a interesting case from a sporting point of view, because many argue his skill set isn't easily transferable to the professional game, the NFL.
He's also a devout Christian. So devout, he writes Bible verses on the black stickers he wears under his eyes. And he's about to cause some controversy in the USA.
Tebow and his mother will star in an ad due to run during the Superbowl on CBS on Sunday evening US time, which will detail his personal story. Tebow's mother suffered complications with her pregnancy, was advised to abort the child that became Tim, and went contrary to that advice and carried the child to term.
The ad will advocate a strong pro-life position, but it is the placement of a major sporting star at the centre of perhaps the most contentious political and moral issue facing the USA today, during the most popular sporting and television event of the US calendar, that makes this all the more interesting.
One could argue that this sort of thing could only happen in America. Sports stars routinely thank God for intervening and helping them make a major impact on the sporting field.
The fact is this simply cannot be the case. God is not picking favourites in a mere sporting contest - if he did, the sentimental favourite would always win.
In Australia, we've always been a bit more muted in this regard. Matthew Hayden copped some flack when he crossed himself whenever he scored a century. Shaun Hart mentioned "his Lord and Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ" when he won the Norm Smith Medal, and Gary Ablett did a similar thing.
The difference between Hayden, Hart & Ablett's utterances and some of the utterances that occur on the other side of the Pacific is the Australians were merely thanking God for making their performances possible. That's not the same as making the performances happen, or altering that ethereal element we know as luck to favour one side over another.
Tebow is crossing another line again - he is proselytising. He is doing so in a time and a culture where the idea that God is intervening in the everyday lives, and in particular the politics, of people, is becoming more prevelent. That Tebow feels the impulse to make the sporting field an arena for publicising certain extracts from the Bible demonstrates how strongly he feels, but it also makes intensifies the idea that all sports people are role models.
This may lead to some thinking Tebow is some sort of expert on this matter. He's a professional athlete; a "jock" if you will. He's not a theologian, or even ordained. But many, many young people would look up to him, certainly more young people than would a famous evangelist or Archbishop.
I, for one, hope we don't ever go down this road in Australia, and this opinion comes from a church going Catholic. God, whatever God is, doesn't care about recreational pastimes such as sport, even if they are careers for many people. I don't like playing the perspective card when it comes to sport, but this blows sport's importance out of all proportion.
I have a very strong view that religious belief is something that is very personal: a covenant between a person and God. Lord knows I've looked to the heavens and implored God's intervention in a sporting contest, but those have been moments of illogical weakness, brought about by the performance of a beloved sporting team. To use the sporting field as a platform for religious conversion is something that is inappropriate and potentially dangerous, and also doesn't sit well in a pluralist, multicultural society. The less of this, the better.
He's also a devout Christian. So devout, he writes Bible verses on the black stickers he wears under his eyes. And he's about to cause some controversy in the USA.
Tebow and his mother will star in an ad due to run during the Superbowl on CBS on Sunday evening US time, which will detail his personal story. Tebow's mother suffered complications with her pregnancy, was advised to abort the child that became Tim, and went contrary to that advice and carried the child to term.
The ad will advocate a strong pro-life position, but it is the placement of a major sporting star at the centre of perhaps the most contentious political and moral issue facing the USA today, during the most popular sporting and television event of the US calendar, that makes this all the more interesting.
One could argue that this sort of thing could only happen in America. Sports stars routinely thank God for intervening and helping them make a major impact on the sporting field.
The fact is this simply cannot be the case. God is not picking favourites in a mere sporting contest - if he did, the sentimental favourite would always win.
In Australia, we've always been a bit more muted in this regard. Matthew Hayden copped some flack when he crossed himself whenever he scored a century. Shaun Hart mentioned "his Lord and Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ" when he won the Norm Smith Medal, and Gary Ablett did a similar thing.
The difference between Hayden, Hart & Ablett's utterances and some of the utterances that occur on the other side of the Pacific is the Australians were merely thanking God for making their performances possible. That's not the same as making the performances happen, or altering that ethereal element we know as luck to favour one side over another.
Tebow is crossing another line again - he is proselytising. He is doing so in a time and a culture where the idea that God is intervening in the everyday lives, and in particular the politics, of people, is becoming more prevelent. That Tebow feels the impulse to make the sporting field an arena for publicising certain extracts from the Bible demonstrates how strongly he feels, but it also makes intensifies the idea that all sports people are role models.
This may lead to some thinking Tebow is some sort of expert on this matter. He's a professional athlete; a "jock" if you will. He's not a theologian, or even ordained. But many, many young people would look up to him, certainly more young people than would a famous evangelist or Archbishop.
I, for one, hope we don't ever go down this road in Australia, and this opinion comes from a church going Catholic. God, whatever God is, doesn't care about recreational pastimes such as sport, even if they are careers for many people. I don't like playing the perspective card when it comes to sport, but this blows sport's importance out of all proportion.
I have a very strong view that religious belief is something that is very personal: a covenant between a person and God. Lord knows I've looked to the heavens and implored God's intervention in a sporting contest, but those have been moments of illogical weakness, brought about by the performance of a beloved sporting team. To use the sporting field as a platform for religious conversion is something that is inappropriate and potentially dangerous, and also doesn't sit well in a pluralist, multicultural society. The less of this, the better.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
My Australia Day thoughts
I did something yesterday I can never really remember doing.
I did something celebratory on Australia Day.
Normally, I usually just sit at home and watch Australia play someone at cricket, occasionally flicking over to the tennis. If the day is a Monday, it may coincide with the Championship Games in the NFL. In short, I'd probably give the answer about Australia Day that the little kid in the BigPond ads does.
However, yesterday I went to one of Rose's school chums' places for a barbeque and some fun in her pool. Despite all attendees being required to wear Aussie Flag temporary tattoos, I somehow got out of that. And Skye's family house is a testament to pretty much all that is good about Australia: her father is caucasian, probably of British heritage, while her mother is Muslim. All over the house are posters promoting Australian flora and fauna, a very kitsch "Advance Australia" rug in the hall way, pool and barbeque out the back. It was, on all accounts, a very good day.
I'm not really comfortable with overt displays of patriotism. While I deplore the word "jingoism", I like to think that Australia has always embraced an understated patrotism, one that doesn't surface during while the National Anthem is being played (an ordinary, but fairly inoffensive anthem by international standards), but does surface after events like Black Saturday.
Australia is moving towards more overt patriotism: there's not much doubt about that. This can manifest in something as benign as wearing the Australian Flag as a cape, but can also move towards racism and intolerance, which is actually when you stop celebrating Australia Day. After all, almost everyone in Australia is from someone else. While I would like to think we could stay as respectful and dignified about our national pride as we were before, we are becoming a little more like the US in wearing our patriotism more obviously.
There is also the unease many people feel with celebrating a day such as January 26, when the white man landed and never left. However, the fact is that most any date that Australia Day could be celebrated, would be problematic. And there are no dates of national significance in August or September, when people (especially in Victoria) really need a day off.
In the final analysis, we need to accept, celebrate and acknowldge who we are and where we've been. We're a country that has a national broadcaster who has the same post office box in every capital city because it was a cricketer's final test batting average. We have another national day which commemorates one of the greatest mistakes in military history, but we see it as the birth of a national spirit. We have a holiday for a horse race. We've had a Prime Minister almost encourage people to take the day off work, and another who crowd surfed while in office. We have highways named after footballers and lanes named after rock bands.
I don't know what you'd call that, but I call it pretty close to the best country in the world. Hope you had a good one.
I did something celebratory on Australia Day.
Normally, I usually just sit at home and watch Australia play someone at cricket, occasionally flicking over to the tennis. If the day is a Monday, it may coincide with the Championship Games in the NFL. In short, I'd probably give the answer about Australia Day that the little kid in the BigPond ads does.
However, yesterday I went to one of Rose's school chums' places for a barbeque and some fun in her pool. Despite all attendees being required to wear Aussie Flag temporary tattoos, I somehow got out of that. And Skye's family house is a testament to pretty much all that is good about Australia: her father is caucasian, probably of British heritage, while her mother is Muslim. All over the house are posters promoting Australian flora and fauna, a very kitsch "Advance Australia" rug in the hall way, pool and barbeque out the back. It was, on all accounts, a very good day.
I'm not really comfortable with overt displays of patriotism. While I deplore the word "jingoism", I like to think that Australia has always embraced an understated patrotism, one that doesn't surface during while the National Anthem is being played (an ordinary, but fairly inoffensive anthem by international standards), but does surface after events like Black Saturday.
Australia is moving towards more overt patriotism: there's not much doubt about that. This can manifest in something as benign as wearing the Australian Flag as a cape, but can also move towards racism and intolerance, which is actually when you stop celebrating Australia Day. After all, almost everyone in Australia is from someone else. While I would like to think we could stay as respectful and dignified about our national pride as we were before, we are becoming a little more like the US in wearing our patriotism more obviously.
There is also the unease many people feel with celebrating a day such as January 26, when the white man landed and never left. However, the fact is that most any date that Australia Day could be celebrated, would be problematic. And there are no dates of national significance in August or September, when people (especially in Victoria) really need a day off.
In the final analysis, we need to accept, celebrate and acknowldge who we are and where we've been. We're a country that has a national broadcaster who has the same post office box in every capital city because it was a cricketer's final test batting average. We have another national day which commemorates one of the greatest mistakes in military history, but we see it as the birth of a national spirit. We have a holiday for a horse race. We've had a Prime Minister almost encourage people to take the day off work, and another who crowd surfed while in office. We have highways named after footballers and lanes named after rock bands.
I don't know what you'd call that, but I call it pretty close to the best country in the world. Hope you had a good one.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
This Australia Day, here's something to give thanks for...
If any of you have seen Michael Moore's film Sicko, you probably don't want to get sick in the United States of America. While his movies are more essays than documentaries, he paints a picture of the USA being almost the worst place in the world to require medical attention. To prove his point he travels to Cuba, and is assured he will receive low-cost quality care.
Probably quite a few people who watched Sicko voted for Barack Obama in November 2008. The reasons they voted for him are wide and varied, but many of them would have agreed that the health system in the USA was fundamentally flawed. It needed fixing.
Therefore, armed with the Presidency, a large majority in both houses of the US Congress, Obama championed reform and a bill was introduced.
Now, it is said that the two things you should never see how they are made are laws and sausages. (I would add black pudding to that list.) The process of how a bill becomes a law in the US is one of the more convoluted legislative situations in the world today.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the passage of any bill through the US Congress is the Senate filibuster.
In Australia, the party which has the majority of the members in the house can stop any other member talking by simply moving a "Point of Order" that the member who is talking no longer be heard. This is called "the guillotine", and is usually used by governments to ran through contentious legislation at speed.
This is the same in the United Kingdom, and in many parliamentary democracies all over the world that subscribe to the Westminster tradition.
However, in the United States Senate, the tradition that members should debate any issue or bill uncensored and uninhibited prevails over nearly all other rules.
Therefore, as long as a United States Senator can stay upright, and keep talking, they never cede the floor. There is no time limit on how long any Senator can speak. They can speak for as long as they are physically able to. This is known as a filibuster.
Over time, the US Senate has worked to put some roadblocks in front of the filibuster. Currently, it takes 60 Senators to invoke what Australians would know as the "guillotine", that is, to stop another Senator talking.
Yesterday, Democrats lost their 60th member of the US Senate, as Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown in the Senate seat that has been effectively held by the Kennedy family since 1953. The seat became vacant due to the death of Ted Kennedy.
This will almost certainly kill any chances of meaninful reform to the health care system in the USA. So the next time you are lamenting the sort of country you live in, or the inability of governments in Australia to get anything done, look over the Pacific Ocean, and thank your lucky stars.
Probably quite a few people who watched Sicko voted for Barack Obama in November 2008. The reasons they voted for him are wide and varied, but many of them would have agreed that the health system in the USA was fundamentally flawed. It needed fixing.
Therefore, armed with the Presidency, a large majority in both houses of the US Congress, Obama championed reform and a bill was introduced.
Now, it is said that the two things you should never see how they are made are laws and sausages. (I would add black pudding to that list.) The process of how a bill becomes a law in the US is one of the more convoluted legislative situations in the world today.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the passage of any bill through the US Congress is the Senate filibuster.
In Australia, the party which has the majority of the members in the house can stop any other member talking by simply moving a "Point of Order" that the member who is talking no longer be heard. This is called "the guillotine", and is usually used by governments to ran through contentious legislation at speed.
This is the same in the United Kingdom, and in many parliamentary democracies all over the world that subscribe to the Westminster tradition.
However, in the United States Senate, the tradition that members should debate any issue or bill uncensored and uninhibited prevails over nearly all other rules.
Therefore, as long as a United States Senator can stay upright, and keep talking, they never cede the floor. There is no time limit on how long any Senator can speak. They can speak for as long as they are physically able to. This is known as a filibuster.
Over time, the US Senate has worked to put some roadblocks in front of the filibuster. Currently, it takes 60 Senators to invoke what Australians would know as the "guillotine", that is, to stop another Senator talking.
Yesterday, Democrats lost their 60th member of the US Senate, as Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown in the Senate seat that has been effectively held by the Kennedy family since 1953. The seat became vacant due to the death of Ted Kennedy.
This will almost certainly kill any chances of meaninful reform to the health care system in the USA. So the next time you are lamenting the sort of country you live in, or the inability of governments in Australia to get anything done, look over the Pacific Ocean, and thank your lucky stars.
Friday, January 15, 2010
A predictable result
Insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting different results. Someone should tell the Pakistani cricketers.
After dropping Ricky Ponting yesterday, the writing wasn't on the wall so much as it was on the scoreboard, or it should have been, even before it has technically "occurred". Because once Ponting had been put down on nought, in one of the worst dropped catches of all time, he was always going to score big. You couldn't change it any more than you could change what you had for breakfast a week last Thursday.
Pakistan coach Intikhab Alam lamented a cultural indifference to fielding in Pakistan, but unless that is turned around, this will inhibit the Pakistani side much more than any inability to play Test Matches on home soil. In short, "catches win matches" is a cliche not just because it rhymes, and the sooner Pakistani cricketers learn that, the better.
The defensive tactics shown on the fourth morning in Sydney that played a vital role in letting Australia bat to a position they could, and ultimately did, defend, were also revived as Pakistani captain Mohammed Yousuf decided the best way to play Australia was to stop Ponting and Michael Clarke score boundaries. Half an hour into the second morning they are both still at the crease, having scored a combined 260+ runs, with less than half coming from boundaries.
One would suggest that Pakistan would have to try something different, but they never do, so why should we expect them to now? They've always been a side that has seen cricket, and particularly Test Cricket, as a purely linear game. Pakistan has always solely relied on the batting and bowling talent of their players.
Unless you are the West Indies of the 1980s or the Australians of the early 2000s, you simply cannot consistently win Test Matches without some other method of gaining the advantage. You can either put a increased focus on fielding and catching, as the Australians did in the mid-1980s when their talents stocks were low (replicated by Zimbabwe in the 1990s and New Zealand in the early 2000s), or find a innovative thinker, make them captain, and try new things like opening the bowling with a spinner or setting attacking yet unorthodox fields. For this method think Martin Crowe at the 1992 World Cup.
However, Pakistan seem committed to mediocrity in much the same way George Pell is committed to Catholicism. They seem to want to win only one way, which is irresistable brilliance with bat and ball. Not only is this method unsustainable for long-term success, it's also incredibly lazy. They seem to have an aversion to working hard or thinking in an innovative fashion.
The fact that Australia has Pakistan on their calendar again in a few months augurs well for the confidence of the Australian Cricket Team leading into next year's Ashes series. That is, unless Pakistan do something different. Don't hold your breath.
After dropping Ricky Ponting yesterday, the writing wasn't on the wall so much as it was on the scoreboard, or it should have been, even before it has technically "occurred". Because once Ponting had been put down on nought, in one of the worst dropped catches of all time, he was always going to score big. You couldn't change it any more than you could change what you had for breakfast a week last Thursday.
Pakistan coach Intikhab Alam lamented a cultural indifference to fielding in Pakistan, but unless that is turned around, this will inhibit the Pakistani side much more than any inability to play Test Matches on home soil. In short, "catches win matches" is a cliche not just because it rhymes, and the sooner Pakistani cricketers learn that, the better.
The defensive tactics shown on the fourth morning in Sydney that played a vital role in letting Australia bat to a position they could, and ultimately did, defend, were also revived as Pakistani captain Mohammed Yousuf decided the best way to play Australia was to stop Ponting and Michael Clarke score boundaries. Half an hour into the second morning they are both still at the crease, having scored a combined 260+ runs, with less than half coming from boundaries.
One would suggest that Pakistan would have to try something different, but they never do, so why should we expect them to now? They've always been a side that has seen cricket, and particularly Test Cricket, as a purely linear game. Pakistan has always solely relied on the batting and bowling talent of their players.
Unless you are the West Indies of the 1980s or the Australians of the early 2000s, you simply cannot consistently win Test Matches without some other method of gaining the advantage. You can either put a increased focus on fielding and catching, as the Australians did in the mid-1980s when their talents stocks were low (replicated by Zimbabwe in the 1990s and New Zealand in the early 2000s), or find a innovative thinker, make them captain, and try new things like opening the bowling with a spinner or setting attacking yet unorthodox fields. For this method think Martin Crowe at the 1992 World Cup.
However, Pakistan seem committed to mediocrity in much the same way George Pell is committed to Catholicism. They seem to want to win only one way, which is irresistable brilliance with bat and ball. Not only is this method unsustainable for long-term success, it's also incredibly lazy. They seem to have an aversion to working hard or thinking in an innovative fashion.
The fact that Australia has Pakistan on their calendar again in a few months augurs well for the confidence of the Australian Cricket Team leading into next year's Ashes series. That is, unless Pakistan do something different. Don't hold your breath.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Honeymoon 2010
When I began this blog, I stated that I would only deal with topical issues, and not make this blog mainly of a personal nature.
I'm changing my mind.
For our (Rose and I) honeymoon, I'm going to post daily about the places we are and what we have seen, and generally how things are going. Photos will also be posted on Facebook.
Anyway, for those who would like to know, here is our current itinerary:
Sun March 14 - depart Melbourne for Istanbul via Singapore
Mon March 15 - arrive in Istanbul
Tue March 16 - Istanbul
Wed March 17 - Istanbul to Gallipoli (overnight tour)
Thu March 18 - Gallipoli to Istanbul
Fri March 19 - Istanbul to Prague
Sat March 20 - Prague
Sun March 21 - Prague
Mon March 22 - Prague to Krakow
Tue March 23 - Auschwitz
Wed March 24 - Krakow to Berlin
Thu March 25 -Berlin
Fri March 26 - Berlin
Sat March 27 - Berlin to Venice
Sun March 28 - Venice
Mon March 29 - Venice
Tue March 30 - Venice
Wed March 31 - Venice to Rome
Thu April 1 - Rome
Fri April 2 - Rome (Good Friday)
Sat April 3 - Rome
Sun April 4 - Rome (Easter Sunday)
Mon April 5 - Rome to Milan
Tue April 6 - Milan
Wed April 7 - Milan
Thu April 8 - Milan to Nice (pick up car in Nice)
Fri April 9 - Driving through France
Sat April 10 - Driving through France
Sun April 11 - Driving through France
Mon April 12 - Driving through France
Tue April 13 - Driving through France
Wed April 14 - Driving through France
Thu April 15 - Driving through France
Fri April 16 - Driving through France
Sat April 17 - Driving through France
Sun April 18 - Driving through France
Mon April 19 - Arrive in Paris
Tue April 20 - Paris
Wed April 21 - Paris
Thu April 22 - Paris
Fri April 23 - Paris
Sat April 24 - Paris
Sun April 25 - ANZAC Day at Villiers-Bretonneux
Mon April 26 - Paris to London
Tue April 27 - London
Wed April 28 - London
Thu April 29 - London
Fri April 30 - London to Liverpool
Sat May 1 - Liverpool v Chelsea @ Anfield
Sun May 2 - Liverpool to Edinburgh
Mon May 3 - Edinburgh
Tue May 4 - Edinburgh to Glasgow
Wed May 5 - Glasgow
Thu May 6 - Glasgow
Fri May 7 - Glasgow to Dublin (pick car up in Dublin)
Sat May 8 - Driving through Ireland
Sun May 9 - Driving through Ireland
Mon May 10 - Driving through Ireland
Tue May 11 - Dublin
Wed May 12 - Dublin
Thu May 13 - Dublin
Fri May 14 - Dublin to London
Sat May 15 - London to Singapore
Sun May 16 - Singapore to Melbourne
Expect one update per day. We're very much looking forward to it.
I'm changing my mind.
For our (Rose and I) honeymoon, I'm going to post daily about the places we are and what we have seen, and generally how things are going. Photos will also be posted on Facebook.
Anyway, for those who would like to know, here is our current itinerary:
Sun March 14 - depart Melbourne for Istanbul via Singapore
Mon March 15 - arrive in Istanbul
Tue March 16 - Istanbul
Wed March 17 - Istanbul to Gallipoli (overnight tour)
Thu March 18 - Gallipoli to Istanbul
Fri March 19 - Istanbul to Prague
Sat March 20 - Prague
Sun March 21 - Prague
Mon March 22 - Prague to Krakow
Tue March 23 - Auschwitz
Wed March 24 - Krakow to Berlin
Thu March 25 -Berlin
Fri March 26 - Berlin
Sat March 27 - Berlin to Venice
Sun March 28 - Venice
Mon March 29 - Venice
Tue March 30 - Venice
Wed March 31 - Venice to Rome
Thu April 1 - Rome
Fri April 2 - Rome (Good Friday)
Sat April 3 - Rome
Sun April 4 - Rome (Easter Sunday)
Mon April 5 - Rome to Milan
Tue April 6 - Milan
Wed April 7 - Milan
Thu April 8 - Milan to Nice (pick up car in Nice)
Fri April 9 - Driving through France
Sat April 10 - Driving through France
Sun April 11 - Driving through France
Mon April 12 - Driving through France
Tue April 13 - Driving through France
Wed April 14 - Driving through France
Thu April 15 - Driving through France
Fri April 16 - Driving through France
Sat April 17 - Driving through France
Sun April 18 - Driving through France
Mon April 19 - Arrive in Paris
Tue April 20 - Paris
Wed April 21 - Paris
Thu April 22 - Paris
Fri April 23 - Paris
Sat April 24 - Paris
Sun April 25 - ANZAC Day at Villiers-Bretonneux
Mon April 26 - Paris to London
Tue April 27 - London
Wed April 28 - London
Thu April 29 - London
Fri April 30 - London to Liverpool
Sat May 1 - Liverpool v Chelsea @ Anfield
Sun May 2 - Liverpool to Edinburgh
Mon May 3 - Edinburgh
Tue May 4 - Edinburgh to Glasgow
Wed May 5 - Glasgow
Thu May 6 - Glasgow
Fri May 7 - Glasgow to Dublin (pick car up in Dublin)
Sat May 8 - Driving through Ireland
Sun May 9 - Driving through Ireland
Mon May 10 - Driving through Ireland
Tue May 11 - Dublin
Wed May 12 - Dublin
Thu May 13 - Dublin
Fri May 14 - Dublin to London
Sat May 15 - London to Singapore
Sun May 16 - Singapore to Melbourne
Expect one update per day. We're very much looking forward to it.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Twenty20 is a different game
In April, the Caribbean will host the third World Twenty20 tournament, in which the best cricketing nations in the world will take about five minutes to decide which ones are the best at the newest form of the game.
Australia will be about four weeks removed from playing the Trans-Tasman trophy against New Zealand. While four weeks seems like an eternity between matches, this is an anomaly in the crowded international schedule, with the Aussies going to England immediately after the World Twenty20 to play Pakistan in Test Matches and ODIs.
Australia are currently the undisputed best team in ODIs and in the middle of a mild rebuilding phase in Test Cricket. The one form of the game where Australia have enjoyed no global level success is Twenty20. If only all Twenty20 matches were played in Australia (The Aussies are 7-0 in Twenty20 matches played on home soil).
Ricky Ponting has already given the shortest form of the game away at international level (although scheduling a press conference for this announcement was a little much). Michael Clarke is Australia's current Twenty20 captain.
The only problem is Michael Clarke has never really had any success in this form of the game. He averages less than 20 at Twenty20 level, while averaging over 40 at Test and ODI level.
And this is widely representative of what Australia has done at Twenty20 level: select cricketers who generally excel at Tests and ODIs, and hope they play alright. At the two World Twenty20 tournaments, this hasn't translated into a trophy.
So the time has come to think differently. You could argue the best Twenty20 sides in the world are Victoria and New South Wales, so we should be taking the vast majority of the Australian Twenty20 team from these two sides.
In fact, I think none of the current Test team should go to the World Twenty20. This would protect their confidence, which took at battering last year in England which could have helped going into the Ashes, and will also protect them from injury. As hard as it is to leave Mitchell Johnson or Brad Haddin out of any form of the game, these things should be done to preserve Australia's supremacy at ODI level, in which there will be a World Cup within 16 months, and keep an improving Test line-up intact.
So here's my crack at a different squad of 14 for the World Twenty20:
Cameron White - captain
Mitchell Marsh
Shaun Marsh
David Hussey
Tim Paine
Adam Voges
Moises Henriques
James Hopes
Steven Smith
Nathan Bracken (if fit)
Dirk Nannes
Shaun Tait
(If Bracken is not fit, replace him with Clint McKay.)
That's not a bad squad, and all have some record of performance at Twenty20 level. Installing White as captain is a good move, considering he's been doing it longer than any other Australian captain other than Ponting, and he's very good at it.
As you can see, there aren't too many specialist batsmen in the squad, and the ones in the squad can all bowl (except the Marshes). It would give youngsters like Henriques, Smith and Mitchell Marsh valuable international experience, and it would also almost completely remove any pressure on the team to win the tournament, as expectations would be low.
It's time to treat Twenty20 appropriately, and select a team of specialists with no association to the Test team. Let's start with a team from the above fourteen for the match against Pakistan in February. Should be exciting.
Australia will be about four weeks removed from playing the Trans-Tasman trophy against New Zealand. While four weeks seems like an eternity between matches, this is an anomaly in the crowded international schedule, with the Aussies going to England immediately after the World Twenty20 to play Pakistan in Test Matches and ODIs.
Australia are currently the undisputed best team in ODIs and in the middle of a mild rebuilding phase in Test Cricket. The one form of the game where Australia have enjoyed no global level success is Twenty20. If only all Twenty20 matches were played in Australia (The Aussies are 7-0 in Twenty20 matches played on home soil).
Ricky Ponting has already given the shortest form of the game away at international level (although scheduling a press conference for this announcement was a little much). Michael Clarke is Australia's current Twenty20 captain.
The only problem is Michael Clarke has never really had any success in this form of the game. He averages less than 20 at Twenty20 level, while averaging over 40 at Test and ODI level.
And this is widely representative of what Australia has done at Twenty20 level: select cricketers who generally excel at Tests and ODIs, and hope they play alright. At the two World Twenty20 tournaments, this hasn't translated into a trophy.
So the time has come to think differently. You could argue the best Twenty20 sides in the world are Victoria and New South Wales, so we should be taking the vast majority of the Australian Twenty20 team from these two sides.
In fact, I think none of the current Test team should go to the World Twenty20. This would protect their confidence, which took at battering last year in England which could have helped going into the Ashes, and will also protect them from injury. As hard as it is to leave Mitchell Johnson or Brad Haddin out of any form of the game, these things should be done to preserve Australia's supremacy at ODI level, in which there will be a World Cup within 16 months, and keep an improving Test line-up intact.
So here's my crack at a different squad of 14 for the World Twenty20:
Cameron White - captain
Brad Hodge - vice captain
David WarnerMitchell Marsh
Shaun Marsh
David Hussey
Tim Paine
Adam Voges
Moises Henriques
James Hopes
Steven Smith
Nathan Bracken (if fit)
Dirk Nannes
Shaun Tait
(If Bracken is not fit, replace him with Clint McKay.)
That's not a bad squad, and all have some record of performance at Twenty20 level. Installing White as captain is a good move, considering he's been doing it longer than any other Australian captain other than Ponting, and he's very good at it.
As you can see, there aren't too many specialist batsmen in the squad, and the ones in the squad can all bowl (except the Marshes). It would give youngsters like Henriques, Smith and Mitchell Marsh valuable international experience, and it would also almost completely remove any pressure on the team to win the tournament, as expectations would be low.
It's time to treat Twenty20 appropriately, and select a team of specialists with no association to the Test team. Let's start with a team from the above fourteen for the match against Pakistan in February. Should be exciting.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
A victory for all Australia
I'm not one prone to overstatement or overestimation. As much as I love sports, I realise, and try to emphasise, their rightful place as an entertaining distraction and money making enterprise. So, permit me what I am about to write.
A little over three years ago Australia won a Test Match they should not have won, and really had no business thinking they could win on the fifth morning. At that stage, England were 1/59 in their second innings, with a lead of 97 runs, and only one 90 over day of play remaining. In short, all England had to do was bat for 50 overs at 2.5 per over to effectively end the match.
Somehow, the Aussies thought they could win. England came out in an extremely defensive mood, the Aussies, and particularly Shane Warne, sensed the fear in their opponents, and the English were bundled out for 129 in 73 overs. Australia needed just 168 runs to win. They did it comfortably.
I remember writing before that fateful final day in Adelaide three years ago, predicting a tame draw. I was wrong and admitted as much. (My day four thoughts here, my end of match thoughts here.)
Fast forward to 2009/10, and sentiment is against the Australian team. The events of 2007/08 have soured many people's thoughts about our cricketers, and the further antics seen in Adelaide and Perth this season haven't helped matters. Many have been quick to jump on the cricket team and their attitude.
As such, by Boxing Day I had taken to referring to myself as "the last unconditional lover of the Australian Cricket Team". While I am sure CJ would probably disagree, the amount of people who could accurately claim unconditional love for the Aussie Cricket Team has seriously dwindled in the last couple of years.
My love can be directly attributed to two things: the form of the Australian Cricket Team in my formative years, and the fact that a significant part of me is still a big kid. When I was growing up, Australia weren't very good. So my childlike love of Australia winning has not (and hopefully never will) been sated.
The bigger issue coming from this match is why Australia won. Many people are poo pooing Pakistan's performance, and it was pitiful. However, this was not the entire reason, or even the most important reason.
Casting our minds back again to Adelaide 2006, only one team in the world could believe they could win from 97 runs behind with nine wickets to take on the flattest of pitches, where over 1100 runs had been scored in four days for the loss of 17 wickets.
Again, only one team in the world could believe that they could win from the position the Aussies found themselves in yesterday morning. Two wickets in hand, eighty-odd runs in front, pitch improving for batting all the time.
However, it wasn't just the cricketers. All over yesterday, you could hear people suggesting that if only the Aussies could get 150 in front, or 170 in front, or 200 in front, then they would have a fighting chance.
An essential aspect of the Australian spirit is to never, ever count yourself out of a contest. No matter what the situation is, you can always dust yourself off and overcome adversity. Again, it wasn't just the cricketers yesterday who believed that the remarkable could be achieved.
So, yesterday's result was more a reflection on Australian society generally than only on the eleven who played yesterday.
On final reflection, there are those who view the Australian Cricket Team as a microchosm of Australian society more widely, and this is seen as a negative. On this day, and at this time, I have to say I agree with them, but with completely different affections. The Aussie Cricket Team, and the Aussie spirit, are victorious this morning, and it feels great.
A little over three years ago Australia won a Test Match they should not have won, and really had no business thinking they could win on the fifth morning. At that stage, England were 1/59 in their second innings, with a lead of 97 runs, and only one 90 over day of play remaining. In short, all England had to do was bat for 50 overs at 2.5 per over to effectively end the match.
Somehow, the Aussies thought they could win. England came out in an extremely defensive mood, the Aussies, and particularly Shane Warne, sensed the fear in their opponents, and the English were bundled out for 129 in 73 overs. Australia needed just 168 runs to win. They did it comfortably.
I remember writing before that fateful final day in Adelaide three years ago, predicting a tame draw. I was wrong and admitted as much. (My day four thoughts here, my end of match thoughts here.)
Fast forward to 2009/10, and sentiment is against the Australian team. The events of 2007/08 have soured many people's thoughts about our cricketers, and the further antics seen in Adelaide and Perth this season haven't helped matters. Many have been quick to jump on the cricket team and their attitude.
As such, by Boxing Day I had taken to referring to myself as "the last unconditional lover of the Australian Cricket Team". While I am sure CJ would probably disagree, the amount of people who could accurately claim unconditional love for the Aussie Cricket Team has seriously dwindled in the last couple of years.
My love can be directly attributed to two things: the form of the Australian Cricket Team in my formative years, and the fact that a significant part of me is still a big kid. When I was growing up, Australia weren't very good. So my childlike love of Australia winning has not (and hopefully never will) been sated.
The bigger issue coming from this match is why Australia won. Many people are poo pooing Pakistan's performance, and it was pitiful. However, this was not the entire reason, or even the most important reason.
Casting our minds back again to Adelaide 2006, only one team in the world could believe they could win from 97 runs behind with nine wickets to take on the flattest of pitches, where over 1100 runs had been scored in four days for the loss of 17 wickets.
Again, only one team in the world could believe that they could win from the position the Aussies found themselves in yesterday morning. Two wickets in hand, eighty-odd runs in front, pitch improving for batting all the time.
However, it wasn't just the cricketers. All over yesterday, you could hear people suggesting that if only the Aussies could get 150 in front, or 170 in front, or 200 in front, then they would have a fighting chance.
An essential aspect of the Australian spirit is to never, ever count yourself out of a contest. No matter what the situation is, you can always dust yourself off and overcome adversity. Again, it wasn't just the cricketers yesterday who believed that the remarkable could be achieved.
So, yesterday's result was more a reflection on Australian society generally than only on the eleven who played yesterday.
On final reflection, there are those who view the Australian Cricket Team as a microchosm of Australian society more widely, and this is seen as a negative. On this day, and at this time, I have to say I agree with them, but with completely different affections. The Aussie Cricket Team, and the Aussie spirit, are victorious this morning, and it feels great.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
A more solid order
Today, in all likelihood, the Australian Cricket Team will lose at Test Match to Pakistan on home soil for the third time in 28 years. During those same series (3 Tests in 1981, 5 in 1983/84, 3 in 1990, 3 in 1995, 3 in 1999, 3 in 2004/05 and the Boxing Day Test Match just finished), Australia have defeated Pakistan 14 times, with 5 draws.
In fact, those two previous defeats have occurred in dead rubbers where the series was decided, at Melbourne in 1981, and in Sydney in 1995. The last time Pakistan won a "live" Test Match in Australia was 1977. Yet, Pakistan will probably win the Test Match today, levelling the series at 1-1 and making the Bellerive Test Match the series decider.
In short, Australia's problem is their batting. Everyone knows that Australia's bowling is not what it once was, considering the departures of Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne & Jason Gillespie, and the subsequent apparent ends of the careers of Brett Lee and Stuart Clark. However, the Australians have four very promising fast bowlers in Mitchell Johnson, Doug Bollinger, Peter Siddle and Ben Hilfenhaus, and if they could find a genuine speedster to compliment that bunch, then they would probably be all set for some time.
Obviously, Australia still needs to find a good spinner, but Australia won plenty of Test Matches from 1989-1991 with either Trevor Hohns, Peter Sleep, Peter Taylor or Greg Matthews. Nathan Hauritz is doing his job as well as can be expected, and not one spinner's form at domestic level is making Hauritz's position untenable.
No, the problem is the top seven.
Shane Watson is playing well, and yesterday's dismissal in the 90s was the result of an absolute brute of a delivery, rather than mental demons on Watson's behalf. The solution to Australia's woes certainly does not lie with moving him to another position in the order. Watson is playing better than anyone in the Australian side right now, and protects his wicket appropriately. Leave him at the top of the order.
Philip Hughes is worth perservering with. While hot headed in the first dig, he'll learn, and showed glimpes of that education with a measured effort in the second dig, before he went to a brilliant return catch by Kaneria.
Simon Katich is a number 3 batsman. He played some great innings there in India in 2004, and would add a resoluteness to the top of the order, where either Hughes or Watson can go for their shots with Katich at number 3. As a long-time advocate for Matthew Elliott at number 3 before he calcified, an batsman with opening experience would not be a bad idea at the most important spot in the order.
It would also take some of the pressure off Ponting, whose form doesn't really warrant a place in the side right now. However, it is (rightfully) difficult to drop someone with 11,500 Test runs at 55, and he is capable of incredible batting. His elbow clearly isn't right, and he probably shouldn't be playing right now, but as his actions in India in 2008 demonstrate, nothing is more important to Ponting than playing Test Cricket. Despite the fact he has never batted there for Australia, I think he should drop himself a spot and come in at four.
Michael Hussey is the "in-form" Australian middle order batsman right now. Read that again. I hope he gets a century today, as it might be the basis for an unlikely series-clinching victory, but his spot isn't really in jeopardy. Considering his ability to bat with the tail, a drop to six in the order wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but it's probably too low for him. I've always liked him at five.
Michael Clarke is the next captain, but his form has dropped off somewhat since England. Someone has to bat six, and Clarke would have little pressure on him if he did. Also consider than Ian Bell is batting six for England right now, and Duminy for South Africa. Batting six doesn't mean you are a dud.
Marcus North simply has run out of chances. He should look on the careers of Jamie Siddons, Brad Hodge and Darren Lehmann and consider himself most fortunate.
Brad Haddin would want to make some runs pretty soon as well, but he has enough credits in the bank. However, if the selectors are looking to renew, Haddin's age will work against him. Tim Paine gained many fans with his efforts in Haddin's absence in England during the ODIs.
Having Katich, Hussey and Watson all in the side together should ensure enough batsmen are protecting their wicket appropriately, and Ponting at four would act as a pressure release, and maybe prolong his career. The pressure would also be taken off Clarke coming in at six, where Ponting himself made a name for himself before finally ascending to three in 2001.
Considering the side you could pick out of those not playing at the moment (Rogers, Jaques, Klinger, White (c), Bailey, Henriques, S Smith, Paine, Geeves, McKay, Nannes), the current side, and particularly the batsmen, should be feeling some pressure to perform or find themselves back at state level. The time for tough decisions is coming.
In fact, those two previous defeats have occurred in dead rubbers where the series was decided, at Melbourne in 1981, and in Sydney in 1995. The last time Pakistan won a "live" Test Match in Australia was 1977. Yet, Pakistan will probably win the Test Match today, levelling the series at 1-1 and making the Bellerive Test Match the series decider.
In short, Australia's problem is their batting. Everyone knows that Australia's bowling is not what it once was, considering the departures of Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne & Jason Gillespie, and the subsequent apparent ends of the careers of Brett Lee and Stuart Clark. However, the Australians have four very promising fast bowlers in Mitchell Johnson, Doug Bollinger, Peter Siddle and Ben Hilfenhaus, and if they could find a genuine speedster to compliment that bunch, then they would probably be all set for some time.
Obviously, Australia still needs to find a good spinner, but Australia won plenty of Test Matches from 1989-1991 with either Trevor Hohns, Peter Sleep, Peter Taylor or Greg Matthews. Nathan Hauritz is doing his job as well as can be expected, and not one spinner's form at domestic level is making Hauritz's position untenable.
No, the problem is the top seven.
Shane Watson is playing well, and yesterday's dismissal in the 90s was the result of an absolute brute of a delivery, rather than mental demons on Watson's behalf. The solution to Australia's woes certainly does not lie with moving him to another position in the order. Watson is playing better than anyone in the Australian side right now, and protects his wicket appropriately. Leave him at the top of the order.
Philip Hughes is worth perservering with. While hot headed in the first dig, he'll learn, and showed glimpes of that education with a measured effort in the second dig, before he went to a brilliant return catch by Kaneria.
Simon Katich is a number 3 batsman. He played some great innings there in India in 2004, and would add a resoluteness to the top of the order, where either Hughes or Watson can go for their shots with Katich at number 3. As a long-time advocate for Matthew Elliott at number 3 before he calcified, an batsman with opening experience would not be a bad idea at the most important spot in the order.
It would also take some of the pressure off Ponting, whose form doesn't really warrant a place in the side right now. However, it is (rightfully) difficult to drop someone with 11,500 Test runs at 55, and he is capable of incredible batting. His elbow clearly isn't right, and he probably shouldn't be playing right now, but as his actions in India in 2008 demonstrate, nothing is more important to Ponting than playing Test Cricket. Despite the fact he has never batted there for Australia, I think he should drop himself a spot and come in at four.
Michael Hussey is the "in-form" Australian middle order batsman right now. Read that again. I hope he gets a century today, as it might be the basis for an unlikely series-clinching victory, but his spot isn't really in jeopardy. Considering his ability to bat with the tail, a drop to six in the order wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but it's probably too low for him. I've always liked him at five.
Michael Clarke is the next captain, but his form has dropped off somewhat since England. Someone has to bat six, and Clarke would have little pressure on him if he did. Also consider than Ian Bell is batting six for England right now, and Duminy for South Africa. Batting six doesn't mean you are a dud.
Marcus North simply has run out of chances. He should look on the careers of Jamie Siddons, Brad Hodge and Darren Lehmann and consider himself most fortunate.
Brad Haddin would want to make some runs pretty soon as well, but he has enough credits in the bank. However, if the selectors are looking to renew, Haddin's age will work against him. Tim Paine gained many fans with his efforts in Haddin's absence in England during the ODIs.
Having Katich, Hussey and Watson all in the side together should ensure enough batsmen are protecting their wicket appropriately, and Ponting at four would act as a pressure release, and maybe prolong his career. The pressure would also be taken off Clarke coming in at six, where Ponting himself made a name for himself before finally ascending to three in 2001.
Considering the side you could pick out of those not playing at the moment (Rogers, Jaques, Klinger, White (c), Bailey, Henriques, S Smith, Paine, Geeves, McKay, Nannes), the current side, and particularly the batsmen, should be feeling some pressure to perform or find themselves back at state level. The time for tough decisions is coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
