I'm aware I've been somewhat remiss in keeping this blog updated, of late. This has mainly been due to pesky thesis-related stuff, but also my occasional presence here; at some point I'm going to work out how to consolidate the two, given that reconciling the sport-loving and academic sides of my character was rather the point of this blog.
Anyway, to make up for lost attentiveness, here's a post that attempts to cover all bases in the various worlds of sport at the moment (a la Des Lynam, circa 1990).
Golf
I know, I know: starting a sports round-up with something that -- physically speaking, for the most part -- is barely more than a pastime may be controversial. But the first prize on offer to the winner at Sandwich this afternoon -- which looks like being the lovably rotund figure of Darren Clarke [insert Sandwich-related joke here] -- is close to £1M, so it's a fairly big occasion, regardless.
The sport/game debate is one for another day, though. What I want to mention is an extraordinary attitude from one Rory McProdigy, speaking after his less-than-stellar weekend came to a close earlier today.
(NB: 'Links golf', for those of you as in the dark about this as I was until about 90 minutes ago, refers to golf played on a 'links' -- a course situated on or very near to a coast, so named because it was a region 'linking' land and sea, and thus famous for blustery conditions, a dearth of trees, and fairly hostile scrubland environments.)
In an interview shortly after stepping off the 18th -- and subsequently reported in online feeds -- the talented young golfer McIlroy's reaction to his relative failure was given as follows:
'He is not going to change his game to suit the links as he only plays one week a year. He also believes he can win The Open, he just needs to wait for a year that the weather is good.'
Can you imagine Roger Federer, say, deciding there was no point practising his clay-court game, because Roland Garros only comes round once a year? Surely, if your aim is to be the best in the world -- as is the case, presumably, for all top professionals in sport -- then you don't just shrug your shoulders and say 'well, I don't play in conditions like that'?
To switch ill-advised cross-sporting metaphors, McIlroy cannot be serious.
Cycling
No question: this is a proper sport. The 98th annual Tour de France comes to an end this week, after a gruelling contest that some have likened to having to run a marathon every day for 3 weeks.
More than stamina is required, though: at the end of last week, a careless bit of driving on the part of someone in charge of a TV car led to a multi-bike pile-up (clip a tree with my wing-mirror? no, I'd rather endanger the lives of half-a-dozen flimsily-protected, lycra-clad human beings, thanks). The most serious casualty was Johnny Hoogerland, who was flipped off his bike, over a hedge, and onto a barbed-wire fence.
Never mind: he was helped off said fence, climbed back into the saddle, finished the stage, and only then sought medical help. Whereupon he was promptly taken to hospital for 33 stiches.
A certain Northern Irishman might like to watch this video and take a few notes about commitment to one's sport...
Rugby Union
It was announced this week that the New Zealand RFU had taken significant umbrage with an English RFU decision to send the England rugby union team out in black shirts in a couple of games this summer, to prevent colour clashes with other teams.
Here are the thoughts of one irate Kiwi:
'The Poms are trying to steal our heritage by having their rugby team swap to an all black strip. Not acceptable to us real All Black fans. Poms will not be welcomed in NZ for the RWC2011.'
Hmmm. Why such a fuss over a shirt colour? 'Heritage'? Really?? It's not like the England team have decided to choreograph their own version of the haka. (Suggestions on a postcard for what that would look like...)
In any case, there have numerous stories over the years suggesting that the tradition of an 'all black' moniker may have rather prosaic origins, with a printer's error the most likely reason for the team's name. Furthermore, the all black colouring may have even been adopted after seeing an all-black strip worn by a home team on an early-twentieth-century overseas tour. The location? South-west England.
Cricket
Finally, it's back on home turf for this blog. This Thursday sees the start of the 2000th ever Test match, and England's 991st, at Lord's, against India.
If England can beat India by a margin of two in this series, they'll go top of the ICC Test rankings. (Incidentally, this ICC ranking predictor is a lot of fun...) It's one enormous if, though -- bigger than either Rory McIlroy's ego or Darren Clarke's stomach (which now, along with its owner, is busy hoisting the claret jug). So what's it going to take?
Here's a player-by-player face-off, with ratings, for the likely XIs to take the field on Thursday; the Indian XI, as a result of my appalling knowledge of Indian cricket at present, is the same team who lined up against Somerset this week (plus Dhoni, of course).
- Strauss (assured captain; not in great form with the bat, but will have taken heart from a fluent 78 this week: 7/10) v Mukund (talented young opener; as yet unproven on English wickets: 6)
- Cook (back in the longer form after a more-or-less-successful stint as ODI captain; behind Ian Bell in the 'most technically gifted batsman in the England team' stakes, but not by much; apologies for forgetting his phenomenal Ashes series, which means that he's of course worthy of an: 8) v Gambhir (no spring chicken at just shy of 30, but a whippersnapper compared to Tendulkar, Dravid, and Khan; devastating opener: 8)
- Trott (understated yet phenomenally successful, England's tower of strength; perfectly at home on English wickets: given the context, 9) v Dravid (over 12000 Test runs, averaging over 50; need I say more? 9)
- Pietersen (always flattering to deceive; he should really be a 10/10 showman, but he's too often a bit of a flop; I really hope he proves me wrong, but on current form: 5) v Tendulkar (The Little Master; I'm not sure you'd get particularly good odds against him scoring his hundredth hundred at Lord's this week: 10)
- Morgan (rising star; hard-hitting, takes no prisoners, and spares KP's blushes as much as the supposed superstar's predecessor in the order: 8) v Yuvraj (not as young as he once was, but who is on the Indian team? when on form, no one can touch him; if Jimmy can get under his skin, though, he's often a damp squib: 6)
- Bell (supremely gifted technical batsman, settling in at #6 after some ill-advised moves up the order [the fault of selectors rather than Bell himself]; still not a crowd favourite -- can he change that this summer? 8) v Raina (off the back of a 150-ball hundred against Somerset, so in fine form; India will welcome his sharp fielding in the circle: 7)
- Prior (his 'keeping is unremarkable: Hallelujah for that; some fine attacking batting, too: 7) v Dhoni (this one-on-one should really be against Strauss, but no matter; great batting, 'keeping, and captaincy: 9)
- Broad (ok, so this may be Bresnan, but I reckon the Andies will go for Broad's greater menace; promised much, but yet to really live up to that with both bat and ball; some shoddy form of late, too: 6) v Zaheer (might well be KP's downfall, given his southpaw-ness; could be the undoing of quite a few England batsman, with his prodigious swing and control: 8)
- Swann (Strauss's go-to man; now the most potent spinner in world cricket; if he's on song, so are England: 9) v Mishra/Harbajhan (unsure which spinner India will go with; the older man's influence in Test matches may be waning, but then Mishra had a fairly unsuccessful time against Somerset last time out: 6)
- Anderson (leader of the pack; on his day, in English conditions, completely unplayable: 8) v Sreesanth (a bit of an enigma, both on and off the field: 7)
- Tremlett (in and out of the England set-up in recent years, but more of a fixture now; a dependable back-up to the swing of Anderson and bounce of Broad; a few more spells like his stint at the Rose Bowl, and he'll undoubtedly move up: 6) v Patel (often injured, and something of an unknown quantity in English conditions: 6)
So pretty close, then...(Promise I didn't fiddle those!) I think it's a case of heart saying England and head saying India. I might overrule my head, though -- overrated -- and stick my neck out (there's a strange compound mental image): 2-1, England.
