Torch, Torch, Run with Torch

My first post of a marginal nature concerns the sideshow of lighting the Olympic flame. This can be the most beautiful of moments (think of Mohammed Ali in 1996), but it's usually a bit of a pointless exercise (the 22-year-old virtual unknown John Mark in 1948 springs to mind). So when Daley Thompson and Steve Redgrave (sorry, Sir SR) have a slightly undignified spat about which of them should light the Olympic cauldron this year, it feels ridiculous precisely because it's often such a meaningless accolade.

That's not the only reason it's mildly annoying, though: it also feels a little like two 6-year-olds arguing over the ownership of a toy car. So while I'm secretly a bit of a Redgave-ite (five golds! in different Olympics!!), I say screw the Seb-Coe-befriending and other politicking, and let's give it to neither of them. Here are a few ideas, with their Olympic credentials (Redgrave and Thompson's records included for the purposes of comparison):

Sir Steve Redgrave: 5 Olympic Titles, 9 World Titles, 0 World Records
Daley Thompson: 2 OT, 1 WT, 4 WR
Matthew Pinsent: 4 OT, 10 WT, 1 WR*
Dame Kelly Holmes: 2 OT, 0 WT, 0 WR
Ben Ainslie: 3 OT, 11 WT, 0 WR
Sir Chris Hoy: 4 OT, 11 WT, 2 WR
Sally Gunnell: 1 OT, 1 WT, 1 WR
Linford Christie: 1 OT, 1 WT, 4 WR**
Sir Roger Bannister: 0 OT, 0 WT, 1 WR
Paula Radcliffe: 0 OT, 4 WT, 3 WR

* Pinsent once held the WR for the largest lung capacity of a sportsman, at 8.5 litres. Thank you, Wikipedia...
** Christie's 4 WRs include 3 in the 35--39 masters age group.

It looks like the Torch-bearer should be another knighted individual sportsman, then. Put your Bran Flakes down, Sir Chris: you've got some lighting to do. (Honourable mention to Ben Ainslie, though: who knew he was that successful?)

BCC Redux: Marginal Olympics

So, 'Beyond Cow Corner' is back, in time for the Olympics. But every man, woman, and canine will be writing about sport over the next few weeks -- how was I going to be different? I mused, somewhat melodramatically. Luckily, I was saved from drowning in rhetoric by my other half, who suggested I take a look at the events from a marginal perspective: niche sports, sidelined nationalities, liminal athletes, etc. (Ok, that wasn't a real 'etc.' -- I'd run out of both suitable nouns, and synonyms for 'marginal'.) All comments, criticisms, lavish praise, and suggestions of topics for future topics welcome. 

(First up, I go for the important issues: who should be carrying the Olympic torch?)

A Damp Squib

It should have been an amazing weekend of sport. Final stages of the Aussie open tennis; Liverpool--ManU and QPR--Chelsea in the FA Cup, among many other football ties; latter part of an evenly balanced Pakistan--England Test in Abu Dhabi; David Gourlay on the brink of his second World Indoor Bowls title, after a gap of 16 years...(Ok, not the last one. I'm not that much of a sports fan.)

In a way, it was shaping up pretty well. Andy Murray may have gone down in five sets to Novak Djokovic, but it was definitely a case of the World #1 winning the game, rather than the World #4 losing it: Murray's performance was up there with Sampras in 1994, Ivanišević in 2001, and both Nadal and Federer in 2008. The camera spent quite a while lingering on the figure in the crowd who has given his name to this arena, but even the great Rod Laver at his peak would have had trouble keeping up with either Murray or Djokovic. Mainly, perhaps, it would have been a question of physical stature: with the 6'2" Serbian whipping forehands across the gigantic wingspan of the 6'3" Scot, it's debatable whether or not the 5'8" Australian would have been able to reach some of their shots.

Football, too, was living up to the hype. On Friday night, Tottenham were very nearly held by a spirited Watford, while Fulham and Everton played out a classic gritty English cup tie, with Everton coming from behind to scrape through. Saturday, meanwhile, was rather dominated by events on-and-yet-off the field, with London's racism derby kicking off 45 minutes before a similarly politicised clash in the Northwest. (Incidentally, I thought the FA's decision to cancel the QPR--Chelsea team handshakes -- no doubt because they suspected Anton Ferdinand would refuse to acknowledge John Terry -- while a sensible one from the point of view of not stoking the flames of fan/player conflict, was an unsatisfactory one. If I were Anton Ferdinand, having been [ALLEGEDLY] abused by an opposition player, I would want to have the chance to voice -- even if through the absence of a physical gesture -- my anger with said individual; it doesn't seem particularly fair to him to deny him that opportunity.)

It was left to the cricketers, then, to provide the only real dose of shock/embarrassment/shame/whatever of the weekend. Limited to 257 by an outstanding team display from Broad/Anderson/Swann, Pakistan were then frustrated by the resilience of the same Stuart Broad, who contributed a gutsy 58 to an England total of 70 more than Pakistan. It was then the chance of the second spinner to shine, as Monty got in on the act: 6-62, and the opposition were dismissed for a mere 214.

145 to knock off, then: easy.

Or not.

Mainly, I feel sorry for Stuart Broad and Monty Panesar. Broad had outstanding match figures (before the lost-cause last innings) of 44-13-83-5 and 58*; Monty's bowling numbers were 71.2-27-153-7; yet they end up on the wrong side of a frankly embarrassing defeat.

If you're Pakistani, I guess the sporting weekend's a pretty good one -- but I can't help dwelling on the fact that the England batting line-up appears to have had Kingston 2009 hallucinations: like 'Nam flashbacks, only marginally less serious.

Grandstand

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).

1. 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)



2. 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)



3. 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)



4. 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)



5. 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)



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)



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)



8. 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)



9. 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)



10. 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)



11. 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)

TOTALS: England (81) v India (82)

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.

Hold Your Horses

I feel a bit fraudulent writing about the second astonishing denouement to a Cardiff Test inside two years: after paying scant attention, during a busy week for me, to a weather-affected match (nearly a day and a half lost to rain) that appeared to be petering out into a draw, I'd given up on the match by the end of Saturday; by yesterday evening, I'd basically forgotten it was still going on. (And it seemed like everyone other than Jonathan Trott had, too.)

It was only a couple of excited text messages, late this afternoon, that persuaded me to tune in again and witness the carnage. By that time, it was basically all over: Sri Lanka had lost 6 wickets in 39 balls for only 19 runs.

I did start listening in time to hear Ian Bell assume the Paul Collingwood Blinding Infield Catching mantle, to feel slightly sorry for both Tremlett and Swann that Broad came in at the end to clear up the tail and deny either a 5-for, and to hear a fairly unbelievable suggestion from the otherwise-quite-level-headed CMJ: was this performance a sign that England were about to take their rightful place as No. 1 Test side in world cricket?

Really, Christopher.

Firstly, there's the small matter of 2 further Tests to play against a Sri Lankan side who put together a not inconsiderable first-innings total of 400, not to mention a series against the current No. 1 side, India -- a team with 3 batsmen and 2 bowlers (fairly evenly matched against England's 2 and 3) in the ICC Player Rankings Top 10.

And secondly, it ignores the fact that, apart from extraordinary performances from Tremlett and Swann on the final day, the team effort so far has been no more than par for the course. (Switching sports, there -- as I did in the title of this post -- but it's a Bank Holiday, and I can't be bothered to come up with a better/less clichéd metaphor -- sorry...)

Ok, there were three centuries, but they were made under very little pressure. Of more concern to the England coaching set-up might be the mis-fires from the two mainstays of the batting line-up, Strauss and KP. (I admit that, having not followed the match particularly closely, this judgement may be unduly harsh on my part. Do statistics really lie, though?)

More worryingly, amid talk of 4-or-5-man bowling attacks, England went into the last innings with an attack of 3. (No, Trott and KP don't count.) If they'd faced opposition from a less rabbit-in-the-headlights batting line-up, there might have been rather more treatment along the lines of Tremlett's final over, which was deposited for 12 fairly easy runs by the 22-year-old debutant Thisara Perera.

So yes, this was a brilliant result; no, it's not time for the champagne yet. Here's my 3-point to do list for Team England before the Lord's Test gets underway later this week:


1. Balance the bowling attack: make sure that whoever comes in for the injured Jimmy Anderson provides an alternative to the options already available. (Sorry, Steve Finn.)

2. Consider adding a bowling option: it seems unfair to consign Eoin Morgan to the Test dustbin after scoring 14 not out; but then I wouldn't have picked him in the first place. Ravi Bopara provides a better 5th bowling option than the buffet fare of either Trott or KP, and his selection would also pay him back for his laudable decision to choose county cricket over the riches on offer in the IPL.

3. Have a chat with KP: shouldn't he be on a final warning by now? (Watch out for a match-winning 158* at Lord's, now...)

Lucky Number Nineteen

And so it's all over, bar the shouting.

Unless Blackburn pull out a surprising win over Manchester United on Saturday lunchtime (and it's over 5 years since United last failed to secure at least a point at Ewood Park), Sir Alex Ferguson will have guided United past Liverpool to a record 19th English league title.*

The expected 19-18 scoreline, however, is somewhat misleading. The first of Liverpool's 18 came in the 1900-01 season, and their most recent was in 1989-90, in the year after the Hillsborough disaster; United's started 7 years later than Pool's, in 1907-08, and their 18th was in 2008-09. While the chronological spread isn't so very different -- 89 years vs. (to date) 101 -- there is one fact that marks the two achievements as qualitatively different: United won 7 of their titles before the 1992 start of the English Premier League, and 11 have come since.

Traditions, as a collection of essays published in 2000 asserts, are invented. In other words, as much as the word 'tradition' conjures up ideas of age-old practices and dusty tomes, a 'tradition' is often a remarkably recent construction.

Nowhere is this more evident than in sport. The most recent example of this, in cricket, is the Indian Premier League, a competition that has brought together cricketing superstars -- often, as I commented last week, in the twilight of their careers -- to compete in a supercharged, low-attention-span, fizzy-drink form of the game.** Although the 20-over form of the game was in fact introduced into the English county game in 2003, it was the 2008 inauguration of the IPL -- with all the commercial perks of advertising, sponsorship, and astronomical signing fees -- that marked the beginning of the youngest of sporting traditions.

This commercial aspect is significant. To return to my initial topic: the tradition of football's English Premier League, 16 years its similarly named cricketing cousin's junior, saw an explosion in advertising, sponsorship, attendance, and merchandising revenue for the 22 (reduced to 20 in 1995) clubs in the English top flight. The link with BSkyB, who were granted exclusive broadcasting rights at the inception of the league, is a particularly contentious one. This particular tradition, then, as well as being heavily constructed, has been -- from the beginning -- a heavily commercial one.

My point, then, is this: while I do not mean to suggest that United's 18 (well, ok, 19) titles are in some way inferior to Liverpool's, having been achieved in the main (11/12 out of 18/19) with the help of the significant commercial backing that has arisen through the tradition of the BSkyB-backed Premiership, they should be seen as undoubtedly different.

But congratulations, United, on another success. And extra congratulations to the alcoholic-nosed, gum-chomping septuagenarian cyborg; will SAF ever retire?

*If United don't leave Ewood Park as champions, it'll be the first time in 9 years -- when Arsenal's 2-0 victory over Chelsea on May the 4th 2002 preceded the Gunners' clinching of the title four days later -- that the destination of FA Cup trophy has been decided earlier than the Premiership title.

**I'm aware this sounds like I have a fairly grumpy view of the IPL; this isn't in fact true, and this sentence was mainly included for the purposes of a cheap laugh along it's-just-not-cricket lines. Sorry about that.

Cricketing Digest

I feel I've neglected the initial focus of this blog in the not-so-glamorous cricketing months, so in a short post tonight I thought I'd do a quick run-down of recent news in the world of leather on willow. (I haven't been following it for a couple of weeks, so it may be that the new Lalit Modi has decided that playing the game with a metal post and a ball of rubber bands is a better crowd-puller than a leather ball and a wooden bat, and therefore that that particular figure of speech is even more outmoded than usual. [They don't still use willow, do they? I'm way out of my depth.])

Broadly Speaking

(That was just an excuse to use that pun; I'd have done so even if I didn't have anything to say about the England captaincy.) So Alastair Cook, who's played 3 ODIs in the past two and a half years, is the new England captain. Right. And Stuart Broad, 9 months after being fined 50% of his match fee for an act of borderline ABH, has got the T20 job. Hmmm.

Here's a thought: why not pick someone to do both jobs who's in both teams? And who doesn't have a yearly tantrum?

Warne Again? No

(That one was even worse. Sorry about that.) So Shane Warne is to retire from cricket at the end of the season. Who even knew he was still playing?? I'm surprised he can bear to prise himself away from his nice little earner in the commentary box. Or maybe he's started combining the two? Now that I'd pay to watch -- get on it, Sky.

KP's Back

(Yes, I gave up.) Coming in second on our list of 'talented yet incredibly arrogant cricketers whom you thought had long ago decided to concentrate on the more commercial sides of their careers rather than spend any time actually on the pitch' is the delightful Sir Kev, who's preparing for his come-back from injury.

Given that a middle order of Trott, Bopara, and Morgan made 73% of England's runs in their last game, thought, you have to ask: do we really need him?

Well that was a lazy post. Apologies. More of the same, or better (you never know), next week -- I'm off to bed. Live the Friday night dream, people! :)