Some of the media reaction following the Perth test has been very interesting. Some of the reaction coming from the camps has been interesting also.
The one main thing I want to talk about is the talk coming from both inside and outside the English camp that they may drop Steve Finn in order to play Tim Bresnan, mainly to lengthen the batting order. WTF?! In 5 innings in this series so far the Aussies have scored more than 350 once! In this test that England got well and truly smashed in it wasn't the bowlers issue. They well and truly did their job in scuttling the Ockers for 280 and 310. Its the batsmen that let you down.
The response to that isn't then to bring in a guy who isn't really a test match bowler and isn't really a test match batsman. You just need your batsman to deliver as they had been. Simple really. In saying that though I would move Bell to 5 and Collingwood to 6. Ian Bell is a dream to watch live!
Everyone seems to think Ponting will play but they have bought in Kahwaja (probably horrendously mispelled) as cover incase he can't make it. Would be a massive test for the young man and for Michael Clarke if they are thrown into cauldron at Melbourne basically performing those roles (test player and test captain) for the first time in what is possibly one of the biggest test matches in Australia for some time.
Thats about all really. Great fightback from the Aussies over here and now they take all the momentum to Melbourne. Not being one to repeat myself but I really do think who has the momentum is key in this series.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
The Ifill injury - a blessing in disguise?
Disclaimer: I have not seen the Phoenix v Jets game from yesterday, only read the match reports.
Could the injury to Paul Ifill be a blessing in disguise for the Wellington Phoenix? As our season has meandered along offering the odd morsel of hope much of the discussion has been around the teams attack or lack of it. People said it was because Paul was out of form; he wasn't the player he was last year. This is absolutely true but it ignores some other facts around the rest of the teams lack of attacking verve so far this season.
This mini-revival of the last month has not coincedentally seen both Paul Ifill and Tim Brown return to goal scoring form. With the loss of Iffy the pressure has to be spread across the rest of the attacking options. Big Dylan now has two goals to his name, Greeny took his season tally to 5 yesterday and Marco opened what should be a huge goal-scoring account for the club. Add to that Tim Browns constant contributions and you have players that between them can score goals and now without Iffy they have to.
Perhaps earlier in the season there was a subconcious sense that if we give the ball to Paul everything will turn out alright and the other players didn't stand up. Now they simply have to, no fall back option of giving it it to Paul and seeing what he can do. Its that rationale which suggests it could be a blessing. The obvious flipside of that is the other players don't stand up at all and we end up in a worse position than we were before.
But hey im a glass half full kind of guy...
Could the injury to Paul Ifill be a blessing in disguise for the Wellington Phoenix? As our season has meandered along offering the odd morsel of hope much of the discussion has been around the teams attack or lack of it. People said it was because Paul was out of form; he wasn't the player he was last year. This is absolutely true but it ignores some other facts around the rest of the teams lack of attacking verve so far this season.
This mini-revival of the last month has not coincedentally seen both Paul Ifill and Tim Brown return to goal scoring form. With the loss of Iffy the pressure has to be spread across the rest of the attacking options. Big Dylan now has two goals to his name, Greeny took his season tally to 5 yesterday and Marco opened what should be a huge goal-scoring account for the club. Add to that Tim Browns constant contributions and you have players that between them can score goals and now without Iffy they have to.
Perhaps earlier in the season there was a subconcious sense that if we give the ball to Paul everything will turn out alright and the other players didn't stand up. Now they simply have to, no fall back option of giving it it to Paul and seeing what he can do. Its that rationale which suggests it could be a blessing. The obvious flipside of that is the other players don't stand up at all and we end up in a worse position than we were before.
But hey im a glass half full kind of guy...
Friday, December 17, 2010
Why Test Cricket is the best sport in the world.
At 11.15 today Perth time the Ashes were as good as going back to England. The obituaries for Ricki Ponting were being written. Experimental teams were being discussed for Melbourne and Australian Cricket in general was in a total state of disarray. I even hear that an internet bookmaker was paying out on bets for England to win the series.
The Poms were 70/0 looking untroubled against an attack that had taken on average a wicket a day for the last 5 and the signs were very very encouraging.
In the space of an hour of bowling not just this match but the direction of this series has been turned on its head. The English were all out for 180 and the Aussies end the day 120/3 with a lead of 180 on a pitch where chasing much more than 300 will be incredibly difficult.
From the position they are in now Australia should win this test match, whether they will or not will be seen tomorrow most likely but they should. Then they would go to Melbourne with all the momentum and in Mitchell Johnson a genuine strike-bowler who looks back to the peak of his powers.
A 5-match test series which had essentially been one-way traffic since its 3rd day has now completely swung around and right now I would have the Aussies winning back the Ashes as a very realistic prospect.
It is just such a beautiful sport when a game that lasts 5-days and has about 40 hours of playing time can be turned on its head in the space of 40 minutes.
The Poms were 70/0 looking untroubled against an attack that had taken on average a wicket a day for the last 5 and the signs were very very encouraging.
In the space of an hour of bowling not just this match but the direction of this series has been turned on its head. The English were all out for 180 and the Aussies end the day 120/3 with a lead of 180 on a pitch where chasing much more than 300 will be incredibly difficult.
From the position they are in now Australia should win this test match, whether they will or not will be seen tomorrow most likely but they should. Then they would go to Melbourne with all the momentum and in Mitchell Johnson a genuine strike-bowler who looks back to the peak of his powers.
A 5-match test series which had essentially been one-way traffic since its 3rd day has now completely swung around and right now I would have the Aussies winning back the Ashes as a very realistic prospect.
It is just such a beautiful sport when a game that lasts 5-days and has about 40 hours of playing time can be turned on its head in the space of 40 minutes.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Halberg finalists
Because I can and because it's fun I thought I would give you my four nominees for the big four categories for this years Halbergs. Also because I was a numpty and didn't bring my plug in phone charger I am having to sit at the computer while I charge my phone for half an hour....NUMPTY
Anyway.
Sportwoman of the Year
Joelle King, Nikki Hamblin, Valerie Adams, Allison Shanks.
Dominated by Commonwealth Games athletes but in a games year you normally find that. Adams gets the nod despite being shaded for much of the year because in the end she won the gold like we wanted of her. Honourable mentions to Casey Williams and Linda Villumsen.
Sportsman of the Year
Kirk Penney, Kieren Read, Ryan Nelsen, Benji Marshall/One of the cyclists.
That is a seriously tough category this year where you could quite easily have four cyclists as your four finalists. Nelsen and Penney stand out for their talismanic performances on the biggest stages although Penneys last season with the Breakers and NBA trial will probably count against him. Benji Marshall is just so awesome that he should get nominated.
Team of the Year
All Whites, Silver Ferns, Murray and Bond, The Kiwis
Another tough category where I probably should have nominated the Tall Blacks if I was going to nominate the All Whites but now I relook at the initial nomination list the Tall Blacks dont make that cut. The Silver Ferns get in off the back of that absolutely magical final, it was pure sporting theatre and one of the great moments of the year. The Kiwis edge out the All Blacks and Black Ferns because of the nature of the victory in Brisbane following the loss the week before.
I would get into coach of the year and the new category for moment of the year but I can't really be bothered right now.
Most of you will probably disagree but hey thats the fun of something like the Halbergs. Nobody has all the answers and we are all entitled to our opinions.
Anyway.
Sportwoman of the Year
Joelle King, Nikki Hamblin, Valerie Adams, Allison Shanks.
Dominated by Commonwealth Games athletes but in a games year you normally find that. Adams gets the nod despite being shaded for much of the year because in the end she won the gold like we wanted of her. Honourable mentions to Casey Williams and Linda Villumsen.
Sportsman of the Year
Kirk Penney, Kieren Read, Ryan Nelsen, Benji Marshall/One of the cyclists.
That is a seriously tough category this year where you could quite easily have four cyclists as your four finalists. Nelsen and Penney stand out for their talismanic performances on the biggest stages although Penneys last season with the Breakers and NBA trial will probably count against him. Benji Marshall is just so awesome that he should get nominated.
Team of the Year
All Whites, Silver Ferns, Murray and Bond, The Kiwis
Another tough category where I probably should have nominated the Tall Blacks if I was going to nominate the All Whites but now I relook at the initial nomination list the Tall Blacks dont make that cut. The Silver Ferns get in off the back of that absolutely magical final, it was pure sporting theatre and one of the great moments of the year. The Kiwis edge out the All Blacks and Black Ferns because of the nature of the victory in Brisbane following the loss the week before.
I would get into coach of the year and the new category for moment of the year but I can't really be bothered right now.
Most of you will probably disagree but hey thats the fun of something like the Halbergs. Nobody has all the answers and we are all entitled to our opinions.
Perth - It's hot!
While it should come as no surprise to anyone I thought I would confirm it anyway - it is hot in Perth.
In actual cricket related news though the good oil in the media over here and in the Twitterverse is that Bresnan will play ahead of Tremlett. Some talk that Tremlett injured and struggling to bowl. In the Aussie merry-go-round it seems the four quicks will all play leaving no room for Beer. Real shame that. Smith will bat 6 though, wtf! Honestly. Not really a test match spinner and not really a test match batsman but combine the two and he gets close? It is truly wonderful seeing Australian cricket in this much dissaray.
The sheer level of English merchandise on the street would suggest a good proportion of Poms in the ground over the next 5-days.
I will be tweeting reasonably regularly so if you want to get the feel of the ground then follow me, bopman1 is my username.
In actual cricket related news though the good oil in the media over here and in the Twitterverse is that Bresnan will play ahead of Tremlett. Some talk that Tremlett injured and struggling to bowl. In the Aussie merry-go-round it seems the four quicks will all play leaving no room for Beer. Real shame that. Smith will bat 6 though, wtf! Honestly. Not really a test match spinner and not really a test match batsman but combine the two and he gets close? It is truly wonderful seeing Australian cricket in this much dissaray.
The sheer level of English merchandise on the street would suggest a good proportion of Poms in the ground over the next 5-days.
I will be tweeting reasonably regularly so if you want to get the feel of the ground then follow me, bopman1 is my username.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Mental dominance
In my piece I wrote before the first Ashes test in Brisbane three weeks ago I tried to get across the point that I thought the key thing to come out of that test would be the Poms mental state. If the Aussies dominated them there all the scars of tours past would have, I think, done as much to beat this side as any number of runs and wickets.
Three days in and it was looking like it may be a long summer, and as any number of friends have pointed out in the last week I actually wrote a piece saying the Poms were choking already, but the last two days of Brisbane firmly put any thought of mental scarring to bed. Not just that they saved the test but the manner in which they saved it was something to behold.
It meant that going to Adelaide they had nothing to be afraid of. They knew they were in the fight. That translated into one of the most systematic dismantlings of a team I have ever seen in my years of watching test cricket. I have been told and I have heard people say its only 1-0 don't get carried away. That misses the point around the way they won in Adelaide though, all the bowlers pitched in and every batsmen (Strauss excluded) got runs. It was a complete team performance that Australia had no answer to. Compare that to a victory where say one bowler rips through a team and you have one good partnership which sets up a victory. That is the reason why I am so confident that the English, barring some dramatic loss of form, should win this series and added to that they should legitimately believe they should. Kevin Pietersen was being interviewed by Warnie on the 3rd or 4th morning in Adelaide and he said something along the lines of in 06/07 they came with false belief this team has real belief/
The other funny thing about post Adelaide reaction has been the complete role-reversal in terms of crisis management. Normally it would be the Poms making ridiculous selections and whose media were destroying them this time it is the opposite. Glen McGrath said in 2005 that Australia would win at Lords and let the British press do the rest. Obviously that didn't quite work out but the sentiment stands and in this case has been reversed. In the days since Brisbane and Adelaide the Aussie press has murdered this side and it is quite beautiful to watch.
If you're reading this you probably know and thus know that I leave for Perth tomorrow to catch the last 3-tests of the series. I will try and blog as often as possible, though they may just be Barmy Army songs possibly.
So for now Ka Kite and CMON ENGLAND!
Three days in and it was looking like it may be a long summer, and as any number of friends have pointed out in the last week I actually wrote a piece saying the Poms were choking already, but the last two days of Brisbane firmly put any thought of mental scarring to bed. Not just that they saved the test but the manner in which they saved it was something to behold.
It meant that going to Adelaide they had nothing to be afraid of. They knew they were in the fight. That translated into one of the most systematic dismantlings of a team I have ever seen in my years of watching test cricket. I have been told and I have heard people say its only 1-0 don't get carried away. That misses the point around the way they won in Adelaide though, all the bowlers pitched in and every batsmen (Strauss excluded) got runs. It was a complete team performance that Australia had no answer to. Compare that to a victory where say one bowler rips through a team and you have one good partnership which sets up a victory. That is the reason why I am so confident that the English, barring some dramatic loss of form, should win this series and added to that they should legitimately believe they should. Kevin Pietersen was being interviewed by Warnie on the 3rd or 4th morning in Adelaide and he said something along the lines of in 06/07 they came with false belief this team has real belief/
The other funny thing about post Adelaide reaction has been the complete role-reversal in terms of crisis management. Normally it would be the Poms making ridiculous selections and whose media were destroying them this time it is the opposite. Glen McGrath said in 2005 that Australia would win at Lords and let the British press do the rest. Obviously that didn't quite work out but the sentiment stands and in this case has been reversed. In the days since Brisbane and Adelaide the Aussie press has murdered this side and it is quite beautiful to watch.
If you're reading this you probably know and thus know that I leave for Perth tomorrow to catch the last 3-tests of the series. I will try and blog as often as possible, though they may just be Barmy Army songs possibly.
So for now Ka Kite and CMON ENGLAND!
Back in my day....
Normally when I hear a 50-something going on about how people were tougher and things were better back in my day I sigh, shake my head and walk away. Occasionally I will enter into discussion just to keep the brain going but I find that is only when I am with my grandparents these days. Their adherence to the philosophy of 'I heard it on ZB talkback so it must be true' can push me into lengthy the world has changed monologues any day of the week.
I especially think like this when it comes to people talking about Rugby. Again ZB features prominently, if I happen to stumble across Deaker having a talkback session on Rugby I quickly reinsert the Glee CD and sing-along to that. Rugby back in those days was simply not better. Not that I have actually seen that much of it but the stuff I have had the displeasure of watching has been absolutely horrid. A general lack of skill and athleticism as we know it today makes the game of yesteryear nigh on impossible to watch. Not that I am ridiculing the people who loved the game back then or the great players of that era I just believe things have changed and we should never compare rugby of that era to rugby played now.
The purpose of this post though was to talk about two books I have read in the past week. Both largely about rugby in that era. TP: The Life and Times of Terry McLean and Sir Wilson Whineray: The Perfect Gentleman. What both books do, and I think the reason I enjoyed them so, is open a window to the reader of my generation into the game back then without the condascending 'we were tougher and therefore better' tones.
New Zealand Rugby in the 50's and 60's isn't something I know a whole lot about. I have heard, as most rugby mad Kiwis of generation has, of all of the great players and know the general story about the struggles in Africa and the 4-month tours of Europe. What these books taught me about was the dynamics; the role of the media, the respective roles of captain and coach, the team culture and the personalities of some of New Zealand sports iconic figures.
We probably wont see journalists like McLean or leaders like Whineray in our game anymore. Keith Quinn is the last journalist of that era, and even he was coming onto the scene as McLean was leaving it, but he is no longer prominent in the Rugby media. Funnily enough, after saying we would never see another leader like Whineray in our game today, I see a bit of him in McCaw. Both incredibly smart men who have that of the country feel that so endears them to so many people. Articulate men who can relate in any environment. Maybe the country will never know the real McCaw in the way that many people probably felt they knew Whineray but the similarities are there. Revolutionaries in their positions is also a slogan that can be thrown at both men.
So while I spent the first part of this post rambling about how I hate the better in my day attitude I am sad in a sense that the game doesn't have that charm it used to have in so many ways. Sure it has plenty of new charms but just sometimes dont you wish we could combine the best of the past with best of the present...
I especially think like this when it comes to people talking about Rugby. Again ZB features prominently, if I happen to stumble across Deaker having a talkback session on Rugby I quickly reinsert the Glee CD and sing-along to that. Rugby back in those days was simply not better. Not that I have actually seen that much of it but the stuff I have had the displeasure of watching has been absolutely horrid. A general lack of skill and athleticism as we know it today makes the game of yesteryear nigh on impossible to watch. Not that I am ridiculing the people who loved the game back then or the great players of that era I just believe things have changed and we should never compare rugby of that era to rugby played now.
The purpose of this post though was to talk about two books I have read in the past week. Both largely about rugby in that era. TP: The Life and Times of Terry McLean and Sir Wilson Whineray: The Perfect Gentleman. What both books do, and I think the reason I enjoyed them so, is open a window to the reader of my generation into the game back then without the condascending 'we were tougher and therefore better' tones.
New Zealand Rugby in the 50's and 60's isn't something I know a whole lot about. I have heard, as most rugby mad Kiwis of generation has, of all of the great players and know the general story about the struggles in Africa and the 4-month tours of Europe. What these books taught me about was the dynamics; the role of the media, the respective roles of captain and coach, the team culture and the personalities of some of New Zealand sports iconic figures.
We probably wont see journalists like McLean or leaders like Whineray in our game anymore. Keith Quinn is the last journalist of that era, and even he was coming onto the scene as McLean was leaving it, but he is no longer prominent in the Rugby media. Funnily enough, after saying we would never see another leader like Whineray in our game today, I see a bit of him in McCaw. Both incredibly smart men who have that of the country feel that so endears them to so many people. Articulate men who can relate in any environment. Maybe the country will never know the real McCaw in the way that many people probably felt they knew Whineray but the similarities are there. Revolutionaries in their positions is also a slogan that can be thrown at both men.
So while I spent the first part of this post rambling about how I hate the better in my day attitude I am sad in a sense that the game doesn't have that charm it used to have in so many ways. Sure it has plenty of new charms but just sometimes dont you wish we could combine the best of the past with best of the present...
Saturday, December 4, 2010
FIFA - you are a joke.
First things first - Russia I get. I don't necessarily like it but I get it.
Qatar, I don't get and no amount of new frontiers discussion will be able to convince me of its merits. On two fronts it is a poor decision - 1) Qatar wont be able to deliver all aspects of the tournament as fans have come to expect and 2) The other bids were better.
Here are some quick facts on Qatar:
Chief in his previous post touched on talk of new frontiers and the Middle East deserving a crack. That is absolute rubbish. The Middle East is not a new frontier for football; it is a market where football is already dominant and does not have huge capacity for growth. It is the national sport of Qatar (ahead of cricket, who knew that?!) What pedigree does the Middle East/Qatar have to say they deserve a crack?
On the other hand FIFA had the opportunity to take the worlds biggest event to two very similar sporting markets. Both the US and Australia are similar in that their domestic sporting markets are dominated by largely domestic sports, football operates on the peripherary of these codes relying largely on ex-pat/ethnic support to survive. If you accept the argument that that rationale didn't work in 1994 with the US then you still have Australia where post their 2004 qualification the sport has needed another boost as has the ailing domestic product. There is probably a reasonable/watertight argument that the US and Australia are FIFAs last frontiers and they have given away that shot for the sake of the short term dollar.
A lot was made in the last 24-hours of the report on economic returns. I didn't read it closely apart from noticing that Australia was at the bottom of the pile and I can only presume that Qatar was up around the top of the list with America. The report didn't suggest that Australia and the US wouldn't make money it was just that it would be less than Qatar. The technical report that came out in the middle of the year which talked about the football side of it all talked about Qatar being high risk compared to the others. The way I see it the commercial stuff stems from a successful operational side, it shouldn't be the other way around.
Why Qatar will be rubbish.
Its hot, like really really hot. I posted before that the average high in June/July is 46 and the average low is 29. You can air-condition your stadium all you like (and im not particularly convinced they can pull this part off) but the truth is it will still be that hot outside the stadium. Lets look at a fan who travels over to watch a team like NZ, across say a 17-day trip for the group stage games you may take in 5-6 games. Thats about 15 hours in stadiums across your 17-day trip. What are you going to do the rest of the time? You'll have to take a lot of money to sit in the pubs because Wikipedia tells me that the only places you can buy booze is in the hotels or expensive international clubs. It all turns into a vicious circle though because Wikipedia also reliably informs me that it is illegal to be drunk in public.
I guess it wouldn't be daft to assume that some of these things will change specifically for the tournament but make no mistake about it they will have to change if the event is to be any kind of success. Some of the other stats I have read suggest they only are promising to extend the number of hotel rooms to 90,000, that is not enough. In a country with 1.3 million people how do they expect to sell all the tickets? Especially considering that all the other factors I have talked about would seem to make it likely that the number of overseas visitors will be down.
The newspaper tells me that because Qatar is about the size of Auckland and they are building 6-stadia within 20km of each other fans will be able to attend three games in a day. Cool, will ticket prices allow people to do this? Will your transport infrastructure be good enough to get people between games in a day? Because sure as shit no one will be walking.
Another point Chief made was about forcing positive change in the region; again my scouting of trusty Wikipedia tells me that Qatar is Liberal compared to much of the rest of the middle-east. Thats fine but more will be needed. The Freedom of the Press index puts Qatar somewhere around 105 so obviously some work is needed in that area. The influx of woman they should expect, many of them scantily clad in 40degree heat will turn heads and test the extent of that liberalism. What I don't buy into is the absolute garbage about sporting events being drivers of social change. It didn't work in Beijing, in fact it possibly made things worse for a period of time over there. I don't think it has done magical things in South Africa yet and the Commonwealth Games in India were a disaster for the poor people of Delhi. Recent experience would suggest that governments can go the opposite way and further restrict the freedoms of populations to deliver the best tournament possible.
Added to my angst is the fact they beat Australia out, imagine a World Cup 3-hours away?! But that isn't my point, a world cup in Qatar will not be a good tournament.
FIFA has gone for the dollar over the game. Discussion around issues to do with the voting system are for someone else to talk about, there is an excellent article today in the Herald around the 2018 bidding (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/soccer-football/news/article.cfm?c_id=86&objectid=10692159) which essentially implies that bid executives were lied to by executive committee members. How can those members claim to be doing what is best for the game when they are lying to stakeholders of the game? Mind-boggling. I read someone say the other day that losing bidders knew what they were getting into when they bid for the tournament. An argument, which that is, that suggests because everyone breaks the rules and has been for some time so we should get over it is the ultimate cop out in anything. Hopefully the backlash which has been seen in some places will be a positive driver for change in the FIFA corridors because god knows they need it.
Qatar, I don't get and no amount of new frontiers discussion will be able to convince me of its merits. On two fronts it is a poor decision - 1) Qatar wont be able to deliver all aspects of the tournament as fans have come to expect and 2) The other bids were better.
Here are some quick facts on Qatar:
- First or second highest GDP per Capita in the world.
- Third largest gas reserves anywhere in the world.
- Population of 1.4 million people.
- 77.6% of the population is Islam
- Average high in June and July of 46 and 44 degrees with an average low of 29 degrees.
Chief in his previous post touched on talk of new frontiers and the Middle East deserving a crack. That is absolute rubbish. The Middle East is not a new frontier for football; it is a market where football is already dominant and does not have huge capacity for growth. It is the national sport of Qatar (ahead of cricket, who knew that?!) What pedigree does the Middle East/Qatar have to say they deserve a crack?
On the other hand FIFA had the opportunity to take the worlds biggest event to two very similar sporting markets. Both the US and Australia are similar in that their domestic sporting markets are dominated by largely domestic sports, football operates on the peripherary of these codes relying largely on ex-pat/ethnic support to survive. If you accept the argument that that rationale didn't work in 1994 with the US then you still have Australia where post their 2004 qualification the sport has needed another boost as has the ailing domestic product. There is probably a reasonable/watertight argument that the US and Australia are FIFAs last frontiers and they have given away that shot for the sake of the short term dollar.
A lot was made in the last 24-hours of the report on economic returns. I didn't read it closely apart from noticing that Australia was at the bottom of the pile and I can only presume that Qatar was up around the top of the list with America. The report didn't suggest that Australia and the US wouldn't make money it was just that it would be less than Qatar. The technical report that came out in the middle of the year which talked about the football side of it all talked about Qatar being high risk compared to the others. The way I see it the commercial stuff stems from a successful operational side, it shouldn't be the other way around.
Why Qatar will be rubbish.
Its hot, like really really hot. I posted before that the average high in June/July is 46 and the average low is 29. You can air-condition your stadium all you like (and im not particularly convinced they can pull this part off) but the truth is it will still be that hot outside the stadium. Lets look at a fan who travels over to watch a team like NZ, across say a 17-day trip for the group stage games you may take in 5-6 games. Thats about 15 hours in stadiums across your 17-day trip. What are you going to do the rest of the time? You'll have to take a lot of money to sit in the pubs because Wikipedia tells me that the only places you can buy booze is in the hotels or expensive international clubs. It all turns into a vicious circle though because Wikipedia also reliably informs me that it is illegal to be drunk in public.
I guess it wouldn't be daft to assume that some of these things will change specifically for the tournament but make no mistake about it they will have to change if the event is to be any kind of success. Some of the other stats I have read suggest they only are promising to extend the number of hotel rooms to 90,000, that is not enough. In a country with 1.3 million people how do they expect to sell all the tickets? Especially considering that all the other factors I have talked about would seem to make it likely that the number of overseas visitors will be down.
The newspaper tells me that because Qatar is about the size of Auckland and they are building 6-stadia within 20km of each other fans will be able to attend three games in a day. Cool, will ticket prices allow people to do this? Will your transport infrastructure be good enough to get people between games in a day? Because sure as shit no one will be walking.
Another point Chief made was about forcing positive change in the region; again my scouting of trusty Wikipedia tells me that Qatar is Liberal compared to much of the rest of the middle-east. Thats fine but more will be needed. The Freedom of the Press index puts Qatar somewhere around 105 so obviously some work is needed in that area. The influx of woman they should expect, many of them scantily clad in 40degree heat will turn heads and test the extent of that liberalism. What I don't buy into is the absolute garbage about sporting events being drivers of social change. It didn't work in Beijing, in fact it possibly made things worse for a period of time over there. I don't think it has done magical things in South Africa yet and the Commonwealth Games in India were a disaster for the poor people of Delhi. Recent experience would suggest that governments can go the opposite way and further restrict the freedoms of populations to deliver the best tournament possible.
Added to my angst is the fact they beat Australia out, imagine a World Cup 3-hours away?! But that isn't my point, a world cup in Qatar will not be a good tournament.
FIFA has gone for the dollar over the game. Discussion around issues to do with the voting system are for someone else to talk about, there is an excellent article today in the Herald around the 2018 bidding (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/soccer-football/news/article.cfm?c_id=86&objectid=10692159) which essentially implies that bid executives were lied to by executive committee members. How can those members claim to be doing what is best for the game when they are lying to stakeholders of the game? Mind-boggling. I read someone say the other day that losing bidders knew what they were getting into when they bid for the tournament. An argument, which that is, that suggests because everyone breaks the rules and has been for some time so we should get over it is the ultimate cop out in anything. Hopefully the backlash which has been seen in some places will be a positive driver for change in the FIFA corridors because god knows they need it.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The World is on its Way!
So the whole world is talking about it, so I thought I would do the same.
Russia and Qatar have just been named as the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, after voting early this morning (NZ time) at FIFA headquarters in Zurich. Both England and Australia were knocked out of voting in the first round.
I know that bopman will probably think differently about this than I, and his views will be interesting. However, I actually think, that amongst the allegations of corruption and what not, the right nations have probably been found.
Not necessarily because of the bids themselves. England, Australia and the United States would all do an incredible job, as would the other bids. I'm personally of the opinion that whoever won the bids would take on the responsibility of putting on a brilliant event. South Africa with the World Cup, and Beijing with the Olympics, proved it doesn't have to be a wealthy, western nation that hosts a modern sporting event.
So instead it was probably more strategic thinking that got the two winning bids over the line. I don't think there is nothing wrong with this - FIFA has to spread the game to the far reaches of the world, not just developed nations. Russia 2018 will be different from England, Spain/Portugal or Netherlands/Belgium - not better or worse, but different. For mine, Eastern Europe deserves a crack. Russia is the world's largest nation, a place where football matches can be staged half a world away, yet in the same tournament. Sure, the stadia and (most importantly given the size) general infrastructure in the former Soviet Union will have to upgraded for this not to be a problem. With the leadership structure they've got in Russia, and the egos of guys like Putin and Medvedev, this will be accomplished, no question. I highly doubt there will be no sweating over it like 2010 South Africa, or the 2004 Athens Olympics (where they didn't have time to build a roof over the swimming pool!). Russia will do a top job.
In some respects, Qatar is identical yet the total opposite. The Middle East, like Eastern Europe, deserves a crack. Far more important things than sport could be shaped by this announcement. The stadiums and infrastructure will be built from scratch. The experiences will be new, and something to behold. In these ways, by breaking new ground, Qatar and Russia are the same. On the other hand, Qatar will be the smallest nation to ever host such an event. It's population is just 1.6 million. The thing that everyone is concerned about is the heat, which could be upwards of 40 degrees. Over the next 12 years, we will see remarkable stadia pop up over there, with incredible technologies. They are talking about bringing down the average temperature inside stadiums some 20 degrees lower. This will be done by solar power. Incredible stuff. The heat didn't become an issue for Qatar's bid team - it became an opportunity to do something amazing.
So I feel for Australia, especially as the A-League would've been massively boosted by the news of a World Cup on the way. But these two announcements offer something else: Hope, that a nation any size, any weather, any history, and any neighbours, can have a chance at hosting something big - really big. The world is on its way!
Russia and Qatar have just been named as the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, after voting early this morning (NZ time) at FIFA headquarters in Zurich. Both England and Australia were knocked out of voting in the first round.
I know that bopman will probably think differently about this than I, and his views will be interesting. However, I actually think, that amongst the allegations of corruption and what not, the right nations have probably been found.
Not necessarily because of the bids themselves. England, Australia and the United States would all do an incredible job, as would the other bids. I'm personally of the opinion that whoever won the bids would take on the responsibility of putting on a brilliant event. South Africa with the World Cup, and Beijing with the Olympics, proved it doesn't have to be a wealthy, western nation that hosts a modern sporting event.
So instead it was probably more strategic thinking that got the two winning bids over the line. I don't think there is nothing wrong with this - FIFA has to spread the game to the far reaches of the world, not just developed nations. Russia 2018 will be different from England, Spain/Portugal or Netherlands/Belgium - not better or worse, but different. For mine, Eastern Europe deserves a crack. Russia is the world's largest nation, a place where football matches can be staged half a world away, yet in the same tournament. Sure, the stadia and (most importantly given the size) general infrastructure in the former Soviet Union will have to upgraded for this not to be a problem. With the leadership structure they've got in Russia, and the egos of guys like Putin and Medvedev, this will be accomplished, no question. I highly doubt there will be no sweating over it like 2010 South Africa, or the 2004 Athens Olympics (where they didn't have time to build a roof over the swimming pool!). Russia will do a top job.
In some respects, Qatar is identical yet the total opposite. The Middle East, like Eastern Europe, deserves a crack. Far more important things than sport could be shaped by this announcement. The stadiums and infrastructure will be built from scratch. The experiences will be new, and something to behold. In these ways, by breaking new ground, Qatar and Russia are the same. On the other hand, Qatar will be the smallest nation to ever host such an event. It's population is just 1.6 million. The thing that everyone is concerned about is the heat, which could be upwards of 40 degrees. Over the next 12 years, we will see remarkable stadia pop up over there, with incredible technologies. They are talking about bringing down the average temperature inside stadiums some 20 degrees lower. This will be done by solar power. Incredible stuff. The heat didn't become an issue for Qatar's bid team - it became an opportunity to do something amazing.
So I feel for Australia, especially as the A-League would've been massively boosted by the news of a World Cup on the way. But these two announcements offer something else: Hope, that a nation any size, any weather, any history, and any neighbours, can have a chance at hosting something big - really big. The world is on its way!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)