So rumour has it that Marco Rojas is looking likely to sign for another A-League team, probably the Melbourne Victory. If this was to go ahead, this would for me be nothing short of treachery.
First of all, I realise that the Wellington Phoenix are not the top of the pops. Players will get better opportunities to earn more money, and play in better leagues. I also realise if you are not getting the chances to play in the first team here, it is more than fair to seek fresh pastures (both Kosta Barbarouses and Glen Moss are examples of this).
But none of these apply to Rojas. The club showed faith in him when a serious injury struck him down, and got his chance at the backend of the last season. Since then, he hasn’t looked back, and was our best player for the last two months. But the guy’s only played 10 games. Sure, he was the best player on the pitch for six or seven of them, but that’s not even a third of a season. At the end of the day, sure he is talented and has a great future, but at no point do I think he has ‘made it’.
I would not begrudge him if a European team was to take a punt and sign him up. That’s an opportunity no one can turn down. If it was another A-League team though, I would take great exception. I simply can’t grasp what he could achieve in Australia that he can’t here. He won’t want to be playing in the youth league – he makes our first team squad every time he’s fit. Money – well Ricki has said they are basically willing to throw the chequebook at him. Length of deal – well if he’s as good as everyone thinks he might be, Europe will be calling sooner rather than later.
To turn down a deal from the club that he won a fan’s vote awarding him a trial, getting signed, waiting on him for almost two years before giving him his big break, will be a massive kick in the guts to the Wellington Phoenix and Yellow Fever. I for one will be all too happy to dish it out to him big time.
I just hope he sees the light and commits his A-League career here in Wellington.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The Question of the Power Play
Why is it that cricket captains throughout the world routinely delay taking the batting power play (BPP) until well into the final ten overs? The final ten overs are known as the slog, and getting 8 or 9 and over - the expected outcome of the BPP - has to be achieved regardless, without the need to have batters in the circle.
In too many instances the BPP ends up costing the team the momentum in the final ten, ie. the Pakistanis last night, NZ when chasing in Chch. It's not easy scoring runs when you're a new batsman, especially when faced with a ring full of fielders, as they are the BPP is on. Why not take it earlier? To my mind the best use of the BPP was by India in Chch a couple of years back when Y Singh went ballistic and S Tendulker scored a bucket load of runs. It was taken in the 23rd over.
Twice this series the New Zealanders have been let down by delaying the BPP. Firstly, when both K Williamson and S Styris were set in Chch. Had they taken it in the 35th, and it not work out, there would have still been ten overs with the field back for the others to try and chase the total. If the idea is to take it when B McCullum comes in, then why didn't they do it then? Instead they waited until the end, and it choked us. Then when J Franklin and B McCullum were going great guns in Napier. Two hitters, both with their eye in. Sure, it worked with N McCullum at the end, but you're expected to strike at 100 in the last ten, anyhow.
Let the field stay back in the final ten overs, which it always did, regardless of wickets, so the new batsman can hit singles for their first ten balls without having to panic. If New Zealand are going to score big totals, which is the only way they will win the World Cup, then they are going to have to show some cojones and rethink their BPP strategy.
An All White Lining?
Relegation is probably the worst thing that can happen to any European football team. The three teams relegated from the English Premiership each year have to undergo massive change to adapt to the shock. No longer are the trips to the glamour stadiums like Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge, the millions watching on television around the world, and all the associated riches. Star players must be off-loaded to cut costs, and promotion sought after immediately to avoid potential financial peril.
I believe it impacts on individual players differently; as mentioned, star players can find new clubs in the Premiership; older players sink down a division, never to be heard of again, and younger players are suddenly faced with the fact they are going to be playing Millwall and Barnsley instead of Arsenal or Manchester United.
So maybe it is a strange thing when I think relegation could be a positive thing for Winston Reid, New Zealand’s young defender at West Ham United. West Ham are currently in the bottom three of the Premier League, with thirteen games left to play. To suggest they are going down is premature; there is however a reasonable chance it will happen.
Reid arrived to reasonable fanfare after the World Cup, where he was a star performer for the All Whites playing alongside Ryan Nelsen. After his transfer, he started West Ham’s first game of the season, a 3-0 loss to Aston Villa, and then came on in as a substitute in the following match. Since then however, he has only appeared twice in the Premier League (including an hour this morning at Blackpool), while his other appearances have come in West Ham’s cup ties. Time is on his side; he is young, but it is only natural for him to want to play games. If he approaches it right, a season in the Championship could really benefit him.
West Ham spent reasonable money on him (somewhere around GBP4 million) and he has a three year contract. It’s unlikely they’ll let him leave for nothing. However no other Premier League teams are likely to be interested in him, having barely played consistently at that level. So if the Hammers are relegated chances are he will remain at the club. Many of his fellow defenders, on the other hand, will not be there. Here is the situation with the top defenders at the club:
• Danny Gabbidon was been linked to both Rangers and Celtic in January. He was the man Reid replaced this morning when he went off injured.
• Wayne Bridge is only on loan for the rest of the season, and will definitely leave if they get relegated.
• Matthew Upson’s contract expires at the end of the season, and will have a number of Premier League clubs after him as he will be a free transfer.
• James Tomkins looks slightly more set to stay, though there have been some rumours this season of interest from both Tottenham and Chelsea.
• Manuel Da Costa has recently been charged with assault following an incident in a London nightclub.
It wouldn’t take too many of these guys to leave (or be sent to jail...) before all of a sudden Reid is one of only a few defenders at the club. And in a Championship environment, the West Ham management will be more inclined to give him opportunities, and develop a rapport at the back. Of course, for it to fully benefit him, West Ham then gets promoted, with Reid a mainstay. This way, Reid develops immensely as a footballer, and in the end gets the Holy Grail – a starting spot in an English Premier League team.
I believe it impacts on individual players differently; as mentioned, star players can find new clubs in the Premiership; older players sink down a division, never to be heard of again, and younger players are suddenly faced with the fact they are going to be playing Millwall and Barnsley instead of Arsenal or Manchester United.
So maybe it is a strange thing when I think relegation could be a positive thing for Winston Reid, New Zealand’s young defender at West Ham United. West Ham are currently in the bottom three of the Premier League, with thirteen games left to play. To suggest they are going down is premature; there is however a reasonable chance it will happen.
Reid arrived to reasonable fanfare after the World Cup, where he was a star performer for the All Whites playing alongside Ryan Nelsen. After his transfer, he started West Ham’s first game of the season, a 3-0 loss to Aston Villa, and then came on in as a substitute in the following match. Since then however, he has only appeared twice in the Premier League (including an hour this morning at Blackpool), while his other appearances have come in West Ham’s cup ties. Time is on his side; he is young, but it is only natural for him to want to play games. If he approaches it right, a season in the Championship could really benefit him.
West Ham spent reasonable money on him (somewhere around GBP4 million) and he has a three year contract. It’s unlikely they’ll let him leave for nothing. However no other Premier League teams are likely to be interested in him, having barely played consistently at that level. So if the Hammers are relegated chances are he will remain at the club. Many of his fellow defenders, on the other hand, will not be there. Here is the situation with the top defenders at the club:
• Danny Gabbidon was been linked to both Rangers and Celtic in January. He was the man Reid replaced this morning when he went off injured.
• Wayne Bridge is only on loan for the rest of the season, and will definitely leave if they get relegated.
• Matthew Upson’s contract expires at the end of the season, and will have a number of Premier League clubs after him as he will be a free transfer.
• James Tomkins looks slightly more set to stay, though there have been some rumours this season of interest from both Tottenham and Chelsea.
• Manuel Da Costa has recently been charged with assault following an incident in a London nightclub.
It wouldn’t take too many of these guys to leave (or be sent to jail...) before all of a sudden Reid is one of only a few defenders at the club. And in a Championship environment, the West Ham management will be more inclined to give him opportunities, and develop a rapport at the back. Of course, for it to fully benefit him, West Ham then gets promoted, with Reid a mainstay. This way, Reid develops immensely as a footballer, and in the end gets the Holy Grail – a starting spot in an English Premier League team.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
It's On Like Dylan-Kong
So the general consensus seems to be that Dylan Macallister is a donkey. I would tend to agree. However there seems to be some thought out there that he shouldn’t be re-signed by the Phoenix, that we could do better, and that there are thousands of strikers out there that we could get for similar money, who would do a much better job.
For that reason we need him to stay. He has scored consistently for two months now (6 in 10), and with Rojas and Ward on the flanks, the formation fits him well. He is not pretty to watch, and he does manage to miss some absolute donkey-like sitters (both tonight and last week against Perth). But, and while this is a tenuous comparison, Ruud van Nistelrooy, the great Dutch striker, is hardly beautiful to watch on the ball. Now Dylan doesn’t belong in the same galaxy as Ruud, but the point remains that you don’t have to look like Lionel Messi, or dare I say, Marco Rojas, on the ball to be an effective weapon.
Next season we will have Ifill back from injury, Greenacre, Pavlovic, plus anyone else we manage to pick up. Smeltz has been linked but he’ll stay on the Gold Coast if they can afford him. Killen could be a possibility. Any other options would probably be someone from the English lower divisions or maybe a South or Central American. Even with the success of some (see Ifill, Solorzano etc.) there have been some real duds come to the A-League (Deane, Jardel and others). So there is no guarantee of a glut of goals. If the Phoenix end up banking on an aging Greenacre and a raw Pavlovic to support Ifill we are going nowhere. But a Macallister, from the start of the season going like he has been going, could be really useful.
I can imagine we sign one striker in the off season, as well as re-signing Macallister. We would have a lot of different options for that front three, with Ifill, Macallister, this new striker, Greenacre, Pavlovic, Bertos, Daniel, Ward and Rojas (provided they also re-sign with the club). There is a lot of variation there, and with guys mostly having played this season together, maybe they can gel and become a potent attacking team.
For that reason we need him to stay. He has scored consistently for two months now (6 in 10), and with Rojas and Ward on the flanks, the formation fits him well. He is not pretty to watch, and he does manage to miss some absolute donkey-like sitters (both tonight and last week against Perth). But, and while this is a tenuous comparison, Ruud van Nistelrooy, the great Dutch striker, is hardly beautiful to watch on the ball. Now Dylan doesn’t belong in the same galaxy as Ruud, but the point remains that you don’t have to look like Lionel Messi, or dare I say, Marco Rojas, on the ball to be an effective weapon.
Next season we will have Ifill back from injury, Greenacre, Pavlovic, plus anyone else we manage to pick up. Smeltz has been linked but he’ll stay on the Gold Coast if they can afford him. Killen could be a possibility. Any other options would probably be someone from the English lower divisions or maybe a South or Central American. Even with the success of some (see Ifill, Solorzano etc.) there have been some real duds come to the A-League (Deane, Jardel and others). So there is no guarantee of a glut of goals. If the Phoenix end up banking on an aging Greenacre and a raw Pavlovic to support Ifill we are going nowhere. But a Macallister, from the start of the season going like he has been going, could be really useful.
I can imagine we sign one striker in the off season, as well as re-signing Macallister. We would have a lot of different options for that front three, with Ifill, Macallister, this new striker, Greenacre, Pavlovic, Bertos, Daniel, Ward and Rojas (provided they also re-sign with the club). There is a lot of variation there, and with guys mostly having played this season together, maybe they can gel and become a potent attacking team.
Friday, January 28, 2011
How we could win the Cricket World Cup.
So I'm sitting here getting frustrated with the Black Caps, and our awful bowling unit- as Afridi has just hit 65 off his last 24 balls due to a) him being quite good, and b) our poor death bowling. I figure I'll blog about how this isn't so relevant at the Cup.
I'll start with the bowling positives (of which there are few).
Southee- He can typically put the ball where it is required- something most of the others in the squad cannot do. It was highlighted a year or so ago in a Super over against Oz in T20- where he went for 6 runs. He isn't quite consistent enough yet- it's not uncommon to see him bowl four pearlers in an over, with a couple of loose ones which will go for four, but generally a lot more accurate than the rest of the squad.
Vettori- No comment needed really- as a containing bowler he'd be one of the best in the world. Obviously a shoe-in as captain, and a quality batsman, getting us out of trouble so often.
Outside of these two though, we are lacking in any real quality. Mills- one time best ODI bowler in the world, now past it and awful. Oram- useful option when he's bowling well, probably not a match-winner any more. Bennett- a bit raw, but possible match-winner if all is going well. Woodcock- pleased to see him in the squad, but no experience on the big stage. Franklin- being used to open our bowling currently, but surely no more than a bit-part bowler at the Cup.
We also have a large number of players who can play a bit-part in our bowling plans at the Cup. Obviously Piggy can roll the arm down succesfully, and will play a part in the WC. With Ryder's injuries he's bowling less, but I really rate him as an option if tossed the ball. Williamson- not bad domestically, unproven internationally. N-Mac- not a great wicket-taker, but could be useful in India.
Hardly a bowling lineup that'll strike fear into opposition at the Cup- ipso facto, we're not going to win with our bowling prowess.
Our depth lies in the strength of our batsmen, and their ability to accumulate quickly when required. Taylor, Ryder and McCullum are among the best in the world, and all play their best when they are hitting the ball hard. Guptill for mine is also heading this way, and could be a useful support act here. Williamson, not so much an attacking option, but if these other four are on their game, he'll be a useful foil down the other end. I don't mind Jamie How (would rather McGlashan)- but don't anticipate he'll play a huge part at the Cup- and not nearly as powerful as those he'll be competing with at the top of the order.
Piggy and Vettori are both more than useful batsmen, and (the new) Franklin and Oram on their day can be match-winners. As much as I don't particularly want Mills in the starting XI, he can hit a big ball if required, as can Southee (over cow and cow only).
So cutting to the chase (something I'm awful at). I think we almost need to head into games in the Super stage of the Cup expecting to chase in excess of 300, but to have the faith that we will be able to. We need to stack the team with players who can bat, somewhat cutting our losses with our bowlers- meaning that you won't see a lineup of Woodcock/Mills/Southee/Bennett at 8/9/10/11 as you do in today's match. Realistically we'll have potential match-winners batting down to 10, and all we need is three or four of these batsmen to fire and we'll be able to chase down 300.
I'd lineup as follows.
Guppy
Ryder
Williamson
Taylor
Styris
B McCullum
Franklin/N McCullum
Oram
Vettori
Southee
Bennett
Potentially open with B-Mac- but sounds like that's not an option with Wright. Also easy to drop Williamson down the order if we need to capitalise on an early power play.
Do I think we'll win the World Cup? No- I'm not deluded. But if we have any chance to win, I think that batting deep and using a large number of bit-part bowlers whose strength lies in their aggressive batting, will be the way that we could.
I'll start with the bowling positives (of which there are few).
Southee- He can typically put the ball where it is required- something most of the others in the squad cannot do. It was highlighted a year or so ago in a Super over against Oz in T20- where he went for 6 runs. He isn't quite consistent enough yet- it's not uncommon to see him bowl four pearlers in an over, with a couple of loose ones which will go for four, but generally a lot more accurate than the rest of the squad.
Vettori- No comment needed really- as a containing bowler he'd be one of the best in the world. Obviously a shoe-in as captain, and a quality batsman, getting us out of trouble so often.
Outside of these two though, we are lacking in any real quality. Mills- one time best ODI bowler in the world, now past it and awful. Oram- useful option when he's bowling well, probably not a match-winner any more. Bennett- a bit raw, but possible match-winner if all is going well. Woodcock- pleased to see him in the squad, but no experience on the big stage. Franklin- being used to open our bowling currently, but surely no more than a bit-part bowler at the Cup.
We also have a large number of players who can play a bit-part in our bowling plans at the Cup. Obviously Piggy can roll the arm down succesfully, and will play a part in the WC. With Ryder's injuries he's bowling less, but I really rate him as an option if tossed the ball. Williamson- not bad domestically, unproven internationally. N-Mac- not a great wicket-taker, but could be useful in India.
Hardly a bowling lineup that'll strike fear into opposition at the Cup- ipso facto, we're not going to win with our bowling prowess.
Our depth lies in the strength of our batsmen, and their ability to accumulate quickly when required. Taylor, Ryder and McCullum are among the best in the world, and all play their best when they are hitting the ball hard. Guptill for mine is also heading this way, and could be a useful support act here. Williamson, not so much an attacking option, but if these other four are on their game, he'll be a useful foil down the other end. I don't mind Jamie How (would rather McGlashan)- but don't anticipate he'll play a huge part at the Cup- and not nearly as powerful as those he'll be competing with at the top of the order.
Piggy and Vettori are both more than useful batsmen, and (the new) Franklin and Oram on their day can be match-winners. As much as I don't particularly want Mills in the starting XI, he can hit a big ball if required, as can Southee (over cow and cow only).
So cutting to the chase (something I'm awful at). I think we almost need to head into games in the Super stage of the Cup expecting to chase in excess of 300, but to have the faith that we will be able to. We need to stack the team with players who can bat, somewhat cutting our losses with our bowlers- meaning that you won't see a lineup of Woodcock/Mills/Southee/Bennett at 8/9/10/11 as you do in today's match. Realistically we'll have potential match-winners batting down to 10, and all we need is three or four of these batsmen to fire and we'll be able to chase down 300.
I'd lineup as follows.
Guppy
Ryder
Williamson
Taylor
Styris
B McCullum
Franklin/N McCullum
Oram
Vettori
Southee
Bennett
Potentially open with B-Mac- but sounds like that's not an option with Wright. Also easy to drop Williamson down the order if we need to capitalise on an early power play.
Do I think we'll win the World Cup? No- I'm not deluded. But if we have any chance to win, I think that batting deep and using a large number of bit-part bowlers whose strength lies in their aggressive batting, will be the way that we could.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Reaction to the reaction.
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.
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.
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)