Recently Andy Murray has added his name to the a number of top tennis players that have voiced their concerns over the crowded professional schedule. Tennis players get one month of off season a year, and even that is cut short if you happen to have made the final of the Davis Cup with your country. Straight after this off season they have one of the four main tournaments of the year, the Australian Open. The timing of this event means that even during the rest period you have to be keeping fit and training is almost as intensive as it is during the playing season. But surely it's this hectic schedule that allows them to make so much money overy the 10-15 year career they have? You could also argue that if someone wants to risk playing week in week out for ranking points and money, but risk injuries along the way, then it is that players choice to do so?
Whilst footballers are complaining about having 2 or 3 games a week tennis players regularly have 4 games a week,and during grand slam fortnights this could mean 7 matches of around 4 hours each. And with two grandslams (The French Open and Wimbledon) falling within just over a month period there is a lot of tennis to be played, especially as these two surfaces (clay and grass) are the most different of all the surfaces that the sport is played on. If these players are injured for 2 or 3 weeks they're missing a lot of matches, and a lot of ranking points in the process. Footballers on the other hand will still get their weekly wage, just missing a few bonus payments for playing or scoring. Longevity in the game is not just attributed to skill, but how you can condition your body as well. But with the game becoming increasingly punishing on the body players like Nadal will be hard pressed to match the records of Federer, who hasn't retired from a tournament since he was 16. All in all the game is getting tougher and the schedule hasn't evolved with it.
Despite this sporting professionals all seem to complain about playing a sport they love for a living, and the tabloids do love to moan at them for this. The players put their bodies on the line but they get rewarded for it. Ranking points can be protected if the player is injured, so it is not as huge a loss as it might have been in the past if you now get injured. The prize money for each of the grand slams is eye watering, and despite not yet winning his first Grand Slam Murrays earnings so far total nearly $17m, so he's not exactly on the breadline. Also if a player is good enough he can set himself up for huge endorsement deals, such as Federer with Nike, Gilette and Rolex, as well as future coaching jobs for the players who understand the technical side of the game that bit more. John Lloyd never really captured the imagination as a tennis player, but he's forged a long career out of the sport with his own string of clubs up and down the country offering a comprehensive sporting club membership.
Taking everything into account, I do feel the players need to have some restbite when it comes to their schedule, and it definitely needs to be looked at if we want the game to progress as it has done in the last 30 years. Maybe limiting the number of tournaments that can be entered by a player each year would help, so players wouldnt feel pressured to push their bodies as far as their games need to be. So despite the stick they will get from saying its too hard work, Maybe their schedule does need to be ammended, otherwise I don't think the game will continue to be as exciting as the last few years.
Friday, 30 September 2011
Monday, 12 September 2011
Guest: Josh Heffernan on the Oscar Pistorius debate
Oscar Pistorius has broken records in the paralympics, and has now set his sights on able-bodied games. He is one good race away from qualifying for the Olympic 400m, despite the minor inconvenience of having no legs. After being described as an “inconvenient embarrassment” by the BBC the other day, the guy has every right to be a little angry at people. But there are three things about this whole deal that I feel need to be sorted out, fast:
- First of all, if people are not sure if the guy’s artificial legs give him an advantage, then I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. He trains and works hard like everybody else, and he deserves to be treated as such.
- Second of all, the IAAF only letting him run the first relay leg for safety reasons seems to ignore the fact that the rest of the athletes have inch-long spikes on the soles of their feet. If they can let Zola Budd run barefoot, they can let Blade Runner run wherever he wants.
- Third of all, Tanni Grey-Thompson, one of Britain’s greatest Paralympians, said that if Pistorius runs in the Olympic 400m, it will turn the Paralympic 400m into a ‘B event.’ That sounds to me like someone admitting that the Paralympics has no value other than as a filler for those who cannot enter the Olympics. However, I would argue that this does the opposite. It makes the Paralympic Games relevant to the Olympics themselves in a way that has never really happened before.
True, he is not the first amputee to qualify for the Olympics (Swimmer Natalie Du Toit, also of South Africa, for all you pub quiz fans), but he is the first one to really capture the attention of the general public. It amazes me that the first amputee athlete to qualify for the Olympic Games will be looked at as anything but an inspiration, and I hope that, eventually, common sense and human decency will prevail.
- First of all, if people are not sure if the guy’s artificial legs give him an advantage, then I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. He trains and works hard like everybody else, and he deserves to be treated as such.
- Second of all, the IAAF only letting him run the first relay leg for safety reasons seems to ignore the fact that the rest of the athletes have inch-long spikes on the soles of their feet. If they can let Zola Budd run barefoot, they can let Blade Runner run wherever he wants.
- Third of all, Tanni Grey-Thompson, one of Britain’s greatest Paralympians, said that if Pistorius runs in the Olympic 400m, it will turn the Paralympic 400m into a ‘B event.’ That sounds to me like someone admitting that the Paralympics has no value other than as a filler for those who cannot enter the Olympics. However, I would argue that this does the opposite. It makes the Paralympic Games relevant to the Olympics themselves in a way that has never really happened before.
True, he is not the first amputee to qualify for the Olympics (Swimmer Natalie Du Toit, also of South Africa, for all you pub quiz fans), but he is the first one to really capture the attention of the general public. It amazes me that the first amputee athlete to qualify for the Olympic Games will be looked at as anything but an inspiration, and I hope that, eventually, common sense and human decency will prevail.
Saturday, 10 September 2011
Guest: Josh Heffernan on The Six Most Impressive Individual Performances from the World Championships
This is my second guest to write on this blog in a few days, and I think again it's a very interesting article, with one to follow in a few days that I think is a very interesting debate, any athletcis fans keep your eyes open for the updates.
Athletics is one of the rare sports that actually has a World Championships, and yet it is still not the biggest tournament in the sport. Having said that, last week in Daegu gave us plenty to look at going into the Olympics, including some big performances from relatively new names. So, here are six performances from Daegu that have really made me rethink some of my predictions for next year.
Mo Farah – A silver medal in the 5,000m at the World Championships is not to be sniffed at, but it says a lot about Mo Farah that we then expected him to ‘make up for it’ in the 10,000m. It says even more than he actually did it. Distance running has always had two key levels: world class, and Kenyan. Farah has been in the first category for a few years, but his gold medal in the 10k proved that he might just be a genuine contender in London. This wasn’t your average Commonwealth Games or European Championship crowd; he edged out the great Kenyan-born Bernard Lagat to win that (for the second time in six weeks, I might add). It was a perfectly run race, and for the first time in many years, Brits have a reason to watch the 10k at the Olympics.
Christian Taylor – Now, I have always been a big triple jump fan. I was brought up idolising Jonathan Edwards and, with Phillips Idowu being the best in the world right now, it amazes me that the event is not more prominent on British television. Personal issues aside, I sat back to see the inevitable moment when someone told me (note: told. Probably midway through the 800m, in passing) that Idowu had won. Then I found out about a 21-year-old who jumped 17.96m. I want to make this very clear: Idowu, widely recognised as the best triple jumper in the world did not perform badly. He did not choke. Idowu jumped a season’s best, just 4cm short of his PB, and he was still 22cm short. Taylor, who was not a contender, is now 5th on the all-time list. One more thing: in qualification for the final, Taylor failed to reach 17 metres. I hope he isn’t a one-off.
Yohan Blake – Undoubted shock of the tournament. Usain Bolt was such an overwhelming favourite that I didn’t even think to watch the heats. It’s just Bolt versus the clock at the moment. However, when Bolt fell afoul of the second most ridiculous rule in world athletics (I’ll get to that part later), we suddenly realised that other people run the 100m pretty damn quick. 9.92s quick. He isn’t a fluke either, as he proved at this week’s Diamond League (9.82). For those of you wondering if he is really all that good, bear this in mind: Jamaica’s 4x100m relay team broke the word record at Daegu. Blake was running instead of Asafa Powell. If you can keep Powell out of a relay team, you might just have something special.
Kirani James – Like Blake, this is a new kid who proved his win was no fluke by winning the Diamond League event this week. The 400m is a tough event to run, and to see an 18-year-old Grenadian to run 44.60s at the Worlds, beating the Olympic champion on the line, makes you wonder why this guy hasn’t really been seen before. Looking into his junior career had me even more excited about this guy. At the Carribbean Games (CARAFTA Games) Under-17 event, he won the gold medal with 47.86s… aged 14. Give this guy a good coach, and I can see this guy breaking a world record before he is done. I guarantee it.
David Storl - Shot put doesn't get a huge amount of viewership these days, but it doesn't mean there aren't big rising stars. Storl broke his personal best three times on his way to the shot put gold medal. Already the world junior record holder, the German became the youngest World Champion in shot put history. This isn’t impressive because of the distance though, but when you break your personal best three times in one week, it means you are still on a steep upward curve. This guy is on a steep upward curve, AND he’s already world champion. Again, I want to see how good this guy can go.
Dai Greene – I began this list with a Brit and it only seems reasonable to finish with a Brit. After winning in Daegu, the 400m hurdler is now surely the favourite to win gold in London. However, as if that wasn’t enough pressure, the Olympic title is all Greene needs to complete the athletics equivalent of a Grand Slam. Greene is already World, European and Commonwealth champion, and this will surely be his one and only chance to hold all four titles at the same time. Make sure you watch the 400m hurdles next year; it will be a big deal.
Athletics is one of the rare sports that actually has a World Championships, and yet it is still not the biggest tournament in the sport. Having said that, last week in Daegu gave us plenty to look at going into the Olympics, including some big performances from relatively new names. So, here are six performances from Daegu that have really made me rethink some of my predictions for next year.
Mo Farah – A silver medal in the 5,000m at the World Championships is not to be sniffed at, but it says a lot about Mo Farah that we then expected him to ‘make up for it’ in the 10,000m. It says even more than he actually did it. Distance running has always had two key levels: world class, and Kenyan. Farah has been in the first category for a few years, but his gold medal in the 10k proved that he might just be a genuine contender in London. This wasn’t your average Commonwealth Games or European Championship crowd; he edged out the great Kenyan-born Bernard Lagat to win that (for the second time in six weeks, I might add). It was a perfectly run race, and for the first time in many years, Brits have a reason to watch the 10k at the Olympics.
Christian Taylor – Now, I have always been a big triple jump fan. I was brought up idolising Jonathan Edwards and, with Phillips Idowu being the best in the world right now, it amazes me that the event is not more prominent on British television. Personal issues aside, I sat back to see the inevitable moment when someone told me (note: told. Probably midway through the 800m, in passing) that Idowu had won. Then I found out about a 21-year-old who jumped 17.96m. I want to make this very clear: Idowu, widely recognised as the best triple jumper in the world did not perform badly. He did not choke. Idowu jumped a season’s best, just 4cm short of his PB, and he was still 22cm short. Taylor, who was not a contender, is now 5th on the all-time list. One more thing: in qualification for the final, Taylor failed to reach 17 metres. I hope he isn’t a one-off.
Yohan Blake – Undoubted shock of the tournament. Usain Bolt was such an overwhelming favourite that I didn’t even think to watch the heats. It’s just Bolt versus the clock at the moment. However, when Bolt fell afoul of the second most ridiculous rule in world athletics (I’ll get to that part later), we suddenly realised that other people run the 100m pretty damn quick. 9.92s quick. He isn’t a fluke either, as he proved at this week’s Diamond League (9.82). For those of you wondering if he is really all that good, bear this in mind: Jamaica’s 4x100m relay team broke the word record at Daegu. Blake was running instead of Asafa Powell. If you can keep Powell out of a relay team, you might just have something special.
Kirani James – Like Blake, this is a new kid who proved his win was no fluke by winning the Diamond League event this week. The 400m is a tough event to run, and to see an 18-year-old Grenadian to run 44.60s at the Worlds, beating the Olympic champion on the line, makes you wonder why this guy hasn’t really been seen before. Looking into his junior career had me even more excited about this guy. At the Carribbean Games (CARAFTA Games) Under-17 event, he won the gold medal with 47.86s… aged 14. Give this guy a good coach, and I can see this guy breaking a world record before he is done. I guarantee it.
David Storl - Shot put doesn't get a huge amount of viewership these days, but it doesn't mean there aren't big rising stars. Storl broke his personal best three times on his way to the shot put gold medal. Already the world junior record holder, the German became the youngest World Champion in shot put history. This isn’t impressive because of the distance though, but when you break your personal best three times in one week, it means you are still on a steep upward curve. This guy is on a steep upward curve, AND he’s already world champion. Again, I want to see how good this guy can go.
Dai Greene – I began this list with a Brit and it only seems reasonable to finish with a Brit. After winning in Daegu, the 400m hurdler is now surely the favourite to win gold in London. However, as if that wasn’t enough pressure, the Olympic title is all Greene needs to complete the athletics equivalent of a Grand Slam. Greene is already World, European and Commonwealth champion, and this will surely be his one and only chance to hold all four titles at the same time. Make sure you watch the 400m hurdles next year; it will be a big deal.
Friday, 9 September 2011
Guest Writer : Nathan on Arsenal and Arsene
Hello Sport Central UK readers! For those who don't know me, my name's Nathan and I'm doing a nice little guest entry here on Scott's sports blog, and given my opinionated nature this could well be the first of many.
Today I've got a few bits and pieces to say about Arsenal. Anybody who knows me even the slightest will know that I'm quite a big Arsenal fan (and according to Scott "so biased that I could be Arsene Wenger's love child"). However, in this article it shouldn't really affect my opinions because I know for a fact that Arsenal fans are quite divided on this issue, so hopefully my affiliation with Arsenal will simply bring more knowledge to this discussion.
This whole thing is based firstly on Arsenal's appauling run of form and transfer shenanigans (or lack thereof) as well as something I heard Adrian Durham say on Talksport. Firstly I should point out that I am massively paraphrasing him here and do not claim that wat he is saying is necessarily right or wrong; just that it makes for a good thing to discuss. Durham's words were off the back of Arsenal's mad rush to sign new players on the last 2 days of the transfer window following their humiliating 8-2 defeat to Manchester United. Essentially his argument boiled down to the fact that for the last 2-3 years, Arsene Wenger has said that there's money at the club to spend but then hasn't spent it. Durham's view is that this decision not to spend money has come from Arsenal's board, and not from Arsene Wenger. He even went on to say that Wenger deliberately fielded a weakened side against Manchester United at Old Trafford the other week so that Arsenal would lose badly and that he would therefore be able to pursuade the board to give him money for transfers.
OK, so this is quite an extreme view to take and the truth is much more likely (as with most things) to be somewhere in the middle; however it is certainly true that there were some players (Vermaelen and Sagna being the most notable) who were borderline fit to play who Wenger didn't risk. Under normal circumstances this would be sensible, but Man United is one of the biggest games of the season not to be taking risks for. As with transfers, Wenger has built up a reputation of not spending any money. However, think back 7 or 8 years ago. Did he have that reputation then? The answer is no. He did not.
Looking back at Wenger's long career at Arsenal, the first transfer window open to him he splashed the cash on Marc Overmas and Emmanuel Petit, both of whom inspired the double-winning season of 97-98. The next two seasons he bought 13 players, many of very high quality; such as Nwankwo Kanu, Davor Suker (who was unsuccessful at the club but was signed off the back of a Golden Boot winning World Cup), Fredrik Ljungberg, Lauren and (of course) Thierry Henry. The season after that Wenger spent a grand total of £35 million; not a lot in todays market, but this was a time when Chelsea were poor and Man City in the 1st Division. In this same year that Marc Overmars was sold to Barcelona for a record-breaking £25 million, which somewhat dispels this idea of Wenger always refusing to make good use of the cash gained from the sale of big players. In fact before Arsenal moved to the Emirates Stadium, Arsene Wenger spent less than he gained in transfers in a season only once. This was in the 99-00 season when Anelka was sold to Real Madrid for £23 million, and the same year that Henry, Suker and Lauren came to the club.
So, why has this changed after the move to the Emirates? Going back to Durham's argument, it's essentially because the board has less money they want to give to Wenger as they want to pay off the massive debt they incurred in the construction of the stadium as quickly as possible; which you can't really blame them for doing (especially as Wenger's the one who'll be taking the criticism for this). Whether he deliberately sent his players out to lose to United or not is more contentious. However, I do think that Wenger has come under some very unfair criticism in recent years for pursuing a transfer policy which is in fact, not his. People have forgotten, not just the fact that Arsenal does not have the money of the Manchester clubs, Chelsea, or even Liverpool; but also the huge number of famous players around who Wenger signed for Arsenal. There are obvious examples such as Cesc Fabregas, Samir Nasri and Emmanuel Adebayor; but also some less obvious ones such as David Bentley, Matthew Upson, Slyvinho, Eduardo, Sebastian Larsson and Giovanni Van Bronkhorst.
The big question now is, where does this leave our opinion of Arsene Wenger? Personally I think much of the criticism of him has been quite harsh. In the past when I have said this, people have responded by saying that it's just because I'm an Arsenal fan. Maybe that's so, maybe it isn't; but this year with so many lifelong Arsenal fans screaming for a new manager, I think my defence of Wenger comes from taking a good long hard look at his situation. To be fair, he has made some pretty big mistakes in recent times. The two big ones for me are firstly the lack of honesty at the club. Arsenal have pretty much only just accepted that they can't be challenging for the league this season. This should have been said two years ago to stop the media and fans' hype and disappointment when we don't win anything. We're not the only team in the league not to have won anything for a while, so let's lower our expectations a bit. Also, if you don't have the money to rectify the situation over a season's worth of big transfers, then say so. Secondly, whilst I can potentially see why the signing of new players was left so late if the board were reluctant to spend; I really cannot see why the sales of Fabregas and Nasri had to wait so long when they were clearly on the cards. I don't just mean that these sales were inevitable because the media said so (I mean Fabregas was "definately going to Barcelona" every season since 2005); what I mean is that from inside the club Wenger must know who's most likely going that summer and who isn't. Why then did he not sell them quickly and use the time to pursuade the board to let him spend the money they made on those players, rather than wait until there was very little time left?
On the whole however, I don't see how the board would be able to justify sacking Arsene Wenger (especially seeing as his lack of success in recent years in partly down to them). Trophiless for 6 seasons we may be, but he is the most successful manager the club has ever had. With 3 Premiership titles and 4 FA Cups he is more successful even than the legednary Herbert Chapman. Also, a bigger question in my eyes, is who is going to replace him? Can anyone honestly think of another manager who is better than Wenger who will want to come and manage Arsenal on a long term basis? The only reasonable thing I've heard is that Guardiola apparently would like to manage Arsenal for want of a fresh challenge; although I must say I find it very difficult to believe that he would take the job when not faced with a hypothetical situation.
So, that's where I stand on the whole 'Arsenal and Arsene Wenger' situation going into Saturdays game against Swansea. I must say, transfer deadline sagas aside I'm very excited to see what our new signings are like - particularly Per Mertesacker who I think was a brilliant buy considering that he's 71 caps and 1 trophy better off than Gary Cahill, at £7 million less. Arteta will be another interesting one too. Obviously he's been very good for Everton, but I will reserve judgement until I see what he can do for us. I can't help but thinking though he should have left Everton 3 years ago so he could play at a higher level when he was a bit younger. If anyone has any comments or counter-arguments or anything that they wish to post below then I'd be happy to read and reply to them. Thanks very much to Scott for allowing me to write this little something for the blog (and for reading it through given that he already knows my arguments on this). Thanks for reading!
Today I've got a few bits and pieces to say about Arsenal. Anybody who knows me even the slightest will know that I'm quite a big Arsenal fan (and according to Scott "so biased that I could be Arsene Wenger's love child"). However, in this article it shouldn't really affect my opinions because I know for a fact that Arsenal fans are quite divided on this issue, so hopefully my affiliation with Arsenal will simply bring more knowledge to this discussion.
This whole thing is based firstly on Arsenal's appauling run of form and transfer shenanigans (or lack thereof) as well as something I heard Adrian Durham say on Talksport. Firstly I should point out that I am massively paraphrasing him here and do not claim that wat he is saying is necessarily right or wrong; just that it makes for a good thing to discuss. Durham's words were off the back of Arsenal's mad rush to sign new players on the last 2 days of the transfer window following their humiliating 8-2 defeat to Manchester United. Essentially his argument boiled down to the fact that for the last 2-3 years, Arsene Wenger has said that there's money at the club to spend but then hasn't spent it. Durham's view is that this decision not to spend money has come from Arsenal's board, and not from Arsene Wenger. He even went on to say that Wenger deliberately fielded a weakened side against Manchester United at Old Trafford the other week so that Arsenal would lose badly and that he would therefore be able to pursuade the board to give him money for transfers.
OK, so this is quite an extreme view to take and the truth is much more likely (as with most things) to be somewhere in the middle; however it is certainly true that there were some players (Vermaelen and Sagna being the most notable) who were borderline fit to play who Wenger didn't risk. Under normal circumstances this would be sensible, but Man United is one of the biggest games of the season not to be taking risks for. As with transfers, Wenger has built up a reputation of not spending any money. However, think back 7 or 8 years ago. Did he have that reputation then? The answer is no. He did not.
Looking back at Wenger's long career at Arsenal, the first transfer window open to him he splashed the cash on Marc Overmas and Emmanuel Petit, both of whom inspired the double-winning season of 97-98. The next two seasons he bought 13 players, many of very high quality; such as Nwankwo Kanu, Davor Suker (who was unsuccessful at the club but was signed off the back of a Golden Boot winning World Cup), Fredrik Ljungberg, Lauren and (of course) Thierry Henry. The season after that Wenger spent a grand total of £35 million; not a lot in todays market, but this was a time when Chelsea were poor and Man City in the 1st Division. In this same year that Marc Overmars was sold to Barcelona for a record-breaking £25 million, which somewhat dispels this idea of Wenger always refusing to make good use of the cash gained from the sale of big players. In fact before Arsenal moved to the Emirates Stadium, Arsene Wenger spent less than he gained in transfers in a season only once. This was in the 99-00 season when Anelka was sold to Real Madrid for £23 million, and the same year that Henry, Suker and Lauren came to the club.
So, why has this changed after the move to the Emirates? Going back to Durham's argument, it's essentially because the board has less money they want to give to Wenger as they want to pay off the massive debt they incurred in the construction of the stadium as quickly as possible; which you can't really blame them for doing (especially as Wenger's the one who'll be taking the criticism for this). Whether he deliberately sent his players out to lose to United or not is more contentious. However, I do think that Wenger has come under some very unfair criticism in recent years for pursuing a transfer policy which is in fact, not his. People have forgotten, not just the fact that Arsenal does not have the money of the Manchester clubs, Chelsea, or even Liverpool; but also the huge number of famous players around who Wenger signed for Arsenal. There are obvious examples such as Cesc Fabregas, Samir Nasri and Emmanuel Adebayor; but also some less obvious ones such as David Bentley, Matthew Upson, Slyvinho, Eduardo, Sebastian Larsson and Giovanni Van Bronkhorst.
The big question now is, where does this leave our opinion of Arsene Wenger? Personally I think much of the criticism of him has been quite harsh. In the past when I have said this, people have responded by saying that it's just because I'm an Arsenal fan. Maybe that's so, maybe it isn't; but this year with so many lifelong Arsenal fans screaming for a new manager, I think my defence of Wenger comes from taking a good long hard look at his situation. To be fair, he has made some pretty big mistakes in recent times. The two big ones for me are firstly the lack of honesty at the club. Arsenal have pretty much only just accepted that they can't be challenging for the league this season. This should have been said two years ago to stop the media and fans' hype and disappointment when we don't win anything. We're not the only team in the league not to have won anything for a while, so let's lower our expectations a bit. Also, if you don't have the money to rectify the situation over a season's worth of big transfers, then say so. Secondly, whilst I can potentially see why the signing of new players was left so late if the board were reluctant to spend; I really cannot see why the sales of Fabregas and Nasri had to wait so long when they were clearly on the cards. I don't just mean that these sales were inevitable because the media said so (I mean Fabregas was "definately going to Barcelona" every season since 2005); what I mean is that from inside the club Wenger must know who's most likely going that summer and who isn't. Why then did he not sell them quickly and use the time to pursuade the board to let him spend the money they made on those players, rather than wait until there was very little time left?
On the whole however, I don't see how the board would be able to justify sacking Arsene Wenger (especially seeing as his lack of success in recent years in partly down to them). Trophiless for 6 seasons we may be, but he is the most successful manager the club has ever had. With 3 Premiership titles and 4 FA Cups he is more successful even than the legednary Herbert Chapman. Also, a bigger question in my eyes, is who is going to replace him? Can anyone honestly think of another manager who is better than Wenger who will want to come and manage Arsenal on a long term basis? The only reasonable thing I've heard is that Guardiola apparently would like to manage Arsenal for want of a fresh challenge; although I must say I find it very difficult to believe that he would take the job when not faced with a hypothetical situation.
So, that's where I stand on the whole 'Arsenal and Arsene Wenger' situation going into Saturdays game against Swansea. I must say, transfer deadline sagas aside I'm very excited to see what our new signings are like - particularly Per Mertesacker who I think was a brilliant buy considering that he's 71 caps and 1 trophy better off than Gary Cahill, at £7 million less. Arteta will be another interesting one too. Obviously he's been very good for Everton, but I will reserve judgement until I see what he can do for us. I can't help but thinking though he should have left Everton 3 years ago so he could play at a higher level when he was a bit younger. If anyone has any comments or counter-arguments or anything that they wish to post below then I'd be happy to read and reply to them. Thanks very much to Scott for allowing me to write this little something for the blog (and for reading it through given that he already knows my arguments on this). Thanks for reading!
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Sporting Update
Rugby World Cup
I really don't understand the science behind watching sport, especially when it comes down to domestic vs international. I could watch most premier league football matches, even if it's not a team I'm interested in, but I can't for international matches. I just feel that the matches drag out and no-one really cares about the international matches until the world cup. However with rugby I cant stand domestic games, but I could watch any two nations in a Union Test match. This is why I love the rugby world cup. It's a brilliant atmosphere and its refreshing to see players who want to give it all for their country, not worrying about their pay packets or reputations.
Favourites - New Zealand
New Zealand are everyones favourites for the tournament, and you only have to look at their team to see why. Pace, power and a world class fly half. Dan Carter is the leading points scorer of all time, not only for New Zealand, but in the world, taking over from Wilkinson. Their pack is huge, and not afraid to run with the ball either as they all handle the ball terrifically well. Their back line also packs a huge punch, and don't be surprised to see Dan Carter simply hand the ball off for someone to simply try and break the defensive lines. Then when the defense gets used to that, Carters wonderous kicking abilities will have the opponents wondering what on earth is coming next. If you look at their team, something would have to go wrong for the All Blacks not to win.
English Prospects
England have a great chance to make their third final in a row. The team looks to be getting back into a nice flow, the pack seems to be operating as a complete unit and Wilkinson seems to be up to his old tricks again. I would also expect Manu Tuilagi to play a huge part with his speed and power if England are going to make it to the final.
Other hopefuls
France, Australia and South Africa will also fancy their chances going into this tournament. Australia will be bouyed by their recent victory over the all Blacks to seal the tri-nations, and would love to go to New Zealand to claim the Web Ellis trophy again. France have looked the complete outfit for while, but really struggle to keep their discipline at the vital points, they really need to focus to remain a danger in this world cup. South Africa have always been there or there abouts and would love to claim another trophy, they would have to play exetremely well though, because I'd put them as 4th or 5th in terms of technical ability.
So my verdict is an All blacks victory, but there is hope for other teams, because the pressure will really be on to claim a world cup after a 24 year wait. and in front of a home crowd that is rugby mad the pressure could really tell for the Kiwis and it will be a very interesting world cup.
Tennis
If you've been watching the tennis this week you'd be forgiven for thinking you were watching Wimbledon, for all the rain delays now garauntee that there will be play on Monday, for the fourth year in a row. Nadal and Murray have today raised safety concerns after only 3 games were played before play was delayed again due to rain. Nadal is the only top 4 player that hasnt really hit top form this tournament, with both the Djoker and Federer reaching their imperious bests at some point during their run through to the quarter finals. Murray looked dominating in the last three sets against Haase, but Nadal has stuttered through, collapsing with cramp for 15minutes in his press conference. My bet is the winner of the Djokovic v Federer (if they get to this) semi final to win, and I'd very much fancy Federer in that match, as the Djoker seems to have a mental block when it comes to the FedExpress.
International football
In the most recent round of international matches, there was a dissapointing lack of upsets. England won both of their matches in predictably uninspiring fashion, and everything seemed to be going to plan for everyone across the broad. Scotland will be the only ones agrieved with the results, after two controversial decisions in stoppage time robbed them of a chance to overtake the Czech Republic. The officials gave a very soft penalty to the Czechs for their equaliser, then refusing an identical appeal for a penalty straight after, instead booking the Scot for diving. I do feel aggreived for the Scots because I felt the edged the game and deserved all three points. Return to far more interseting football this weekend, thank God.
Athletics
So with the World Championships in Daegu now over, on paper it was a sucess for British athletics, and we can now look forward to London 2012 with mild optimism. For me the people that won the medals give great hope, but apparently for BBC reporters it means we've failed. Because some of our bigger prospects failed for gold and we relied on people that weren't expected to get gold to bring our medal haul up, its a failure. I think this is the brilliant, as if we can get people that are not tipped for gold to succeed, we're going to do very well in 2012. One of the reasons that we tend to not do so well at Olympics is that we pressure those with previous success, such as Jessica Ennis, who scored more points that wen she won the Heptathlon before but unluckily failed to take gold this time. If those who have no pressure can shine, and those with the talent also fulfill that promise, London 2012 will be a spectacle for the home fans inside the new Olympic Stadium. If you want to doom and gloom of the BBC here it is
I really don't understand the science behind watching sport, especially when it comes down to domestic vs international. I could watch most premier league football matches, even if it's not a team I'm interested in, but I can't for international matches. I just feel that the matches drag out and no-one really cares about the international matches until the world cup. However with rugby I cant stand domestic games, but I could watch any two nations in a Union Test match. This is why I love the rugby world cup. It's a brilliant atmosphere and its refreshing to see players who want to give it all for their country, not worrying about their pay packets or reputations.
Favourites - New Zealand
New Zealand are everyones favourites for the tournament, and you only have to look at their team to see why. Pace, power and a world class fly half. Dan Carter is the leading points scorer of all time, not only for New Zealand, but in the world, taking over from Wilkinson. Their pack is huge, and not afraid to run with the ball either as they all handle the ball terrifically well. Their back line also packs a huge punch, and don't be surprised to see Dan Carter simply hand the ball off for someone to simply try and break the defensive lines. Then when the defense gets used to that, Carters wonderous kicking abilities will have the opponents wondering what on earth is coming next. If you look at their team, something would have to go wrong for the All Blacks not to win.
English Prospects
England have a great chance to make their third final in a row. The team looks to be getting back into a nice flow, the pack seems to be operating as a complete unit and Wilkinson seems to be up to his old tricks again. I would also expect Manu Tuilagi to play a huge part with his speed and power if England are going to make it to the final.
Other hopefuls
France, Australia and South Africa will also fancy their chances going into this tournament. Australia will be bouyed by their recent victory over the all Blacks to seal the tri-nations, and would love to go to New Zealand to claim the Web Ellis trophy again. France have looked the complete outfit for while, but really struggle to keep their discipline at the vital points, they really need to focus to remain a danger in this world cup. South Africa have always been there or there abouts and would love to claim another trophy, they would have to play exetremely well though, because I'd put them as 4th or 5th in terms of technical ability.
So my verdict is an All blacks victory, but there is hope for other teams, because the pressure will really be on to claim a world cup after a 24 year wait. and in front of a home crowd that is rugby mad the pressure could really tell for the Kiwis and it will be a very interesting world cup.
Tennis
If you've been watching the tennis this week you'd be forgiven for thinking you were watching Wimbledon, for all the rain delays now garauntee that there will be play on Monday, for the fourth year in a row. Nadal and Murray have today raised safety concerns after only 3 games were played before play was delayed again due to rain. Nadal is the only top 4 player that hasnt really hit top form this tournament, with both the Djoker and Federer reaching their imperious bests at some point during their run through to the quarter finals. Murray looked dominating in the last three sets against Haase, but Nadal has stuttered through, collapsing with cramp for 15minutes in his press conference. My bet is the winner of the Djokovic v Federer (if they get to this) semi final to win, and I'd very much fancy Federer in that match, as the Djoker seems to have a mental block when it comes to the FedExpress.
International football
In the most recent round of international matches, there was a dissapointing lack of upsets. England won both of their matches in predictably uninspiring fashion, and everything seemed to be going to plan for everyone across the broad. Scotland will be the only ones agrieved with the results, after two controversial decisions in stoppage time robbed them of a chance to overtake the Czech Republic. The officials gave a very soft penalty to the Czechs for their equaliser, then refusing an identical appeal for a penalty straight after, instead booking the Scot for diving. I do feel aggreived for the Scots because I felt the edged the game and deserved all three points. Return to far more interseting football this weekend, thank God.
Athletics
So with the World Championships in Daegu now over, on paper it was a sucess for British athletics, and we can now look forward to London 2012 with mild optimism. For me the people that won the medals give great hope, but apparently for BBC reporters it means we've failed. Because some of our bigger prospects failed for gold and we relied on people that weren't expected to get gold to bring our medal haul up, its a failure. I think this is the brilliant, as if we can get people that are not tipped for gold to succeed, we're going to do very well in 2012. One of the reasons that we tend to not do so well at Olympics is that we pressure those with previous success, such as Jessica Ennis, who scored more points that wen she won the Heptathlon before but unluckily failed to take gold this time. If those who have no pressure can shine, and those with the talent also fulfill that promise, London 2012 will be a spectacle for the home fans inside the new Olympic Stadium. If you want to doom and gloom of the BBC here it is
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)