5 followers

119 daily readers

rank of 177

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Sports

AFL

Basketball

Cricket

Football (Soccer)

Rugby League

Rugby Union

Other sports

[ more ]

Spotlight Posts

Do you want to write for Sport: The Australian Disease?

[ more ]

Sport: The Australian Disease - sportingaustralia.com

How to fill cricket stadiums again

July 17th 2010 02:46

News that Cricket Australia is planning to revolutionise the one-day format is exciting – but mostly concerning.

Several changes are going to be introduced in time for the coming domestic season, with a view to spreading them throughout the cricketing world. The aim is to arrest the declining popularity of the one-day international.

Although next year’s World Cup is going to be played under existing regulations, if even some of the changes find favour internationally, the 2015 tournament could end up looking very different.

One confirmed change is that teams will bat out their overs in two innings rather than one.

Furthermore, there are said to be quite a few other modifications being considered: reducing matches to 40 overs; giving teams 10 wickets at the start of both innings; allowing a single player dismissed in the first innings to return in the second; allowing bowlers to deliver as many overs as they like (provided a minimum of four are used per match); allowing bowlers more leeway with bouncers and leg-side wides; and making the fielding restrictions more onerous for the bowling side.

The changes, confirmed and proposed, may be divided into two categories: the orthodox and the gimmicky.

And therein lies the confusion. Embracing orthodox cricket to make the ODI more appealing would be exciting; resorting to gimmicks to seduce fans would be concerning. Sadly, it looks as though emphasis is going to be placed on the latter.

However the greater concern is that CA seems not to understand the essence of the problem. The reason for the steady decline in the popularity of ODIs can be simply explained: they generally seem pointless. With an ever-increasing number of meaningless fixtures being played, it is natural that people would lose interest. But the way to win them back is not by emphasising gimmicks; the way to win them back is by emphasising cricket.

First and foremost, CA should be campaigning to have the number of ODIs reduced. Fifty per cent of the matches could be cut from the international schedule and nobody would notice. This is nothing more than the commonest of common sense: reduce the supply of a product and demand increases.

More benefits would follow. Once players stopped being ceaselessly dragged from one corner of the world to the other to play matches that they care little about, they would be fresher, fitter and keener to play in those matches that remained on the schedule. So as the quantity of ODIs is reduced their quality would increase. And that, in turn, would further stimulate demand.

(Incidentally, slashing the one-day schedule would improve tests. Without so many meaningless 50-over games, touring teams would be able to return to the traditional practice of arriving in a country well before the start of a series, in order to play a reasonable number of warm-ups. Properly acclimatised, they would then have a greater chance of beating their hosts, making the tests more competitive and thus more appealing.)

Although playing fewer matches would be the most logical way to reinvigorate the ODI, that doesn’t mean that other changes shouldn’t also be considered. For that, CA must be congratulated – even if, as seems probable, not all their changes turn out to be sensible.

The general approach that the board should take is this: cricketing changes are worth considering, gimmicks are not.

For that reason, splitting ODIs into two innings is a wonderful, and long overdue, idea. In day-night matches, the team that bats under lights is at a disadvantage, so this simple change would immediately make contests fairer and thus closer and thus more exciting.

Another good idea is to improve the lot of the fielding side. Fans don’t only want to see close matches; they want to see matches in which there is an even contest between bat and ball. One hundred overs of slogging is mindless, even if it is somewhat redeemed by 10 tense overs at the end. By contrast, matches in which the advantage constantly ebbs and flows, in which first the bat, then the ball, then the bat and then the ball again is on top, produce drama from beginning to end.

For proof, we need only look at two of the most famous ODIs ever played. At Johannesburg in 2006, Australia belted the South Africans mercilessly for 50 overs, to accumulate 4-434. In reply, South Africa belted the Australians mercilessly for 50 overs, to accumulate 9-438, and win the game with a ball to spare. The finish was undoubtedly dramatic – but what about the other 90 overs?

Seven years earlier, the same two sides met in the semi-final of the World Cup in Edgbaston. Australia batted first, scoring 213; South Africa responded with the same score. And for the entire 100 overs, the match was in the balance, as the pendulum swung back and forth, between country and country, between batter and bowler, with none of the parties managing to get more than a nose in front before their advantage was nullified.

Administrators must be doing everything possible to produce more Edgbastons and fewer Johannesburgs. But gimmicks won’t make it happen; only orthodoxy will. In other words, administrators should be looking to make ODIs more like tests, not less.

An obvious start would be to allow the best bowlers to deliver more than 10 overs, something Ian Chappell has long campaigned for. Clearly, watching the Mitchell Johnsons of this world bowl is more appealing than watching the James Hopes’.

For the same reason, bowlers should be allowed more leeway with bouncers and leg-side wides. That would allow bowlers more opportunity to work batters over – one of the better features of test cricket – and reduce the flow of cheap runs – one of the worst features of one-day cricket.

(Moreover, administrators should insist that groundsmen abandon the practice of producing flat track after flat track, in which the bowlers are reduced to little more than glorified bowling machines. Even the contest between bat and ball and the ODI improves.)

While embracing cricketing fixes of this sort, CA must shun gimmicks. Just as supersubs and free hits haven’t increased interest in the 50-over game, neither will designated hitters (batters dismissed in the first innings allowed to return for the second). Tightening the fielding restrictions would make things harder for the bowling side, and thus make the contest between bat and ball more lopsided. Reducing matches to two lots of 20 overs would be a lazy attempt to exploit the popularity of twenty20 cricket. Fans watch this format because they want to see lots of action in a short amount of time, not because they have a spiritual attachment to the number 20. Similarly, giving teams 10 wickets at the start of both innings would be misguided; if fans want to watch twenty20 cricket, they’ll watch twenty20 cricket, rather than an ODI masquerading as a supersized T20.

The ODI has a problem, and it needs to be fixed. But to fix a problem, one must understand its cause. As ODIs have increasingly come to be seen not as a shortened form of traditional cricket, but as a cheap and crass bastardisation that seems to exist only to make money, people have been losing interest. Gimmicks will make the ODI seem even less like real cricket, and thus will only make the problem worse.

Fans of cricket, whether committed or casual, want to watch cricket – so why not give them cricket? Gimmicks might pique their interest in the short term, but once the novelty wears off, they’ll be seen for what they are. The solution to the problem of ODIs is not to trick people into watching them. It is to make them what they once were: cricket. After all, if cricket doesn’t respect itself, why would others?

149

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Bendel - Category: Cricket

Email this Post to a Friend

Izzy serious?

June 1st 2010 11:24

The current Brisbane Bronco during his Melbourne Storm days

This is madness. Utter, utter madness.

How else to describe Western Sydney Football Club’s decision to recruit Israel Folau on over $1 million per season?

It is not madness when a 21-year-old signs a four-year contract worth millions of dollars to try to master a sport he has never played. That, in fact, is the epitome of sweet reason. But it is utter, utter madness when a club invests a fortune in such a person.

There are some athletes who deserve that sort of money to kick around a Sherrin – Gary Ablett, Chris Judd, Nick Riewoldt, Jonathan Brown. And there are some athletes who don’t – Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods, Lionel Messi, Sachin Tendulkar. Keen observers will have noticed the difference between the two groups.

It must be noted that the decision, per se, was not flawed. If an athlete as talented – and marketable – as Folau was interested in crossing codes, it would have been illogical for an organisation like WSFC, which is desperate for success and publicity, not to have at least considered it. By all means, speak to him, gauge his intentions, subject him to some tests. Then, at the end of the process, if it looks as though he’s worth a gamble, discuss terms. But make him an offer commensurate with his Australian football experience – as opposed to, say, his record in rugby league, backyard cricket or tiddlywinks. In other words, aim low. That way, if the gamble fails – as is likely – little has been lost.

For it must be appreciated that this experiment is almost certain to end unhappily. To understand why, we need only look at the high profile NRL stars who switched to rugby union. Given that Lote Tuqiri, Wendell Sailor, Mat Rogers and Timana Tahu were all selected for the Wallabies, it can be said that their transitions were successful. However, with the benefit of hindsight, few would claim that they were so successful as to have deserved multi-million dollar contracts.

So if players moving from one code to a reasonably similar one would not have delivered enough value for that sort of money, what hope is there that somebody moving from one code to an entirely foreign one will prove worthy of such a large paycheque?

Further examples emphasise the point. Garrick Morgan may have been a union superstar, but he turned out to be depressingly average at league. Jeff Fenech may have been a great boxer, but he barely packed a punch during his brief stint with the Parramatta Eels. Michael Jordan may have been the greatest basketballer of all time, but he was not much of a baseballer.

Yet all this has been lost on WSFC’s chief executive, Dale Holmes. “Israel is a western Sydney boy and he’s someone who is going to play a great role for us,” he insisted, “not only as a player, but also in...bringing fans to our club. It was our administration’s view, and that of Kevin Sheedy as our senior coach, that an athlete of Israel’s height, skill, pace and power who wanted to come to our game was an exciting mix, and we want to give him the opportunity to succeed in our sport.”

Holmes’ reference to Sheedy raises an interesting point. Holmes, whose contribution to the game has almost exclusively been administrative, might perhaps be excused his foolishness. But how someone as experienced and astute as Sheedy could have been persuaded to embrace such a reckless throw of the dice is inexplicable.

It was only six months ago that Sport: The Australian Disease spoke out against WSFC’s pursuit of Jarryd Hayne.

Even if the Parramatta fullback could somehow be seduced, it is extremely unlikely that he would be able to turn himself into a star in a second code. And unless he could do that, the whole exercise would be pointless, because why would the [western Sydney] region be inspired by the exertions of a middling footballer?

The same article also highlighted the folly of short term thinking:

For WSFC to succeed, it will have to convince people that it’s committed to the region, and that it’s going to be around forever. In other words, it has to establish itself as a credible entity.

Cheap publicity stunts, therefore, are a hindrance rather than a help. Unquestionably, the Hayne story would have aroused the interest of the locals, many of whom would have devoted rare attention to a code that they’re ignorant of, and even hostile to. But one suspects that a majority of those would have regarded with scorn the idea of a league star wanting to convert to an entirely foreign sport, or making a success of it if he did. And that scorn would then, in turn, have been directed to the party responsible for the idea – WSFC. So increased recognition would have come at the price of decreased credibility.

This is where we are now at with Folau. The locals will have taken notice of the Bronco’s defection, and will be keen to see how he performs once his new team joins the AFL in 2012. So far, so good.

But when he fails to live up to his superstar billing, as he almost certainly will, these same people will lose interest in Folau and lose respect for his club, making the task of winning over the region even harder than it already is. Forget about the exorbitant contract – that’s one hell of a price to pay.

114

Vote

Comments (2)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Bendel - Category: AFL, Rugby League

Email this Post to a Friend

Storm warning

April 25th 2010 23:45

In one of the greatest crises to have hit Australian sport, the secret of the Melbourne Storm’s remarkable success has been exposed: cheating.

For the last five years, it had seemed as though a combination of astute development, inspirational leadership and a superior culture had allowed so much talent to be accumulated within the $4.1 million salary cap. Now, it turns out that the most important piece in the Storm’s once enviable puzzle has been creative accounting. Secret payments totalling $1.7 million have been made or promised, including a staggering $700,000 for this season.

Shocking though the whole thing is, it is really not so shocking. A sporting team getting caught rorting the salary cap is akin to Ben Johnson getting caught with anabolic steroids in his system. As Brian Waldron, the ex-Storm CEO who masterminded the fraud, was said to have reasoned: “Everybody does it.”

One would have to be naive to think that Johnson was the only doped sprinter in that 1988 Olympic final, just as one would have to be naive to think that Melbourne has been the only club to have committed any sort of financial irregularity between 2006 and 2010. Professional sport is a ruthless game, in which the win-at-all-costs mentality prevails. Some would have you believe that all 16 teams will be the richer for having competed for this year’s premiership. In fact, it will be a case of having one winner and 15 losers. That is the reality of professional sport. That is why some will find the siren song of cutting corners or acting deviously impossible to resist.

Philosophising aside, the NRL must be commended for acting so decisively. Johnson cheated to win his gold medal, so he could not have been allowed to keep it; the Storm cheated to win their spoils, so they could not be allowed to keep them. Even if everyone does it, such calculated and repeated dishonesty cannot be accepted. Chief executive David Gallop and his board had no other option.

While the pundits and punters have generally applauded Gallop’s move to strip the disgraced club of their ill-gotten premierships, minor premierships and prizemoney, there has been much condemnation of his decision to prohibit them from picking up any points this season. Complaining that it’s too harsh, undermines the integrity of the competition and betrays the fans, they have pleaded for this measure to be overturned.

These critics are right – but only partially. When deliberating on an appropriate penalty, the game’s powerbrokers would have considered two important points: how to punish the Storm and how to protect the fans. Dealing with past sins would have been straightforward – simply confiscate all winnings from 2006-9. But dealing with present sins – the Storm competing in this year’s premiership with a team that should never have been formed – must have resulted in considerable debate. Evidently, it was concluded that punishing those presents sins and protecting the fans were mutually exclusive options. Evidently, their critics share the same view.

Yet logic suggests that it would have been possible to achieve both aims. To begin with, the NRL was right to strip the Storm of all the points they had pocketed in the first six rounds, as these were won by fraudulent means. However, the league should not have deprived them of the opportunity to pick up points in the final 20 rounds. What should have been mandated was that as long as this team that should never have been formed remained in its present state, points could not be earned. Only when their squad was back under the salary cap could they have resumed doing so – but on one condition.

Simply getting everyone to accept a combined $700,000 pay cut would have been intolerable, because that would have meant permitting a team that should never have been formed to stay together. Rather, the NRL should have ordered the Storm to shed themselves of $700,000 worth of players at their official rates. So if Joe Bloggs was officially registered as a $500,000 player but had secretly been earning $700,000, somehow getting him off the books could have only been counted as a $500,000 saving. The Storm would then have been required to offload another $200,000 of talent – and the moment that happened, they could have again competed for points. They would therefore have had an incentive to speedily clean up their mess, which would in turn have minimised the damage done to the competition’s integrity and the hurt suffered by the fans. Had such a judgement been issued by the NRL, it would have simultaneously punished the guilty and protected the innocent.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Gallop’s response, it will have been cheered by the Melbourne Rebels, Melbourne Victory, Melbourne Heart, Melbourne Tigers and Melbourne’s nine AFL clubs. For if rugby league is on its knees, as Sport: The Australian Disease recently argued, then rugby league in Melbourne is clearly in serious peril.

Since their foundation in 1998, the Storm have recorded an unbroken series of losses. Only through the largesse of their owner, News Limited, have they remained afloat – and News has promised to sell in the next few years. If they can’t turn a profit after making four consecutive grand finals (to go with their relatively recent premiership of 1999), how can they expect to get into the black when the sporting cycle turns against them?

We can expect to hear plenty of bad news coming out of Melbourne. Players will be forced to leave for salary cap reasons. Already, sponsors ME Bank, HostPlus and Skins have withdrawn their support. The club’s limited fan base will surely contract. In other words, it appears as though we’re about to see the beginnings of a vicious cycle, in which less talent means less success, less success means less corporate and public support, less support means reduced revenue, and reduced revenue means less money to buy talent. All these problems can be overcome, or at least ignored, when you have a rich owner. But what happens when the sugar daddy walks away?

News and the NRL have promised to stick by the Storm, but it is difficult to take these guarantees seriously. News is known for its ruthlessness, not its altruism, so once it finds a buyer, there is no reason to expect that it will take any interest in its former holding. Gallop’s goodwill can’t be doubted, but where is a CEO with limited financial reserves going to find the money to keep a loss-making organisation afloat?

This extraordinary saga does not spell the death of innocence in rugby league, because that happened a long, long time ago. Nor does it spell the death of the game itself, because Melbourne is not the heart of the empire, but a mere outpost. However, nobody should be surprised if it spells the end of the Storm. If creative accounting was the secret of their success, it may also turn out to be the reason for their demise.

144

Vote

Comments (7)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Bendel - Category: Rugby League

Email this Post to a Friend

Australia Cup of life

April 9th 2010 06:18

As reports emerge that South Melbourne is set to participate in Singapore’s FA Cup, it again raises the issue of whether or not Australia should have its own knockout football competition.

You don’t have to be Greek to hope that Oceania’s best club of the 20th century does, indeed, receive an invitation. Having won the NSL four times and taken part in the inaugural Club World Championship, a chance to once more compete for major honours would be no more than South deserves

[ Click here to read more ]

153

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Bendel - Category: Football (Soccer)

Email this Post to a Friend

Czech out the future

March 21st 2010 07:57

As Terry McFlynn and Steve Corica hoisted their golden toilet seat triumphantly aloft, it marked the fourth different champion in the history of the A-League: Sydney in season one; Melbourne in seasons two and four; Newcastle in season three; and Vitezslav Lavicka in season five.

This was as much a victory for the Czech as it was for the true believers. After inheriting a rabble from John Kosmina, he took essentially the same individuals and moulded them into a disciplined and coherent unit. Although there were initially some shaky moments, during which the players struggled to implement his ideas, they became more and more fluent as the season progressed, eventually ending it with the competition’s most polished style of football

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Bendel - Category: Football (Soccer)

Email this Post to a Friend

War minus the shooting?

March 2nd 2010 01:02

Australia, India, security: they’re three words that have been mentioned in the same sentence a lot recently.

If Indian students aren’t being attacked on the streets of Melbourne, Australian athletes are wondering aloud if they ought to compete in India. One could also mention Tennis Australia’s decision to forfeit a Davis Cup tie in Chennai last year, and even the ongoing debate about whether or not it’s safe for Australia to sell uranium to India

[ Click here to read more ]

102

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Bendel - Category: Cricket, Other sports

Email this Post to a Friend

Pride before the fall

January 29th 2010 02:22

They say there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but the North Queensland Fury must be ruing the negative headlines that have been running for the last few days. This is no way for a struggling organisation to win over the public and sponsors of Townsville.

The problem began when Robbie Fowler, upset at being excluded from Ian Ferguson’s starting line-up, elected to skip the match entirely, preferring to play with his little son in the stands than take his place on the bench. This was interpreted as a legend of the game raising a very public middle finger to his rookie boss – which, nobody should doubt, was exactly how it was intended

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Bendel - Category: Football (Soccer)

Email this Post to a Friend

The war of the World

December 20th 2009 02:31

According to Andrew Demetriou and David Gallop, the AFL and NRL want nothing more than for Australia to win the right to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup. According to Frank Lowy, the FFA is convinced that all the football codes would benefit from such an outcome. These men are lying.

Hence, we have a situation in which the FFA is trying desperately to prevail in an extraordinarily challenging fight, while its two main local competitors are trying desperately – if subtly – to ensure its defeat

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Bendel - Category: AFL, Football (Soccer), Rugby League

Email this Post to a Friend

Western Sydney Football Club needs to take the smart approach

November 21st 2009 07:20

First Kevin Sheedy, then Jarryd Hayne and now Paul Kelly: the AFL’s newest baby has only just been born, and already it’s made a significant impact.

When Sheedy was announced as the inaugural coach of the Western Sydney Football Club a fortnight ago, many in the harbour city took note. When it was reported that Hayne was on the team’s hitlist, further headlines were generated. And with word recently emerging that Kelly is considering taking up a developmental role, even more interest has been sparked. All this attention can only be a good thing, right

[ Click here to read more ]

121

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Bendel - Category: AFL, Rugby League

Email this Post to a Friend

Who’s been a naughty boy?

October 16th 2009 05:36

Thanks to the arrival of John van 't Schip and the departure of Frank Farina, coaches have been the main focus of the A-League in recent days. While the two have generated headlines for very different reasons, their clubs deserve praise for what they have in common- namely, an ability to make strong, logical judgments.

That opinion would not be shared by Farina. A prickly chap at the best of times, Cranky Frankie’s mood has only darkened since being dismissed for his second drink-driving offence. To say that he is bitter would be an understatement

[ Click here to read more ]

129

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Bendel - Category: Football (Soccer)

Email this Post to a Friend

July 2010

1 Posts

June 2010

1 Posts

April 2010