2 further thoughts on tennis

I posted a couple of thoughts on tennis after Wimbledon 2011.  Here are two more thoughts.

1. I am not a fan of the winning celebration where players fall on their back on the court.  It doesn't look natural.  It looks like they do it because they've seen other players do it and copy them.  Nadal might have been the first to do it, I'm not sure.  But it looks like an unnatural movement, it looks fake.
2. This year I started supporting Radwanska, after the Brits had been knocked out, because I like the way she makes shots and relies more than technique than physique.  This is something I've been pondering for a while.  I think it's why I tended to support Federer over Nadal.  I am not such of a fan of players who seem to rely slightly more on physique, because it is a more generic ability, which can be applied to sport in general, whereas technique is more sport-specific.  This is not to say that Nadal has poor technique or that Federer and Radwanska are unfit or weak.  It is simply to say that I appreciate the technique that is specific to a sport more than the physique that is more general.

Luis Suarez, and related thoughts

Luis Suarez has been in the headlines a lot this week.  He has recently been banned by the FA for ten games, for biting an opponent in a match last week.  He was previously banned for seven games in 2010 for biting, while at his former club Ajax.

There are several point to make in reaction to this.

1.       Biting is not appropriate on any sports field.  In football, it is classed as violent conduct, warranting a red card and at least a three-match ban.

2.       Players sent off for violent conduct are often banned for more than three games by the FA.  Di Canio was banned for 11 games for pushing a referee in 1998.  Prutton was banned for 10 games for the same offence in 2005.  Thatcher got 8 games for elbowing Mendes in 2006.  In most non-sporting professions, such offences would warrant a sacking.  Why not in football?

3.       This is the longest ban a player has been given for violent conduct against another player in England.  The only longer bans are for acts against referees, fans, or for drug offences.  The exception is Joey Barton’s 12-game ban, but that was for two counts of violent conduct rather than one.  Why has this offence been given a significantly longer ban than many other counts of violent conduct?  What is inherently worse about biting than stamping, spitting or headbutting?

4.       Jermaine Defoe bit an opponent in 2006 and was given no ban because the referee saw the incident, and FIFA have a policy that means that players cannot be retrospectively punished by football associations if the referee has already ‘dealt’ with the incident.  This policy is understandable, because they want to empower the referees.  The policy is also laughable because the best way to empower referees is with a system of TV replays and challenges, a system that shows no signs of becoming available.  Referees should be able to use replays like in rugby, for incidents such as infringements in the penalty area or when players are accused of something like biting.  Team captains should be allowed, say, two challenges per half, like in tennis, to challenge decisions like dives and offsides.  I have made this argument so many times, I am getting sick of it.

5.       There are two issues here – that of retrospective punishment, and that of the length of Suarez’s ban.  Much of the discussion over the ban has been to do with consistency.  Why ten games, where similar incidents have warranted fewer?  Is biting an opponent worse than racist language but not as bad as pushing a referee?  Is this a longer ban because it is the second time he has bitten an opponent?  If so, why has this not been clarified?

6.       The bottom line is that Suarez should be banned, but he should be banned in a way consistent with other similar incidents.  On a related note, the way games are refereed needs to change, and has needed to change for a while now.

London 2012: The brutality of sport

This is the last post in this series on London 2012.  During the Olympics it struck me, as it has done before, how brutal sport is.

Take Liu Xiang in the 110m hurdles for example - 2004 Olympics: Gold; 2005 Worlds: Silver (missing Gold by 0.01s); 2007 Worlds: Gold.  A superb athlete, world record holder, and favourite for the Olympic Gold in 2008.  Then injury hit, and Xiang missed his home Games. London 2012 was his chance fore redemption. 7th July, first round, final heat, Liu Xiang preparing to go through to the semis.  He starts quickly, jumps for the first hurdle, and his damaged achilles means he doesn't get high enough, takes out the barrier, falls and fails to finish the race.  One of the best hurdlers in the world (arguably the very best) over the last 7 years, and he hasn't even got to an Olympic semi final in that time.  Not his fault, just the brutality of injury.

Or take Argentinian hockey player Luciana Aymar, 7-time world player of the year, easily the best player ever.  Olympic record?  Zero gold medals.  Not because she's not awesome, but because she plays for a team who have never been the best team.  Not her fault, just the brutality of being the best player in the world but not in the best team in the world

Or (and this is the most interesting one) how about gymnast Jordyn Wieber, or the Spanish men's football team, or archer Brady Ellison - all pre-Olympic favourites for gold having performed excellently in buildup events, but who all underperformed when it came to the Games.  Although this one is their fault, it's only their fault because they are not perfect.  They were the best for the last, say, 12 months, and just had their blip at the crucial time.  The brutality here is that the medals are often awarded based on a very small sample of performances - usually just one race, or one game.  And it doesn't matter how well you perform in warmup events, or even in the semifinals.  What matters is how you perform in the final, and if that's when you have an off-day, that's it.  No second chances, no excuses.

It is true that part of top-level sport is the requirement to perform under pressure on the big stage, but sometimes things just go wrong, and in most sports, where you only get one chance, that is brutal.

Sailing is, interestingly, a little different: ten races, with the overall best sailor being awarded the gold (a bit like the annual Formula 1 competition).  Equally interestingly, BMX racing uses a very similar model in the heats and semifinals, but reduces the final to one race.  Not only is this brutal, it seems unnecessarily brutal.

The brutality of sport is that it doesn't matter how good you are, if you're not good (or fit, or on the right team), at the time when you are assessed.  You can win every race in four years but if you come fourth in the Olympic final, hardly anyone will know who you are.

London 2012: Greatest Olympians

During the Olympics one of the most interesting discussions was over who is the greatest ever Olympian.  Here are my thoughts on the question.

According to these discussions, Olympic greatness should be measured mainly by success in Olympic games, i.e. by gold medals or medals in general.  The Olympics are about competition and the aim is to win.  Therefore we should look for athletes who have won many medals.  Swimmer Michael Phelps has won 18 golds and 22 medals in total, so surely he is the greatest, right?  Wrong.

7 of those golds and 9 of his total medals were from team events (i.e. relays), which surely don't count to the same extent as individual medals.  If you look at individual medals, gymnast Larisa Latynina comes top.  Interestingly, both swimming and gymnastics are sports that allow athletes to compete in multiple events at one Olympic games.  In fact, of the top 20 all-time Olympic medallists, 14 are swimmers or gymnasts.  A female gymnast can compete in beam, floor, vault, uneven bars, all-around, and team events.  A swimmer like Michael Phelps can do 100m free, 200m free, 100m fly, 200m fly, 200m IM, 4x100m medley relay, 4x100m free relay etc.  Compare this to, say, a hockey player, who can only enter one event per Olympics.  Or a decathlete, who does ten events but can only win one medal.  Looking at Phelps' events, many are very similar (e.g. 100m free, 200m free, 4x100m free, 4x200m free) - like Usain Bolt running 100m, 200m and 4x100m - whereas a decathlete's events are much more varied.

Then there's the issue that some sports, like equestrian, can be competed at for many more years than others, like diving.  Horseriders can go on well into their fifties.  Divers peak at age 22.  A horserider will be able to compete at many more Olympic games than a diver.

There's also the fact that some sports, like rowing, require more physical recovery time than others, like swimming.  Others are barely physical at all, like archery.

Then what about the argument that it should not only be medals that are used to decide the greatest Olympian, but medals won over several Olympic games?  Is it valid to argue that winning 5 golds at five different games is more impressive than winning 5 golds at a single games?

There are so many variables - how long you can compete at the top for, how many events are enterable, whether medals are won as an individual or in a team, and so on.  It is not possible to say who the greatest ever Olympian is, even if we only consider  medals, without thinking about personal circumstances or contribution to the Olympic movement as a whole or sport-changing performances.

So who is the greatest Olympian of all time?  No-one knows.  And if they think they do, they're wrong.  It's not really even that easy to have a personal opinion about, if you think about how many variables there are that could contribute to greatness, let alone form a cohesive argument to propose the 'greatest'.

London 2012: Sport vs performance

Towards the end of the Olympics, Ben Dirs wrote this on the BBC website.
On the face of it, the article is about why only some sports are in the Olympics, but it's really about what makes a sport a sport.  The example of synchronised swimming was used, but references were also made to dressage and rhythmic gymnastics.  The following key point was made:
"I respect the participants of synchronised swimming and their indefatigability I salute. The French duet was throwing shapes to Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake, and that presumably takes some doing, especially when you're upside down, shin-deep in chlorinated water and trying to keep up with your mate next door.
But at what point does performance become sport? People have been dancing to Swan Lake for almost 150 years - they call it ballet. By extension, if you put a set of judges down in the orchestra pit at the Bolshoi, then ballet becomes sport."
A fair point.  Synchronised swimming is very similar to ballet, just in water.  Dressage and rhythmic gymnastics (and I would add diving and possibly artistic gymnastics and trampolining) are similar.  All these are scored by a panel of judges who make - and this is the crux  - qualitative decisions, which they then give quantitative scores.  A sport like hockey or handball is measured quantitatively, by counting goals.  These other sports are measured in a more qualitative way.  Judges look for how well competitors perform certain moves.  They look for something like straight legs, but judge it qualitatively rather than actually measuring the angle of bend at the knee.  Does this mean they are not sports?  Not necessarily.  But I think it does mean that if they are, then something like ballet could legitimately be considered a sport.  And if ballet, then surely other forms of dance could be judged in a similar way and be called sports.  Of course, dancing competitions do happen...but they are not considered sporting competitions.  Similarly, playing a musical instrument can be judged, even in a competitive way, but is not considered a sport.
But looking at it another way, what about chess?  Quantitatively measured, but a game, not a sport.  Why?  Because of the lack of physical exertion?  Well what about darts?  Darts is considered a sport but involves very little physical exertion.  While ballet is the opposite - not a sport, but physically very demanding.

If you include synchronised swimming, diving and gymnastics as sports, you have to be willing to include ballet and trombone playing.  If you include darts, you have to include chess.
A brief look at Wikipedia and the IOC website reveals that sport is generally recognised as activities which are based in physical athleticism or physical dexterity.  In therms of the Olympics, to be a potential Olympic sport, an activity must have an international federation and be practised around the world.  Interestingly, they IOC recognises five 'mind sports' - bridge, chess, draughts, go and xiangqi.
This is clearly a minefield of inconsistency.  It seems that the definition of a sport should either be much narrower or much wider than it currently is, but I don't know which!

London 2012: expectations and reactions

Before the Olympics, some people were very excited (myself included), but many people were quite underwhelmed.  ‘I'm not into sport’, ‘It’s not worth the financial cost’, ‘We’ll be rubbish anyway’ were phrases commonly heard.  This enraged me a little.  I always love the Olympics, since I first watched it in 1992.  Sport is both wonderful and brutal, and displays extremes of joy and despair.  The Olympics brings together 36 sports (currently), and has them all at the same time.  It brings together sporting superstars from almost every country of the world.  It unites people.  The Olympics is a massive deal, and having them in our own country so that, not only is the action on TV during daylight hours (Sydney 2000 was a nightmare!), but we can actually go and see events live, is amazing.  I had been counting down to London 2012 for seven years.

But the most infuriating thing is not that people were not excited about the Olympics.  The most infuriating thing was the hype that emerged when GB started doing well.  I loved that GB did well, I loved that we won medals.  I did not love the hype that emerged.  In the space of two weeks, the public seemed to go from apathetic to euphoric about the Olympics – which is great.  It is great that people became interested and supported our athletes.  What is not great is the delusion that accompanied this, and what I fear will happen now the Olympics are over.

According to most people, including the media (who are part of the problem), GB had an unexpectedly superb Olympics.  This is not true.  We were only superb in two sports: cycling and rowing.  In these events, we undoubtedly dominated.  Particularly in rowing, where we exceeded any expectations.  In cycling, although we dominated, none of the medals we won were unexpected.  Hoy, Pendelton, Kenny, Trott, Wiggins et el are the best cyclists in the world.  They’ve been winning things for years.  If anything, we actually underperformed in cycling, as we could reasonably have hoped for a medal in the women’s team sprint, the men’s road race, and at least one BMX race as well.  How about other sports?

In athletics, we won some medals, but again, none were unexpected.  Ennis, Farah and Rutherford were all world leaders going into the games.  Grabbarz is European Champion and in the form of his life.  Ohurogu always performs at the big meets.  But there could have been so much more.  Sayers, Idowu, Rooney, Greene, Yamuchi, Dobriskey, men’s 4x1 and 4x4 relays could all have medalled, but none of them did, and only Rooney and the 4x4 got close.

Swimming?  Only 3 medals and 2 medallists.  Nowhere near the (reasonable) target of 5-7 medals.

There were disappointments all over the games.  Sarah Stevenson in Taekwondo, Keri-Anne Payne in the swimming marathon, Daley and Waterfield in the 10m synchronised diving, arguably both football teams.  Volleyball, handball, basketball, water polo – no teams got out of the groups, few teams even won a match.

Of course, this is all balanced by the wonderful surprising successes.  Copeland and Hosking, Jade Jones, the men’s gymnastics team, Karina Bryant, Luke Campbell and so on.  But there are fewer of these.  Even the equestrian success was not that surprising given the riders’ form over the last couple of years.

At any Olympics, there will be surprising wins and disappointing losses, but they don’t seem balanced to me.  GB did well, with our best medal tally ever, but we could (should?) have had more.  I am delighted with how well we did, but I am disappointed with the euphoria suggesting we surpassed our wildest dreams.  We did not.  We can be happy and celebrate our successes, but let’s not delude ourselves.  We only came third in the medal table because in the UK we count Gold medals first.  In any other system (total number of medals, total points based on gold=3, silver=2, bronze=1, number of top 8 finalists) we came 4^th behind USA, China and Russia – exactly where we hoped to come before the games.  We did not overachieve.

Some will say I should stop being so negative, and that any Olympic success is to be celebrated.  This is true, but that does not mean that a fourth or fifth place, or even a silver medal, cannot be a disappointment.  It depends on the expectation.  If GB had only one a single silver medal and nothing else, I’m pretty sure that, while celebrating that silver medal with the athlete, we would be disappointed that GB did not achieve more.  This is part of why some athletes apologised in their interviews.  If you, your coaches, your families and your fans expect you to do well, based on world ranking, previous success, form or whatever, and you don’t do well, that is disappointing.  There is such a thing as failing to live up to expectations.  This doesn’t mean we should have a go at someone who only comes fifth in a final, but we should allow them to be disappointed, we can be disappointed with them, and we should not tell them not to apologise if that’s what they feel they need to do.  As Zac Purchase said, “Even though it’s a silver medal, it still hurts when you come for gold.”

Our failure to be ambitious and the way we have been drawn into the hype that says everything was a roaring success and Team GB far surpassed expectations disappoints me.  Many athletes did well and we should celebrate their success.  Many others underperformed and, while we should stand by them and support them, we should also acknowledge the disappointment and remember that we could have had much more success than we did.

The other thing that disappoints me is what I fear might happen next.  Here’s a quote from an article in The Independent by Chris McGrath.

“Here is the bald truth suppressed at the heart of our present euphoria. In most cases you could stage exactly the same events as "world championships", last year or next, and hardly anyone would cross the road to watch. Very few, in fact, would bother to shift a thumb on the television remote. Jessica Ennis herself completed her Olympics warm-up before 300 paying customers.

Now clearly the Games mean more than a world championship to many of the participants themselves, albeit not in mainstream sports such as football or tennis. And that warrants respect. But only up to a point. Because it's blatantly dishonest to dismiss all these people as nobodies one day, and acclaim them as "icons" the next; to exalt, overnight, minority pastimes you have long considered dull or ludicrous.”

Have we just got caught in the media hype surrounding the Olympics?  Or do we actually care more about judo, canoe slalom and dressage than we did before?  Will we maintain our interest in these sports and these athletes?  How many people will watch next year’s athletics world championships, let alone the world championships of the lesser-known sports?  Are we as dishonest as Chris McGrath suggests?

London 2012: controversy

There were a few controversial moments during the Olympics, but two particularly got me thinking.

The first occurred in badminton.  The first round of the badminton competition was a round-robin group stage.  In the women’s doubles, in one group, the favourites unexpectedly lost one of their matches, meaning they finished second in the group.  This meant that teams in other groups would rather qualify second in their group rather than first, as second would see them avoid the favourites in the quarter finals.  Therefore four pairs of players attempted to lose their final group matches and thereby finish second in their group, not first.  The crowd booed the players, who were later disqualified from the competition for ‘not using one’s best efforts to win’.

I have two conflicting reactions to this.  The major reaction is that I agree with the disqualification.  In sport, one should always do ones best, and attempt to win.  Simple.  And this is how the vast majority of people seem to have reacted.

Some people have defended the players, pointing out that they didn’t actually break any rules.  Technically, they didn’t do anything they weren’t supposed to.  A fair point, but not the one I wish to make.

I want to point out that in many sports, competitors or teams perform at less than their best in the short term, for the sake of long term goals.  For example:

• A team that has already qualified from a group play a weakened team in their final game.
•  A runner qualifies in the top three of their heat, rather than straining to win it and expend energy that could be saved for the final.
• A tennis player, at 5-0 down in a set, doesn't try hard in the final game, in order to save energy for the next set.
• A snooker player concedes a frame rather than playing for the two snookers required to win it.

There are other examples but the point is minimising performance in the short term in order to maximise performance in the long term.  After all, it doesn’t matter if you lose a certain match, or set, or frame, if you eventually qualify and win in the final.  The ultimate goal is to win in the final, and before that, you just have to do enough to get there.

This is what the badminton players were doing.  They had already qualified from their group.  They were minimising short term performance to maximise their chances of winning the competition in the long run.  The key difference is that in the other examples, players or teams are not actually trying to lose, they are trying to win with minimum effort.  However, this difference only stands if you break a competition down into matches.  The tennis player and snooker player want to win their matches, they just want to do it as easily as possible.  They would never go so far as to lose a match.  But breaking a competition down into matches is only one way to do it.  We could break a tennis tournament down into individual points and not be surprised or alarmed if a player gave up on the odd point in order to conserve energy.  What got people so angry is that the badminton players were trying to lose a match, but that is a fairly arbitrary way of dividing a competition.

You can either say that a competitor should try their best at all times, or you can say that a competitor should do what they need to win the competition, saving themselves where necessary.  Saying “they should try to win every match, but within matches can play at less than their best at times” is no different from saying “they should try to win every tournament, but within tournaments can play at less than their best at times”.

The difference between what the badminton players did and what commonly happens in sport all the time does not equate to the far larger difference between peoples outrage at the badminton players and people’s not-batting-an-eyelid at what commonly happens in sport all the time.

Another problem that people had with the players’ attitude is that people had paid money to come and watch entertaining sport, not a ‘farce’ of this nature.  But we have to remember that this is the Olympics.  It’s the biggest sporting competition in the world.  Not the biggest performance in the world.  These players are here primarily to win, not to entertain.  (More on this in a later post)

I do think that the players should have been disqualified, but part of my brain keeps pointing out that what they did is not very different from what happens in many other sports, and the reasoning behind the outrage is based on an arbitrary assumption that matches should be played to win, while individual points or sets should not necessarily.

The second moment of controversy occurred in the men’s 800m.  Taoufik Makhloufi of Algeria had been entered into both the 800m and 1500m.  He ran the 1500m heats and qualified for the final.  The scheduling was ludicrous enough that the 800m semifinals were in the same session as the 1500m final, removing any chance of anyone actually attempting this common double.  Makhloufi, having qualified for the 1500m final decided not to enter the 800m – a sensible decision given the scheduling clash.  One assumes that he had originally entered the 800m to give himself a backup if he failed to make the 1500m final.  It is quite common for an athlete to enter an event before the meet and then pull out.  Jessica Ennis did it in the 100m hurdles.  However, the Algerian Olympic Association failed to withdraw Makhloufi from the 800m, meaning he had to compete in the heats.

Makhloufi decided to not try in his heat.  He ran only 200m and then dropped out, thereby not qualifying and leaving only the 1500m to concentrate on.

Makhloufi was later disqualified for ‘not providing a bona fide effort’ – disqualified from the 800m and the 1500m.  There are clear parallels with the badminton players here – minimising performance at one stage of the competition to maximise performance in a later stage.

Makhloufi appealed and was reinstated into the 1500m due to medical evidence (presumably stating that he was injured for his 800m heat).  The next day he won the 1500m, clearly at full fitness.

The controversy here is multiple.  Firstly, should he have been disqualified from the 800m, when the scheduling made it clear that no-one would be able to pursue both events to the final?    Secondly, should he also have been disqualified from the 1500m, an event in which he had competed to normal standard?  Thirdly, should the scheduling not have been more intelligent, as the 800m/1500m is a very common double to attempt in athletics?  Fourthly, should Makhloufi have been reinstated on the basis of a clearly false injury claim?

Given my comments on the similar situation in the badminton, I think there is a strong case for saying that he should not have been disqualified.  The case here is even stronger than for the badminton players because (a) it wasn’t his fault he wasn’t withdrawn – it was the fault of the Algerian Olympic Association, and (b) it wasn’t possible to run in both events, so he had really been screwed over by the Olympic organisers in the first place.

Olympic Sports

I've been saying for a while now that the only sports allowed at the Olympics should be those sports for which the highest honour or achievement is the Olympic Gold medal.  Therefore sports such as athletics, swimming, judo, canoeing, gymnastics should be Olympic Sports.  Sports such as football and tennis should not.  In football, the World Cup is the highest achievement.  In tennis, it is the four majors of Wimbledon, French Open, US Open and Australian Open.
Steve Cram wrote about this today.  I share his concerns.

The flaw in football

It has been suggested that a significant reason why football is such a popular sport, both in the UK and worldwide, is to do with the fact that it is a very low-scoring sport.  0-0 draws are common.  Anything more than about 4 or 5 goals in a 90-minute match is unusual.  The result of this is that every goal matters very much. A single goal usually changes the feel of the whole match.  Therefore goals give players, spectators or fans very big emotional highs and lows during a match.  In short, football is popular because it is exciting.

This is a good thing, though has the disadvantage that scoreless (and often relatively boring) games are common.  However, I see a more significant problem.

Although football brings the big highs and lows when goals are scored, the fact that it is such a low scoring game (and therefore most goals are very important) means that any mistakes made by officials are more significant than in other sports.  An incorrect penalty or offside decision, or a goal wrongly allowed or disallowed, have a very large impact on the outcome of a match and, in a sport where winning the title, getting into Europe or playoffs, or being relegated often come down to a single point, a single refereeing mistake in a single match is enough to change the fortunes of a team for the entire season.  People say that such things even themselves out over the course of a season.  They do not.  Most leagues have a maximum of about 46 games.  To be relatively sure that such mistakes were evened out, more like 460 games would be needed.

This is not the time to rant about refereeing mistakes, but it should be noted that such mistakes probably have a larger effect on a football match than a match in another sport.  Hence, there is arguably more pressure on football referees and linesmen than on officials in other sports.  Add this that football seems a particularly difficult game to officiate, due to vague rules that are very open to interpretation, and football referees need all the help they can get.

Such help is of two forms.  Firstly, and famously, 'technology' i.e. TV replays, Hawkeye etc.  Football must be the only major sport left not using such things.  If a referee is unsure of a decision such as a penalty appeal or an offside, he or she should be able to check a TV replay.  Arguments that this would slow down the pace of the game are flawed, because the pace is already slowed down by all the arguments and protests that result from decisions that players disagree with.

Secondly, help is required from players, managers and fans.  Players should stop cheating.  Every game I see includes incidents of players going down too easily, cynically fouling each other, etc.  Managers should be honest.  If a manager knows his team have been given a soft penalty, or got away with an offside goal, or whatever, they should have enough integrity to admit their good fortune, rather than denying it or claiming they 'didn't see the incident'.  Without this honesty, complaints about referees mistakes cannot be taken seriously.  Fans have a part to play too.  We, like managers, should acknowledge our good fortune with decisions.  We should campaign for both the use of technology in the sport and for honesty and fairness from players and managers  .And no matter what we think of referees decisions, there is no excuse for the mob mentality of abuse that is directed at referees during games.

I've been thinking more and more recently that football, while entertaining, exciting and popular, is actually not a particularly good sport.  But I think these alterations would significantly improve it.  When I am king of the world, I'll make some changes.

Ways to lose

There are two ways to lose at something.

1. Losing because you play poorly/make mistakes/mess up
2. Losing because the other person or team are 'just too good'.

It seems that most people would prefer to lose the second way.  'We did our best, they were just too good'.  This completely baffles me.  I would much prefer to lose the first way.  My thinking is that if I lose because the other team are just too good, there is nothing I could have done to change the outcome.  If, however, I lose because I made silly mistakes, I know that next time I could win.

I hate the powerlessness of losing to a team who are 'just too good'.  If I make mistakes, I only have myself to blame, and I can deal with that.  It is in my power to change that.

Similarly, I prefer to lose because I make mistakes rather than because a team-mate makes mistakes.  I have very limited power over my team-mate and can do a limited amount to help him/her improve.  I have much more power over myself and my own improvement.

Everyone I've spoken to has said they prefer to lose the second way.  Is there anyone out there who agrees with me?

Olympics Tickets

One year until the 2012 Olympics seems like a good time to comment on the ticketing system.

The plan was simple: everyone bids for the tickets they want.  If any sessions are oversubscribed, tickets in each price category are allocated by random ballot.  If any tickets are left over again, they may be purchased by any bidders who got nothing in the first round.  Simple, and fair.  But flawed.

Flaw one: the vast majority of people bid for the cheapest tickets, meaning that these tickets were enormously oversubscribed and many people ended up with no tickets at all.

Flaw two: as anyone who has played dice-based games will know, theoretical fairness and equality rarely occurs in practice.  Therefore some people were lucky enough to get all the tickets they applied for, while others got none.

Flaw three: the second round of ticket was not a random ballot, but first come first served.  This meant that it was possible for people who missed out in the first round to eventually acquire far more tickets than those who won a few in the first round.

A far fairer system is not difficult to devise.  Here is such a system.  Everyone bids for desired tickets as originally planned.  For any oversubscribed sessions, beginning with the most oversubscribed, a random ballot is used.  Then the next most popular session is balloted, but people who already won tickets in the most popular session are excluded.  The process continues until all bidders have tickets.  Then all bidders are again included as the process continues, until all sessions have been balloted.  Finally, if any sessions still have spare tickets, a second round of bidding occurs in exactly the same way as the first.

In this system, all bidders will receive at least some tickets, and bidding for more tickets leads to proportionally more tickets gained.

That took me all of about 30 seconds to come up with, but an Olympic Committee of goodness knows how many people couldn’t.

The ticketing fiasco is the most disappointing thing about the Olympics so far, including the appalling logo.

2 thoughts on tennis

I have two thoughts about tennis at the moment.

1. The other day, I timed a set of tennis, and timed how long the ball was actually in play.  I discovered that the ball was in play for 14% of the set time.  This is really poor.  I know that tennis (like any sport) is difficult and tiring, but really, 14%?!  Surely they don't need rests every 2 games, given that they get reasonable rests between points.
   
2. People are getting excited about the amount of diving that it happening.  Nothing wrong with that, it is exciting to watch.  But should it really be that novel?  Shouldn't we see players diving for shots in every match?

Optimistic innocence

On Saturday I played in a charity mixed netball tournament no a team that began at ‘Kings Church Durham’ and ended as ‘Jose’s Magic Army’.  It was generally a good day.  I’ve always loved competing in sports tournaments, and this was the first competitive sport I’ve played since last October – partly because of graduating and being ineligible for the wonderful GCUFC and partly because of injury.

However, part way through the competition, I found myself almost speechless with anger, for reasons that I will explain in a moment.  Over the last couple of days I’ve been thinking about why I got angry, what my team mates said to me to calm me down and encourage me, and my thoughts on their responses.  I have particularly been comparing my experience of netball with my experience of Ultimate Frisbee, the sport I am most familiar with playing.

One of the rules of netball is that “No player may come into contact with an opponent in such a way that it impedes the play of that opponent.”  This includes the clarification that a player may not “push, trip, hold or lean on an opponent or use other forms of physical contact”.  This is pretty clear – netball is a non-contact sport.

Ultimate Frisbee is similar: “When the disc is in the air, all players must attempt to avoid contact with other players, and there is no situation where a player may justify initiating contact.  “Making a play for the disc” is not a valid excuse for initiating contact with other players…Some incidental contact, not affecting the outcome of the play or safety of players, may occur as two or more players move towards a single point simultaneously.  Incidental contact should be minimized but is not considered a foul.”

It could be argued that Frisbee is slightly more lenient, allowing for some contact that doesn’t affect the outcome of the play or the safety of players, but essentially these rules are the same – both sports are non-contact.

I have played Frisbee for about 8 years, and have learnt several things about the nature of the sport as non-contact:

• Minor contact is allowable until it interferes with play.  This is due to the second part of the rule quoted above (a caveat that, as far as I can tell, netball rules do not have).
•  Because of the self-refereed nature of the sport, if there is contact that interferes with play, players call the foul and, if necessary, play is reset and replayed.
• Inexperienced players are, to an extent, forgiven for not always following the rules due to ignorance or inexperience.  Experienced players endeavour to teach them the rules and set a good example of following the rules.

This is the perspective from which I came to Saturday’s tournament.

In most of Saturday’s games, the extent of contact allowed seemed quite like Frisbee.  This was a surprise to me, because I had expected the umpires to be stricter in enforcing the rules – from past experience of watching, playing and talking about netball, it had seemed that the non-contact nature of the sport was taken very seriously, compared to other technically non-contact sports such as Frisbee and basketball.

In a couple of games, however, I got very angry at the fact that my marker was blatantly breaking the rules by leaning into me, initiating strong contact and preventing my movement.  I attempted to hold my ground, though without pushing back, and was pushed hard enough that I had to take steps backwards to avoid falling over.  In a semi-contact sport such as football I could completely understand this way of marking, and would use my strength and weight to lean in as well.  But in netball, a sport that has a ‘no contact’ rule with no caveat such as the one in Frisbee, this was clearly cheating.

Two things frustrated me the most.  One, that the umpires rarely, if ever, blew for these fouls, even though they were basically continual for the entirety of the games.  Two, that the worst players for this were the most experienced – players who play regularly for teams rather than players like me who were beginners.

As I said, I got worked up into a speechless rage, which doesn’t often happen – I can usually rant relatively eloquently when angry!  My team-mates helped calm me down and I did enjoy most of the rest of the day.  There were a few things that they said that really got me thinking.

One response to my anger was along the lines of ‘That’s just how it is.  Players bend the rules all the time, and not just in netball’.  This, of course, is true in many sports.  Football is the most obvious example – players diving to win free-kicks or penalties, players tussling and holding shirts at set pieces, etc.  Two points in response.  Firstly – yes, this does happen all the time and in many sports, but I think I was surprised at it in netball, given my expectations of strict adherence to the no-contact rule.  Secondly, that is no reason not to get angry at it.  The argument of ‘that’s just the way it is’, is not a strong one for me.  The rules are there to make the sport safe and fair.  They should not be broken.  I have nothing against being competitive or playing hard or playing to win…so long as it remains in the rules.

Maybe I’m being naïve.  Maybe I’m too idealistic.  Maybe it’s my sporting background.  I grew up playing footy with mates, but in terms of competitive sport, my experience was limited to athletics, cross-country, and tennis – all quite individualistic sports where players don’t really come into contact with each other.  They tend to compete ‘at a distance’.  Post-school, my main sport has been Frisbee.  If you don’t know, the genius of this sport, beyond the speed, skill, or excitement, is ‘The Spirit of the Game’.  This is so completely fundamental to the sport, it deserves full quotation.  If you can't be bothered to read it, the essence is: respect players, be truthful not cynical, call your own fouls.

1.1. Ultimate is a non-contact, self-refereed sport.  All players are responsible for administering and adhering to the rules.  Ultimate relies upon a Spirit of the Game that places the responsibility for fair play on every player.

1.2. It is trusted that no player will intentionally break the rules; thus there are no harsh penalties for breaches, but rather a method for resuming play in a manner which simulates what would most likely have occurred had there been no breach.

1.3. Players should be mindful of the fact that they are acting as referees in any arbitration between teams.  In such situations, players must:

1.3.1. know the rules;

1.3.2. be fair-minded and objective;

1.3.3. be truthful;

1.3.4. explain their viewpoint clearly and briefly;

1.3.5. allow opponents a reasonable chance to speak;

1.3.6. resolve disputes as quickly as possible; and

1.3.7. use respectful language.

1.4. Highly competitive play is encouraged, but should never sacrifice the mutual respect between players, adherence to the agreed-upon rules of the game, or the basic joy of play.

1.5. The following actions are examples of good spirit:

1.5.1. informing a team-mate if they have made a wrong or unnecessary call or caused a foul or violation;

1.5.2. retracting a call when you no longer believe the call was necessary;

1.5.3. complimenting an opponent for good play or spirit;

1.5.4. introducing yourself to your opponent; and

1.5.5. reacting calmly towards disagreement or provocation.

1.6. The following actions are clear violations of the spirit of the game and must be avoided

by all participants:

1.6.1. dangerous play and aggressive behaviour;

1.6.2. intentional fouling or other intentional rule violations;

1.6.3. taunting or intimidating opposing players;

1.6.4. disrespectful celebration after scoring;

1.6.5. making calls in retaliation to an opponent’s call; and

1.6.6. calling for a pass from an opposition player.

1.7. Teams are guardians of the Spirit of the Game, and must:

1.7.1. take responsibility for teaching their players the rules and good spirit;

1.7.2. discipline players who display poor spirit; and

1.7.3. provide constructive feedback to other teams about how to improve their adherence to the Spirit of the Game.

1.8. In the case where a novice player commits an infraction out of ignorance of the rules, experienced players are obliged to explain the infraction.

1.9. An experienced player, who offers advice on rules and guides on-field arbitration, may supervise games involving beginners or younger players.

1.10. Rules should be interpreted by the players directly involved in the play, or by players who had the best perspective on the play.  Non-players, apart from the captain, should refrain from getting involved.  However for calls relating to “out-of-bounds” and 3“down”, players may seek the perspective of non-players to assist them to make the appropriate call.

1.11. If players cannot agree what occurred in a play, the disc shall be returned to the last

non-disputed thrower.

I have played Frisbee for long enough that this attitude is now ingrained in me.  I’ve noticed how I often make calls against my team when playing other sports.  For example, in rounders, if I know my team mate is out, I will argue for that decision.  On Saturday, after a baseline pass was given to my team, I corrected the umpire by informing them that it had clipped my finger on the way out and the decision should be reversed.  I am not trying to sound ‘holier-than-thou’, I am not trying to make Frisbee sound better than any other sport, but this is the viewpoint from which I approach sport.  I try to apply the Spirit of the Game to any sport I play.  I believe it is the only way to remove cynicism and cheating from sport.

I do not have the sporting experience that others do, that perhaps make them more immune to the kind of cynical breaking of the rules I experienced on Saturday.  In fact, I have to opposite experience.  Maybe this is why I get so angry, more than others, when I observe cheating in sport.

Another response from my team-mates was the advice to do the same thing back, or ‘give as good as I got’.  I think I reacted quite badly to this.  I do not believe that the fact that other players are cheating (because, when you get down to it, that’s what bending the rules is – trying to gain an advantage though unfair and illegal (no matter how minorly illegal) play) gives me the right to do the same.  Again, maybe I’m being naïve.  Maybe I sound holier-than-thou – that is not my intention.

On reflection, I think part of this reaction comes from my personality – I am quite idealistic – and part of it comes from how I approach all sport like Frisbee.  This is why I was particularly angry at the fact that the worst players were the experienced ones.  In my Frisbee background, inexperienced players might break rules my mistake, but experienced players would do so only rarely, and would not break rules deliberately.

Unlike many of my posts on here, this is not me trying to prove a point or argue an opinion.  It is more a reflection on why I reacted badly in a situation.  Unsurprisingly I guess, it was due to both my personality and my experiences.  Maybe I’ll get used to sporting cynicism someday.  Part of me hopes I will, so I can just chill out a bit.  Part of me hopes I don’t lose this optimistic innocence.

Sledging fail

Yesterday I went sledging with some friends.  The slope we were using had two sections.  I was completely unable to get onto the lower section.  I'd either stop early or slide of the edge.  For some reason, this got inside my head and I got really frustrated.  I didn't care about doing the lower section, or I'd have just started halfway down.  I just wanted to try the whole thing.  My friends gave me advice but nothing I tried made any difference.  I tried different starting positions, different amounts of leaning, different positions on the sledge, different sledges, different leg positions.  No win.  What frustrated me was not that I couldn't get onto the lower section.  It was that I wasn't improving.  There was nothing I could do to get there.

It's a bit like losing a competitive sport match.  There are two ways of losing - losing because you played badly, or losing because the opposition were simply too good.  I think most people prefer to lose by just being outclassed, because they want to have played as well as they can.  I disagree.  I would prefer to lose because of playing badly, because then at least I can go away and improve, I know there is something I can do to change things next time.  I don't like losing at all, but especially if there is nothing I could have done to do better.  Just like the sledging - I hated being unable to change anything to improve.

Swimming

They say that swimming is really good for overall fitness.  Now I see what they mean.
I've just been swimming (proper lane swimming) for the first time in my life, in an attempt to stay fit while injured.  I was in the pool for 20 minutes and now my whole body hurts, and I have a headache.  I hope I get better at this.

Power to the referees

So, Scottish football referees are planning to strike next weekend because of the criticism and threats aimed at them by some clubs/players/managers/fans.
People are giving them criticism for making mistakes.
They are making mistakes because (a) they are under a lot of pressure, (b) they are often deceived by players cheating - by diving, by not owning up to fouls or handballs, and (c) they do not have the technological help that is available in other sports and is required in football.

Several things must be done.
Firstly, hawkeye-style replays must be allowed.  For goalline incidents and other incidents in the penalty box.  Referees should be allowed to us TV replays.  The argument that this would stop the flow of the game is nonsense.  TV replays would be far less disruptive than the current arguments when a decision is questioned.  For decisions that the referees do not use replays for, each captain should get, say, one appeal per half, like in tennis.
Secondly, blatant diving and simulation should be a red card offence rather than yellow.  Over-the-top theatricality after a minor foul should be a yellow card offence (therefore a referee could give a freekick to the attacking team for a foul by the defending team, but also book the attacking player for making a meal of it).
Thirdly, only players involved in an incident, plus the captains, should be allowed to speak to the referee.  If any player is abusive or disrespectful to the referee, they should be booked.
Fourthly, if a player is booked or sent off for cynical cheating, diving or abuse, they should also pay a heavy fine, proportional to the league they are playing in.  So premiership players should be fined about 2 weeks wages for being sent off for diving.
Fifthly, referees should have the power to retrospectively give red and yellow cards for incidents they did not see in the game.

In short, more power to the referees and less to the players.

Injury

Fact 1: I like sport, a lot.  I like watching it and playing it.  This year, I was hoping to do 6 sports regularly.

Fact 2: I have chronic tendonitis in my left knee.  I've had it for about 10-12 years but it's got a lot worse in the last 12 months or so.

Fact 1 + Fact 2 = Decision 3: I went to see a physio, who recommended reducing activity and gave me stretches and exercises to do.

Decision 3 = consequences 4: I am only doing 3 sports, having dropped running, cycling and breakdancing; and 5: I am doing half an hour of stretches and exercises a day.

Fact 6: Consequences 4 and 5 do not seem to be helping, my knee is getting no better.

Fact 6 leads to possibility 7: I need to further reduce sport, to allow my knee to heal more effectively.

Possibility 7 leads to implication 8: I may stop playing football and volleyball, and just play frisbee, until my knee is better.

Implication 8 causes likelihood 9: I will get bored and frustrated.  I am already bored and frustrated at having to drop running, cycling and breakdancing.  I will not be pleasant to be around if I have to drop football and volleyball too.

Likelihood 9 results in requests 10: if you pray, please pray for my knee; and 11: if you have any practical suggestions, either about how to help my knee or about how to deal with lack of sport in my life, please let me know.

Why England got knocked out

This is my World Cup rant. Enjoy. Here are the reasons England had a poor world cup:

1. Terry's affair. What a donkey. Because of John Terry's lack of faithfulness and self-control he lost the captaincy, his form dropped, and the squad lost unity, probably thinking 'I wonder if he's been screwing my wife too'.
2. Squad selection. Lennon, Wright-Phillips and Walcott are identical players, and none of them are that useful I agree with Capello that Lennon is the best of the three, but SWP was a waste of a squad place. He should not have been on the plane. I'm not sure who I would have taken instead – maybe Downing or Bent.
3. Ferdinand/King injuries. With Terry off form, We really needed Rio, both as a pacey defender and a captain. His injury was bad luck. Then King's injury was even worse luck.
4. Lennon was poor. No delivery. Not good enough. Milner was better.
5. Green's mistake. One of those things you can't predict, but it made a difference. It's not an excuse though, England should have still had enough to beat USA.
6. SWP coming on as sub. He's the same as Lennon, but even worse. He has no delivery. He should not be playing.
7. The Heskey/Rooney partnership did not work. I don't know why. Possibly because teams predicted it too well.
8. Heskey coming on as sub instead of Crouch. Capello played Heskey because, while he doesn't score, he brings the best out of Rooney. Once this stopped working, he switched to Defoe. Good decision. But then, when it came to replacing a striker, he brought on Heskey, who (a) cannot score, and (b) no longer works well with Rooney. Whereas Crouch can score (and does, frequently!), and would be a much better option.
9. Lampard's free kicks. Apart from the one when he hit the bar against Germany, Lampard's free kicks were abysmal. Either way over the bar or straight into the wall. Many chances wasted.
10. We had no tempo against Algeria or USA. We allowed the other teams to dictate the pace, and thus struggled to break them down because they had time to set up their defence. Ergo, we couldn't score more goals than them.
11. Missed chances against Slovenia. Way too many of them. Simply wasteful at this level. A single extra goal would have seen us top the group and play Ghana and Uruguay rather than Germany and Argentina.
12. Disallowed goal against Germany. Shocking decision that did change the game. Had it gone in, we would have been level, we would have had the momentum, Germany would have been reeling, and we wouldn't have had to commit 9 men forward at set pieces to get an equaliser and then get caught on the break.
13. Not bringing on Joe Cole for Defoe as plan B. Capello didn't really have a plan B. SWP for Lennon was like-for-like. SWP for Milner was a step backwards. Heskey for Defoe did not work, as discussed above. He should have brought Cole on for Defoe, put Cole on the left, and shifted Gerrard to the hole. Gerrard and Rooney are our two most dangerous players, and most of the exciting things England did in the four games was due to their link-up play.

All these things were factors in England's poor world cup. But the last reason is the main one: Gerrard's position. Steven Gerrard is a central midfielder. One of the best in the world. Don't play him on the wing! Especially the left wing, he's right-footed! A waste of one of our best players, and the single player who brings the best out of Rooney. Gerrard rarely has the discipline to stay out on the left, so he drifts inside. This reduces service to the strikers, stifles the central midfielders, means we lack width, and leaves Ashley Cole exposed at the back. With the lack of service to the strikers, Rooney dropped deep to get the ball and we had very little up front. Therefore we do not attack effectively and cannot defend effectively – we were continually exposed down our left side.

Capello's decision to play Gerrard out of position was the single biggest factor in England's downfall. To do well at football, you have to score and not concede (this really isn't a difficult concept!). With Gerrard on the left, we struggled to score and conceded too easily. Simple as.

Player ratings

Green – 3. Unforgivable mistake at this level. Otherwise fine.

James – 8. Good goalkeeping. Dealt with crosses well and made some good saves. Did everything he could

Cole – 8. Our best player (as ever). Solid defensively, good going forward. Did as well as he could with no cover in front of him for a lot of the time.

Johnson – 6. Sparky going forward, ok at the back. Not good enough for a world cup winning side, but not bad either.

Terry – 4. No pace, little confidence. Generally absent. Did not dominate like he used to.

King – 5. Fine until he got injured.

Carra – 4. See Terry.

Upson – 6. Generally did well. Only mistake was in the lead up to Klose's goal, but he wasn't exactly helped by the rest of the team.

Barry – 5. Nondescript. Very little to say, either good or bad.

Gerrard – 4. Some exciting moments, but too many wasted chances and way to little positional discipline (though it's not his fault he was put out on the left).

Lampard – 4. Good against Germany (unlucky not to have 2 goals), but otherwise very poor.

Lennon – 3. Did nothing.

Milner – 6. Not his fault that he was picked while ill against USA. In the other games he did well and was our main attacking chance-provider.

Cole – 5. Didn't get much of a chance, but did ok when he came on.

SWP – 2. Did less than Lennon.

Rooney – 3. 'The first touch of an elephant seal' (Robbo's blog). True fact. Very poor indeed.

Heskey – 3. Ok against USA, but his score is always limited by the fact that he never scores. Did very little.

Defoe – 6. Good goal against Slovenia, worked hard, good link up play.

Crouch – 5. Had no chance to shine.

Sports Personality of the Year

Sports Personality of the Year is becoming a farce.  (This rant has 2 parts)

Back in the day (when I were a lad…) the show wasn’t even called that.  It was Sports Review of the Year, and was focused on an overall review of the year in sport.  The awards were a small part of the programme, rather than the focus.

Now, the show has become a popularity contest.  Every part of the show is geared towards getting the (relatively ignorant) public to ring in and vote, and we get a much more skewed view of the sporting year.  It has become more about celebrating certain poorly-chosen individuals (see below) and less about celebrating sport as a whole.

That’s the first part of the rant.  The second part is about two of this years awards – the individual and the team.

Here are the contenders for the individual award, in order of the number of votes they received.

Ryan Giggs (winner) – won 2 major domestic trophies with Man Utd and was a key player in their team, but not the most key player (that would be Ronaldo).

Jenson Button (2^nd) – got lucky in signing a contract to drive a very fast car and still only just won the title.

Jessica Ennis (3^rd) – Came back from an Olympic-missing injury to win the world title with several event personal bests and an overall personal best.

Mark Cavendish – won a ‘record’ (they mean British record) 6 Tour De France stages.

Beth Tweddle – After being robbed in Beijing, won double gold at the World University games, then won the World Floor after falling in the bars.

Tom Daley – won the world 10m diving at age 15.

Andy Murray – got to world number 2 and won 6 events, none of which were grand slams.

Andrew Strauss – captained England to the Ashes and won player of the tournament.

David Haye – fought one fight to win the world heavyweight title.

Phillips Idowu – won the World Triple Jump with a personal best.

2 of these people (Cavendish and Murray) didn’t actually win anything important.  Others (Giggs, Button, Strauss, Haye, Idowu) won stuff, but weren’t outstanding (Giggs wasn't United's best player, Button is a racing driver and his success is therefore mostly due to the car, Strauss has a good series, but not mind-boggling, Haye won one fight and Idowu was no more impressive than any other athletics world champion.  Another (Daley) did well, but won the young award, so shouldn’t get the main one too.

This leaves the ladies – Ennis and Tweddle.  Ennis was superb all year, especially after the nightmare of missing Beijing due to injury, and was untouchable at the World Championships.  Tweddle was similarly supreme, especially on the floor after falling in her main event, the bars.  One of these two should have one.

However, the award is decided by a public vote, which means minority sportspeople such as Tweddle never stand a chance.

Now to the team award.  It was given to the England Men’s Cricket Team, who won the Ashes.  It was not given to the England Women’s Cricket Team, who one the Ashes, the World Cup, and the World Twenty20 cup.  What a joke.