There was a sense of inevitability about Rafael Nadal's straight sets' win over Andy Murray at the French Open semi-finals on Friday.
It was the fourth time Murray had lost to the Spaniard in their six Grand Slam meetings and Nadal's record on clay is astonishing - he's only been beaten once in the French Open and walked off with the title five times.
But the scoreline - 6-4, 7-5, 6-4 - does little justice to the match, or Murray's part in it. Having stumbled through to his first Roland Garros semi-final, and fought off a groin injury, a partially-torn ankle ligament, a sore throat and even a broken tooth on the way, the British number one played his best tennis of the tournament against the incredible Nadal. He carved out numerous break point opportunites on the Nadal serve - but only when he was a break down himself. The match was close - but Nadal won the crucial points here and there.
And therein lies the problem - Nadal always had another gear to find, particularly on his favourite surface. Murray, like Tim Henman and many other Brits before him, is never likely to flourish on the red dirt and so will be pleased to match Henman's 2004 run to the semis. He can now turn his attention to the grass court season and prepare, ankle-permitting, for the pressure cooker of Wimbledon.
Being the fourth best tennis player on the planet is a fantastic achievement in itself. Henman was unfairly labelled a 'bottler' for failing to make a Grand Slam final. Murray has at least made three - but seems to have hit a mental glass ceiling, crumbling in all of them. A few years ago, Nadal and Roger Federer were carving up the major titles between them and now Novak Djokovic has emerged as, arguably, the best player in the world right now with his astonishing 42-match winning streak. He will confirm the number spot if he defeats Roger Federer to reach the Roland Garros final.
Murray has shown he has the quality to beat anyone in individual matches and go deep into every Grand Slam draw. But to finally rid himself of the 'bottler' tag, he must find greater consistency and, most importantly, the right mentality to take his chances when they arrive. Then, and only then, will he develop the aura of invincibility that terrifies opponents of Nadal, Federer and Djokovic.
Friday, June 03, 2011
You and Hughes' army?
In the next few weeks, we will know whether or not Mark Hughes's decision to ditch Fulham after less than a year of wedded bliss was a brilliant career move or an agent-driven act of attention-seeking.
You should always give someone the benefit of any doubt - well, maybe not always - so most bloggers, tweeters and Cottagers assumed Hughes must have had another job lined up to jump ship and risk the wrath of Mohamed Al-Fayed (or perhaps that Michael Jackson statue was just a step too far for Sparky...). Certainly Hughes's assertion that "as a young, ambitious manager I wish to move on to further my experiences" suggested he was simply switching dugouts rather than taking a break.
When the news broke early on Thursday evening, with Hughes reportedly a target for managerless Aston Villa, it seemed merely a formality that the former Manchester United and Chelsea striker would be on his way to Villa Park. But then journalists in the know, like the BBC's peerless Pat Murphy and the Birmingham Mail's Mat Kendrick (who first broke the exclusive earlier in the week that Houllier would be leaving) began hearing that Villa weren't actually interested in Hughes.
The Welshman's claim that his resignation had "not been influenced by any outside party" seemed unlikely, given the timing. But once it emerged Villa had another man as their top target (Carlo Ancelotti, Martin Jol or Steve McClaren would seem the most likely), it seemed that either Hughes had his eye on another vacant post, or was taking a massive gamble in leaving behind a secure job and Europa League football for a period in the wilderness until a bigger club came a-calling.
Perhaps his agent Kia Joorabchian (yes, him of the Tevez/West Ham affair) felt Hughes's Chelsea connections might land him the job at Stamford Bridge. Maybe that's more likely than it might seem - Chelsea skipper John Terry stated today Hughes was "someone that hopefully the club will be talking to". Now, he may be away on England duty, but it seems unlikely that Terry would not be kept in the loop as to the possible identity of the club's new boss. Was everyone's favourite Dad of the Year dropping a hint? It might explain Hughes's hasty exit, and actually wouldn't be a crazy move by Roman Abramovich (particularly if Guus Hiddink makes himself unavailable).
But what of Villa? Speaking as a long-suffering supporter myself, I'd be wary of the club appointing someone like McClaren, who will immediately split fan opinion in spite of his achievements at club level. What Villa needs, after the divise Gerard Houllier reign, is unity and a sense of collective purpose. It's what Martin O'Neill brought after the shambles of the David O'Leary era - someone like Hughes, Ancelotti or the cuddly Jol would certain provide it.
You should always give someone the benefit of any doubt - well, maybe not always - so most bloggers, tweeters and Cottagers assumed Hughes must have had another job lined up to jump ship and risk the wrath of Mohamed Al-Fayed (or perhaps that Michael Jackson statue was just a step too far for Sparky...). Certainly Hughes's assertion that "as a young, ambitious manager I wish to move on to further my experiences" suggested he was simply switching dugouts rather than taking a break.
 |
| SPARKY'S DREAM: Is Hughes Villa-bound...or might Chelsea be a more likely destination? |
When the news broke early on Thursday evening, with Hughes reportedly a target for managerless Aston Villa, it seemed merely a formality that the former Manchester United and Chelsea striker would be on his way to Villa Park. But then journalists in the know, like the BBC's peerless Pat Murphy and the Birmingham Mail's Mat Kendrick (who first broke the exclusive earlier in the week that Houllier would be leaving) began hearing that Villa weren't actually interested in Hughes.
The Welshman's claim that his resignation had "not been influenced by any outside party" seemed unlikely, given the timing. But once it emerged Villa had another man as their top target (Carlo Ancelotti, Martin Jol or Steve McClaren would seem the most likely), it seemed that either Hughes had his eye on another vacant post, or was taking a massive gamble in leaving behind a secure job and Europa League football for a period in the wilderness until a bigger club came a-calling.
Perhaps his agent Kia Joorabchian (yes, him of the Tevez/West Ham affair) felt Hughes's Chelsea connections might land him the job at Stamford Bridge. Maybe that's more likely than it might seem - Chelsea skipper John Terry stated today Hughes was "someone that hopefully the club will be talking to". Now, he may be away on England duty, but it seems unlikely that Terry would not be kept in the loop as to the possible identity of the club's new boss. Was everyone's favourite Dad of the Year dropping a hint? It might explain Hughes's hasty exit, and actually wouldn't be a crazy move by Roman Abramovich (particularly if Guus Hiddink makes himself unavailable).
But what of Villa? Speaking as a long-suffering supporter myself, I'd be wary of the club appointing someone like McClaren, who will immediately split fan opinion in spite of his achievements at club level. What Villa needs, after the divise Gerard Houllier reign, is unity and a sense of collective purpose. It's what Martin O'Neill brought after the shambles of the David O'Leary era - someone like Hughes, Ancelotti or the cuddly Jol would certain provide it.
Back on the blog...
As alt-rock band Staind once whined, it's been a while - but I'm now returning to give this blog the care and attention it deserves.
It has sat here, in the blogosphere, lost and lonely and feeling unloved, for far too long now. We never had a falling out or anything - I just took it for granted, eyeing up much more flashier and attractive web 2.0 outlets, while my reliable Blogger account loyally sat here patiently waiting for me to return.
So now, with my tail duly between my legs, I've come home. And my first target is someone else who has assumed the grass is greener elsewhere...
It has sat here, in the blogosphere, lost and lonely and feeling unloved, for far too long now. We never had a falling out or anything - I just took it for granted, eyeing up much more flashier and attractive web 2.0 outlets, while my reliable Blogger account loyally sat here patiently waiting for me to return.
So now, with my tail duly between my legs, I've come home. And my first target is someone else who has assumed the grass is greener elsewhere...
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Cue the revolution
At London's O2 on Saturday, a sporting revolution was taking place.More than 30 years after snooker's world championship was first televised, creating a pantheon of legends who dominated our screens in the 1980s and 1990s, the sport was brought kicking and screaming into the 21st Century with the spawning of an exciting new format.
Power Snooker is the rebellious son of this venerable old timer of the sporting world, billed by its inventors as 'an innovative and explosive re-working of the traditional game'. It is intended to do for snooker what Twenty20 has done for cricket.
There are nine reds on the table, rather than the usual 15, and every match is finished after 30 minutes of play (plus the usual ad breaks between 'racks' - this was on ITV4 after all). Winning frames is irrelevent - it's all about the total points scored at the end of the half hour. One of the reds is the 'powerball' - it's worth two when potted but, more importantly, triggers a two-minute 'powerplay' when every ball is worth double points. What's more, any balls sunk when the cue ball is in baulk (known in this format, inevitably, as the 'powerzone') are worth double - quadruple if potted during the powerplay.
To the traditionalists, the basic premise probably sounds horrendous, an insult to the many greats from the past, and those who love the hushed tension of the 'proper' game. Despite being in my mid-20s, I count myself among those traditionalists, and have both the desire and the patience to sit through entire test matches or two-week snooker World Championships. I even managed to stay awake during the Peter Ebdon-Graeme Dott final of 2006. There's probably a support group for those of us who achieved that.
But Power Snooker captivated me and, it seems, the crowd at the O2, who imbibed throughout the day and were allowed to shout and sing as much as they liked ("Ding Junhui, my Lord, Ding Junhui" - I kid you not). The eight-player tournament was won, predictably, by Ronnie O'Sullivan, the chief flag-waver of the new format, who blitzed Ding in a one-sided final.
The whole affair, with its showbiz window-dressing, reminded me of the ending of the pretty much forgotten Britflick Blackball, where a young, rebellious and outrageously gifted player is used to rebrand and repackage the usually sedate sport of bowls. Paul Kaye's 'bad boy of bowls' was loosely based on the real-life story of Griff Sanders. In this instance, with life perfectly imitating art, it's Rocket Ronnie who is the poster boy for this turbo-charged version of snooker.
Some of the purists may sneer at the forced glitz (the identikit, casino-style 'Power Girls' who walked the players to the table was a shameless and, to be honest, failed ploy to inject some form of 'sex appeal'), but the action on the table was captivating. Events like this will surely act as a 'gateway' format for the younger generation. Power Snooker will pull 'em in - and, World Snooker chief Barry Hearn hopes, the longer game will reap the benefits.
A couple of bugbears - I actually think the 20-second shot clock could have been reduced to 15. The speed of the action meant no players ever got close to a time penalty and 20 seconds is actually quite a long time when you count it down. Also, the miss rule is completely out of place in this format - it may help one player rack up the points, but it slows the game down if the referees (in this tournament the brilliant Michaela Tabb and Patricia Murphy) have to re-spot balls.
The revolution will not be televised, Gil Scott-Heron wrote. He obviously never envisaged Power Snooker.
Some of the purists may sneer at the forced glitz (the identikit, casino-style 'Power Girls' who walked the players to the table was a shameless and, to be honest, failed ploy to inject some form of 'sex appeal'), but the action on the table was captivating. Events like this will surely act as a 'gateway' format for the younger generation. Power Snooker will pull 'em in - and, World Snooker chief Barry Hearn hopes, the longer game will reap the benefits.
A couple of bugbears - I actually think the 20-second shot clock could have been reduced to 15. The speed of the action meant no players ever got close to a time penalty and 20 seconds is actually quite a long time when you count it down. Also, the miss rule is completely out of place in this format - it may help one player rack up the points, but it slows the game down if the referees (in this tournament the brilliant Michaela Tabb and Patricia Murphy) have to re-spot balls.
The revolution will not be televised, Gil Scott-Heron wrote. He obviously never envisaged Power Snooker.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Can Strauss waltz off with the urn again?
Assuming they've all got their passports, England's cricketers will fly out to Australia tomorrow. But come February, when they move on to India for the World Cup, will they still be the proud owners of the Ashes urn?
When England last won a series on Australian soil, in 1986-87, they had a skipper from Middlesex, boasted a dashing middle order batsman and Broad was a key member of the squad. OK, while Andrew Strauss may be more athletic in the field than Mike Gatting, Kevin Pietersen perhaps doesn't have the natural grace of David Gower and, despite THAT partnership in the summer, Stuart's batting hasn't quite reached the standard of dad Chris. But if the omens mean nothing, recent form has at least put England in a strong position.
The summer victories over Pakistan had some of the sheen taken off them after the spot-betting allegations emerged, but the test series was won with some polished performances, particularly from swing king James Anderson and spin doctor Graeme Swann (45 wickets between them). And last year's Ashes series win marks England out as arguably the best team in the world in cool, overcast, swinging conditions.
But to win Down Under will take something a bit extra. Australia may not be the force they once were, and for the first time in living memory England begin an Ashes series as the highest-ranked team after Ricky Ponting's men lost in India. However, under the weight of their own expectation and in the glare of an unforgiving Aussie crowd, England will have to prove they have added mental strength to the close-knit team spirit engendered under Strauss and coach Andy Flower.
The batting line-up, so often exposed in the heat of battle in Oz, will need to provide a platform. Strauss will be targeted by the Aussies, as captains always are, and he and opening partner Alastair Cook will need to remain granite-like at the crease. Cook only averaged 23 against Pakistan, as did Kevin Pietersen, who will remain a prize wicket for the Aussie bowlers. Jonathan Trott, Paul Collingwood, Matt Prior and whoever gets the nod between Eoin Morgan and Ian Bell will need to anchor the innings if the top order flops but these days England bat well down the order, with Broad and Swann able to hit out.
The big concern has to be England's ability to take 20 Aussie wickets in their backyard. The ball won't swing the way Anderson will want it to, and Swann has to replicate his form of the summer even on the pitches that won't be as conducive to spin. The two that could make an impact are Steve Finn and Chris Tremlett. Finn has 32 test wickets to his name but will be somewhat of an unknown quantity to the Aussies, while Tremlett, if selected, has the frame to generate pace and bounce - the new Steve Harmison, if you will.
He was selected ahead of Ajmal Shahzad, one of two big squad decisions the selectors got right in my view. Taking Monty Panesar was the other - the Sikh of Tweak has enjoyed a renaissance at Sussex and he is an excellent back-up option to Swann, and may well play alongside him in the spin-friendly final Test in Sydney.
The morning session in Brisbane will set the tone - let's hope it brings more luck than Harmison's wayward first ball four years ago...
(My tip - a 2-2 series draw and the urn to stay with England. You heard it here first.)
When England last won a series on Australian soil, in 1986-87, they had a skipper from Middlesex, boasted a dashing middle order batsman and Broad was a key member of the squad. OK, while Andrew Strauss may be more athletic in the field than Mike Gatting, Kevin Pietersen perhaps doesn't have the natural grace of David Gower and, despite THAT partnership in the summer, Stuart's batting hasn't quite reached the standard of dad Chris. But if the omens mean nothing, recent form has at least put England in a strong position.
The summer victories over Pakistan had some of the sheen taken off them after the spot-betting allegations emerged, but the test series was won with some polished performances, particularly from swing king James Anderson and spin doctor Graeme Swann (45 wickets between them). And last year's Ashes series win marks England out as arguably the best team in the world in cool, overcast, swinging conditions.
But to win Down Under will take something a bit extra. Australia may not be the force they once were, and for the first time in living memory England begin an Ashes series as the highest-ranked team after Ricky Ponting's men lost in India. However, under the weight of their own expectation and in the glare of an unforgiving Aussie crowd, England will have to prove they have added mental strength to the close-knit team spirit engendered under Strauss and coach Andy Flower.
The batting line-up, so often exposed in the heat of battle in Oz, will need to provide a platform. Strauss will be targeted by the Aussies, as captains always are, and he and opening partner Alastair Cook will need to remain granite-like at the crease. Cook only averaged 23 against Pakistan, as did Kevin Pietersen, who will remain a prize wicket for the Aussie bowlers. Jonathan Trott, Paul Collingwood, Matt Prior and whoever gets the nod between Eoin Morgan and Ian Bell will need to anchor the innings if the top order flops but these days England bat well down the order, with Broad and Swann able to hit out.
The big concern has to be England's ability to take 20 Aussie wickets in their backyard. The ball won't swing the way Anderson will want it to, and Swann has to replicate his form of the summer even on the pitches that won't be as conducive to spin. The two that could make an impact are Steve Finn and Chris Tremlett. Finn has 32 test wickets to his name but will be somewhat of an unknown quantity to the Aussies, while Tremlett, if selected, has the frame to generate pace and bounce - the new Steve Harmison, if you will.
He was selected ahead of Ajmal Shahzad, one of two big squad decisions the selectors got right in my view. Taking Monty Panesar was the other - the Sikh of Tweak has enjoyed a renaissance at Sussex and he is an excellent back-up option to Swann, and may well play alongside him in the spin-friendly final Test in Sydney.
The morning session in Brisbane will set the tone - let's hope it brings more luck than Harmison's wayward first ball four years ago...
(My tip - a 2-2 series draw and the urn to stay with England. You heard it here first.)
Monday, October 18, 2010
Football must embrace video technology
The debate on video technology in football has resumed - with the Premier League's most media-friendly manager emerging as a vociferous advocate of a review system.
Sure, Ian Holloway's impassioned plea to have football belatedly shunted into the 21st century ("I'm sorry Mr Blatter, you're getting it all wrong") may have been rooted in frustration following his Blackpool side's 3-2 defeat to Manchester City.
Ollie felt his side had been wronged three times by the officials, with Carlos Tevez's disputable double for City standing and Gary Taylor-Fletcher's goal chalked off for offside. All that after a bright and breezyBlackpool had threatened to humble the richest club in the world, only to be beaten by a gold-plated David Silva strike. No wonder he was annoyed.
But he's right, to a degree. Replays may not ever reliably rule offside goals out or onside goals in, but football does need to change. Even Mr Blatter realises that now, in the wake of Lampardgate at the World Cup.
Goalline technology should be the bare minimum. With so much money at stake for promotion and relegation, football literally can't afford to have any doubt cast over what is essentially its basic premise - the ball crossing the goalline.
It's not a new argument.Chesterfield 1 in the Wembley semi. A shot from Jonathan Howard cannoned off the bar, TV replays showed the ball had clearly crossed the line. The officials disagreed, however. The game ended 3-3 and Boro won the replay.
To be fair, TV slo-mos have also highlighted numerous brilliant calls by officials. Anders Frisk (later effectively hounded out of the game by Jose Mourinho) bravely awarded a penalty to Ireland in the last minute of their 2002 World Cup second round clash with Spain, when he spotted Fernando Hierro trying to swap shirts with Niall Quinn, an offence which often goes unpunished. Frisk, in the final throes of an important match on the world's biggest stage, didn't bottle it.
I am a (lapsed) qualified referee myself. I've only ever done park matches but I’m protective of referees and the job they do (but more on that in another blog later in the week). And I think the use of technology could support, rather than undermine, the officials.
The naysayers argue the other sports which use video reviews all have natural breaks in play, and football can't afford to stop to check decisions.
Well, unlike Holloway, I wouldn’t advocate TV reviews of every contentious decision. Goalline technology could show instantly whether the ball had crossed the line, so that wouldn't delay things. Football’s also not a constantly flowing sport. The referee halts play several times a game anyway for substitutions or injuries, and arguments over decisions can often take up more time than a replay would.
The anti-technology lobby also say it'd damage the FIFA ideal that football must be the same everywhere, from Hackney Marshes to Wembley. Most professional matches inEngland
I'd like to see reviews prove other line decisions, such as whether an offence was committed inside or outside the penalty area (Brighton and Hove Albion would be two points better off if that had been in operation this season), and on judging handball inside the box. You’d need some restrictions on its use – perhaps a certain number of reviews per game and a finite number of replays before the television match official (who should be a retired referee) decides. If inconclusive, follow the cricket model and allow the original on-field decision to stand.
If Holloway has his way, it may mean the end of dozens of column inches (and hours of pub talk) on contentious refereeing decisions – but if it produces fairer results, the relentless whinging by managers after games should take the heat off the officials. And that can only be good for the game.
Sure, Ian Holloway's impassioned plea to have football belatedly shunted into the 21st century ("I'm sorry Mr Blatter, you're getting it all wrong") may have been rooted in frustration following his Blackpool side's 3-2 defeat to Manchester City.
Ollie felt his side had been wronged three times by the officials, with Carlos Tevez's disputable double for City standing and Gary Taylor-Fletcher's goal chalked off for offside. All that after a bright and breezy
But he's right, to a degree. Replays may not ever reliably rule offside goals out or onside goals in, but football does need to change. Even Mr Blatter realises that now, in the wake of Lampardgate at the World Cup.
Goalline technology should be the bare minimum. With so much money at stake for promotion and relegation, football literally can't afford to have any doubt cast over what is essentially its basic premise - the ball crossing the goalline.
It's not a new argument.
To be fair, TV slo-mos have also highlighted numerous brilliant calls by officials. Anders Frisk (later effectively hounded out of the game by Jose Mourinho) bravely awarded a penalty to Ireland in the last minute of their 2002 World Cup second round clash with Spain, when he spotted Fernando Hierro trying to swap shirts with Niall Quinn, an offence which often goes unpunished. Frisk, in the final throes of an important match on the world's biggest stage, didn't bottle it.
I am a (lapsed) qualified referee myself. I've only ever done park matches but I’m protective of referees and the job they do (but more on that in another blog later in the week). And I think the use of technology could support, rather than undermine, the officials.
The naysayers argue the other sports which use video reviews all have natural breaks in play, and football can't afford to stop to check decisions.
Well, unlike Holloway, I wouldn’t advocate TV reviews of every contentious decision. Goalline technology could show instantly whether the ball had crossed the line, so that wouldn't delay things. Football’s also not a constantly flowing sport. The referee halts play several times a game anyway for substitutions or injuries, and arguments over decisions can often take up more time than a replay would.
The anti-technology lobby also say it'd damage the FIFA ideal that football must be the same everywhere, from Hackney Marshes to Wembley. Most professional matches in
I'd like to see reviews prove other line decisions, such as whether an offence was committed inside or outside the penalty area (Brighton and Hove Albion would be two points better off if that had been in operation this season), and on judging handball inside the box. You’d need some restrictions on its use – perhaps a certain number of reviews per game and a finite number of replays before the television match official (who should be a retired referee) decides. If inconclusive, follow the cricket model and allow the original on-field decision to stand.
If Holloway has his way, it may mean the end of dozens of column inches (and hours of pub talk) on contentious refereeing decisions – but if it produces fairer results, the relentless whinging by managers after games should take the heat off the officials. And that can only be good for the game.
"Here we go, here we go, here we go..."
As a journalist, the thing that frightens me most is the blank page.
Sure, it's how virtually every piece of creativity begins, and the possibilities for how to turn that large white space into a slab of entertaining words (or pictures, or whatever) are endless, which is quite exciting. I can never seem to master writing the middle bit of a piece first and then tagging a first and last line on the end. I'm a linear person - I start at the start, finish at the finish and see where the whim takes me in between. So a blank page, with a first line just crying out to be written, is sometimes where my word juggernaut stalls.
Hence why, given that I have an entirely blank canvas with this new blog, I have decided to waffle on about blank pages - just to fill this one up a bit.
A BIT ABOUT ME: I'm a freelance sports journalist and broadcaster and this blog is just my excuse to sound off a bit on issues I have a strong view on (i.e. everything). If you're wise enough to be interested in the rest of my work, my website is at http://www.andrewraeburn.co.uk/.
Sure, it's how virtually every piece of creativity begins, and the possibilities for how to turn that large white space into a slab of entertaining words (or pictures, or whatever) are endless, which is quite exciting. I can never seem to master writing the middle bit of a piece first and then tagging a first and last line on the end. I'm a linear person - I start at the start, finish at the finish and see where the whim takes me in between. So a blank page, with a first line just crying out to be written, is sometimes where my word juggernaut stalls.
Hence why, given that I have an entirely blank canvas with this new blog, I have decided to waffle on about blank pages - just to fill this one up a bit.
A BIT ABOUT ME: I'm a freelance sports journalist and broadcaster and this blog is just my excuse to sound off a bit on issues I have a strong view on (i.e. everything). If you're wise enough to be interested in the rest of my work, my website is at http://www.andrewraeburn.co.uk/.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)