My team since 1970 could of course play the B team.
For me the B team is:
Justin Langer (Australia)
Gordon Greenidge (West Indies)
Greg Chappell (Australia)
Sachin Tendulkar (India)
Steve Waugh (Australia) (Captain)
Imran Khan (Pakistan)
Ian Healy (Australia)
Dennis Lillee (Australia)
Joel Garner (West Indies)
Curtley Ambrose (West Indies)
Mutiah Muralitharan (Sri Lanka)
Anit Kumble (India) 12th man
If it turns heaps add in Derek Underwood (England)
Then they could play the pre-1970 team.
My team is
Jack Hobbs (England)
Leonard Hutton (England)
Donald Bradman (Australia) Captain
Wally Hammond (England)
Everton Weekes (West Indies)
Garfield Sobers (West Indies)
Keith Millar (Australia)
Wally Grout (Australia)
Ray Lindwall (Australia)
Harold Larwood (England)
Clarrie Grimmett (Australia)
Bill O'Rielly (Australia) 12 Man
If it turns, add in Jim Laker (England)
Friday, December 29, 2006
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
World's Best Cricket 11 Since 1970
The impending retirement of Warne and McGrath gives me cause to consider the best cricket 11 from the time I have been a student of the game of cricket; since 1970.
Openers: The first name which comes to mind is Geoff Boycott. He was too ponderous and defensive, the man for a defensive fight perhaps, but not for the attacking brand of cricket that the world needs. Barry Richards could be in, but he didn't play enough test cricket to be considered. Similarly Glenn Turner; he did well in England and OK in his short test career; but not enough to prove his case.
Then there is Greenidge and Haynes. They sure knew how to attack and were a great partnership. Sunil Gavasker has a sensational record; one of only two who have averaged over 50. He can't be criticised for doing it all on Indian flat tracks; he averaged 52.11 away from home and 50.16 at home! He had to face the Aussies Lillee etc. The only problem is that he tended to get his runs a little slowly.
Then there is the Langer-Hayden combination. Saeed Anwar also deserves a mention with about 4000 runs in the mid 40's and a strike rate at 55. Langer has been a fighter and scored heavily and at a good rate. But his partner Hayden is unbelievable, belligerent and with an average around 53 and a strike rate of 60. Smith from South Africa is doing well with an average just under 50 and a strike rate at 59; he could challenge. The real comer is Sehwag who has a test average well over 50 and a strike rate of and unreal 75! Overall I will go for Gavasker and Hayden. However, Sehwag is poised to join Hayden.
Top-middle Order: Effectively to be considered a batsman has to have an average over 50. The candidates include Viv Richards with an average over 50 and a strike rate at 68.83! Who can forget Greg Chappell with a better average but a strike rate of only 51.
Then there is Brian Lara with a strike rate over 60, the world's highest test and first-class scores. He has also had to play through a period where the West Indies have been rather weak! I am a great fan of Miandad too who averaged 52 in tests. However, he only averaged 45 away from home and this weakens his case.
Ponting right now is setting new standards with an average near 60 and a similar strike rate. Tendulkar cannot be forgotten with a great average in the mid50's but a slower rate of 53. Hussey is on track to be a no-brainer selection, but he has to sustain it for another 5-10 years! Inzamam-Ul-Haq has a great average and a good strike rate but is not quite as fast a scorer or as heavy a scorer as some of the others.
Azharrudin, Crowe, Mark Waugh, David Gower, David Boon, Clive Lloyd, Zaheer Abbas, Damien Martin, Younis Khan deserve a mention but did not average highly enough. Mohammed Yousuf is on fire with an average in the high 50's and a goodish strike rate (52). If he keeps this up he will be a threat. Sangakkara from Sri Lanka is fashioning a good record with a solid average and reasonable strike rate. Dravid and Kallis have awesome records, averaging nearly 60 but strike rates of 42 sees them miss out to the dashers. Kallis as a bowler is a candidate for the the all-rounders position. However, this is a little slow for the prime batting positions in this team. Similarly, A. Flower from Zimbabwe who is an unheralded genius considering the quality of sides he played in, had a strike rate of 45 which is a little slow. G.Pollock misses my era but would certainly be hard to leave out with a 60 average. S. Waugh and A. Border too were great players. They both averaged 50 but had a huge number of not outs, batting at 6. They are both candidates for the number 6 position. So positions 3-5 go to Richards, Ponting and Lara. This ensures not only heavy scoring, but fast scoring. Unlucky are Chappell, Ul-Haq, Miandad, S. Waugh, Dravid and Kallis.
All-rounder:
A great cricket team usually has that extra bowler who bats at six and can take wickets (although the recent Australian team has done it with 4 bowlers only). With the brilliance of the top 5 batsmen I want someone who can bat quickly and get wickets, both at top level. Sobers played a few tests in the 70's but he really falls outside my era.
S. Waugh brings batting prowess. 3rd highest run scorer, average of over 50, 92 wickets at 32. He can trundle a few overs to relieve the pressure of the bowlers. Border similarly brings batting prowess with an average of 50 and can trundle down a few overs of left arm spin. Unfortunately for me, neither are good enough bowlers to fill this slot.
Another possibility is Kallis. On pure stats without concern for strike rates the guy is a certainty. But he scores too slowly for me coming in at 6. Neither is quite the attacking bowler I want. Ravi Shastri was a fine all-rounder, but his bowling is not quite attacking enough he being a slow left-armer with an average of 40 or so per wicket. Carl Hooper is a similar all-rounder. A fine attacking batsman and good bowler; but not a match winner.
Kapil Dev certainly deserves thought. He was a great bowler, holding the world record for test wickets, many gained on the slow Indian wickets. He was a good attacking batsman. However, his batting does not quite measure up to the really top flight.
Hadlee is another great all-rounder. His batting however was not quite the match winning level to challenge the big guns. He is a strong candidate to open the bowling anyway.
Another player from the 70's was Tony Grieg. About 3500 runs at 40 and 140 wickets at 32 is certainly impressive. But he too misses out to the big match winners.
In recent times Andrew Flintoff has been impressive; 3000 runs at 32 with a 64 strike rate and nearly 200 test wickets at 30ish is pretty good. He had a big impact on the 2005 ashes as well.
All these great players aside it comes down to two for me; both match winners with ball and bat. First there is Imran Khan with a batting average of 37 at good speed, a bowling average of 22 and strike rate of 53. 23 5 wicket bags and 6 hundreds! His batting is not quite as red hot as his bowling, but he is a brilliant player for sure! Then there is Ian Botham. He lost it in his latter years which affected his figures but they are still rather impressive. 5000 runs at 33 and 383 wickets at 28! HIs batting strike rate was 60 and bowling 58. 14 hundreds and 17 5 wicket bags. I am going to go for Botham. In his early years he was the man; winning the Ashes single handedly. Imran can still make the side as a bowler.
Wicketkeeper
For me this is an easy one. Marsh, Knott, Healy, Dujon, Bari are all great glovesmen. But none comes close to to Gilchrist as the whole package. What a shame he came into test cricket so old. He has kept brilliantly and consistently to a great attack including Warne and McGrath. His batting is simply spectacular, averaging near 50 at an awesome strike rate of 82! He is also now second in test dismissals as a wicketkeeper (372) to his predecessor Healy (395).
Fast Bowlers.
There have been a swag of impressive quicks. I will list them with their wickets, averages, strike rates, 5 for's and economy rates. I will add up their ranking on each and from that will select the ones with the lowest. I will let the stats do the talking on this one.
Lillee: 355 (10) at 23.92 (12) SR 52 (8) 23 5 fors (5=) ER 2.75 (10) (47)
McGrath: 557 (1) at 21.68 (4) SR 51.9 (7) 29 5 fors (2) ER 2.50 (4) (18)
Hadlee: 431 (3) at 22.29 (6) SR 50.8 (4=) 36 5 fors (1) ER 2.63 (8) (22)Donald: 330 (11) at 22.25 (5) SR 47 (3) 20 5 fors (11) ER 2.83 (12=) (42)
Imran Khan: 362 (9) at 22.81 (7) SR 53.7 (10) 23 5 fors (5=) ER 2.54 (6) (37)
Wasim Akram: 414 (4) at 23.62 (10) SR 54.6 (12) 25 5 fors (4) ER 2.59 (7) (41)
Waqar Younis: 373 (8) at 23.56 (9) SR 43.4 (1) 22 5 fors (8=) ER 3.25 (14) (39)
Malcolm Marshall: 376 (7) at 20.94 (2) SR 46.7 (2) 27 5 fors (3) ER 2.68 (9) (23)
Michael Holding: 249 (14) at 23.68 (11) SR 50.9 (6) 23 5 fors (5=) ER 2.79 (11) (51)
Joel Garner: 259 (13) at 20.57 (1) SR 50.8 (4=) 7 5 fors (14) ER 2.47 (3) (32)
Courtney Walsh: 519 (2) at 24.44 (13) SR 57.8 (13) 22 5 fors (8=) ER 2.53 (5) (41)
Curtley Ambrose: 405 (5) at 20.99 (3) SR 54.5 (11) 22 5 fors (8=) ER 2.30 (1) (28)
Pollock: 402 (6) at 23.19 (8) SR 58.1 (14) 16 5 fors (12=) ER 2.39 (2) (40)
Willis: 325 (12) at 25.20 (14) SR 53.4 (9) 16 5 fors (12=) ER 2.83 (12=)(59
Others such as Dev, Vaas, A. Roberts, McDermott, Ntini, Gillespie, Srinath, Hoggard, Caddick, Gough, Lee, C. Cairns, Streak and M. Hughes deserve a mention but have not had the impact of the others.
The top three come out as McGrath, Hadlee and Marshall. Ambrose misses out, just! I am surprised that Lillee didn't rank higher.
Spinners
I will do the same thing for the spinners with more than 200 wickets
Warne 706 (1) 25.35 (2) 57.4 (2) 37 5 fors (2) 2.65 (6) (15)
Muralitharan 674 (2) 21.73 (1) 54.4 (1) 57 5 fors (1) 2.39 (3) (8)
Kumble 538 (3) 28.59 (4) 65 (4) 22 5 fors (3) 2.50 (4) (18)
Underwood 297 (4) 25.83 (3) 73.6 (8) 17 5 fors (5) 2.10 (1) (21)
Bedi 266 (5) 28.71 (5) 80.3 (10) 14 5 fors (8) 2.14 (2) (30)
Chandrasekher 242 (6) 29.74 (6) 65.9 (5) 16 5 fors (6) 2.70 (8) (31)
Singh 238 (7) 29.86 (8) 63.7 (3) 19 5 fors (4) 2.81 (10) (32)
Qadir 236 (8) 32.80 (9) 72.5 (7) 15 5 fors (7) 2.71 (9) (40)
Vettori 229 (9) 34.28 (10) 76.7 (9) 13 5 fors (9=) 2.67 (7) (44)
S. Mushtaq 208 (10) 29.83 (7) 67.6 (6) 13 5 fors (9=) 2.64 (5) (37)
The spinners then are Muralitharan and Warne with Kumble and Underwood number 3 and 4. Even though Muralitharan rates above Warne statistically, I will rate Warne above him because he is the greatest spinner in the game, and unlike Murali, there are no questions concerning his action which for me remains rather dubious.
The Top Eleven Then:
M. Hayden (Australia)
S. Gavasker (India)
V. Richards (West Indies)
R. Ponting (Australia)
B. Lara (West Indies)
I. Botham (England)
A. Gilchrist (Australia)
R. Hadlee (New Zealand)
M. Marshall (West Indies)
S. Warne (Australia)
G. McGrath (Australia)
Other squad members
S. Waugh (if a batsman-bowler is needed at 6)
M. Muralitharan (if it is a turning track and 2 spinners are needed)
A. Kumble (if it is a real turner and 3 spinners are needed)
Captain is R. Ponting (Australia)
It all seems right but should Lillee be in for McGrath or Hadlee? And should I. Khan be in for Botham? Again, should Sehwag come in now ahead of the slower Gavasker? Greg Chappell too was a legend and it is hard to leave him out. Finally, should Muralitharan be let off the hook for his action and put in ahead of Warne.
And who would they play?
What do you think?
Openers: The first name which comes to mind is Geoff Boycott. He was too ponderous and defensive, the man for a defensive fight perhaps, but not for the attacking brand of cricket that the world needs. Barry Richards could be in, but he didn't play enough test cricket to be considered. Similarly Glenn Turner; he did well in England and OK in his short test career; but not enough to prove his case.
Then there is Greenidge and Haynes. They sure knew how to attack and were a great partnership. Sunil Gavasker has a sensational record; one of only two who have averaged over 50. He can't be criticised for doing it all on Indian flat tracks; he averaged 52.11 away from home and 50.16 at home! He had to face the Aussies Lillee etc. The only problem is that he tended to get his runs a little slowly.
Then there is the Langer-Hayden combination. Saeed Anwar also deserves a mention with about 4000 runs in the mid 40's and a strike rate at 55. Langer has been a fighter and scored heavily and at a good rate. But his partner Hayden is unbelievable, belligerent and with an average around 53 and a strike rate of 60. Smith from South Africa is doing well with an average just under 50 and a strike rate at 59; he could challenge. The real comer is Sehwag who has a test average well over 50 and a strike rate of and unreal 75! Overall I will go for Gavasker and Hayden. However, Sehwag is poised to join Hayden.
Top-middle Order: Effectively to be considered a batsman has to have an average over 50. The candidates include Viv Richards with an average over 50 and a strike rate at 68.83! Who can forget Greg Chappell with a better average but a strike rate of only 51.
Then there is Brian Lara with a strike rate over 60, the world's highest test and first-class scores. He has also had to play through a period where the West Indies have been rather weak! I am a great fan of Miandad too who averaged 52 in tests. However, he only averaged 45 away from home and this weakens his case.
Ponting right now is setting new standards with an average near 60 and a similar strike rate. Tendulkar cannot be forgotten with a great average in the mid50's but a slower rate of 53. Hussey is on track to be a no-brainer selection, but he has to sustain it for another 5-10 years! Inzamam-Ul-Haq has a great average and a good strike rate but is not quite as fast a scorer or as heavy a scorer as some of the others.
Azharrudin, Crowe, Mark Waugh, David Gower, David Boon, Clive Lloyd, Zaheer Abbas, Damien Martin, Younis Khan deserve a mention but did not average highly enough. Mohammed Yousuf is on fire with an average in the high 50's and a goodish strike rate (52). If he keeps this up he will be a threat. Sangakkara from Sri Lanka is fashioning a good record with a solid average and reasonable strike rate. Dravid and Kallis have awesome records, averaging nearly 60 but strike rates of 42 sees them miss out to the dashers. Kallis as a bowler is a candidate for the the all-rounders position. However, this is a little slow for the prime batting positions in this team. Similarly, A. Flower from Zimbabwe who is an unheralded genius considering the quality of sides he played in, had a strike rate of 45 which is a little slow. G.Pollock misses my era but would certainly be hard to leave out with a 60 average. S. Waugh and A. Border too were great players. They both averaged 50 but had a huge number of not outs, batting at 6. They are both candidates for the number 6 position. So positions 3-5 go to Richards, Ponting and Lara. This ensures not only heavy scoring, but fast scoring. Unlucky are Chappell, Ul-Haq, Miandad, S. Waugh, Dravid and Kallis.
All-rounder:
A great cricket team usually has that extra bowler who bats at six and can take wickets (although the recent Australian team has done it with 4 bowlers only). With the brilliance of the top 5 batsmen I want someone who can bat quickly and get wickets, both at top level. Sobers played a few tests in the 70's but he really falls outside my era.
S. Waugh brings batting prowess. 3rd highest run scorer, average of over 50, 92 wickets at 32. He can trundle a few overs to relieve the pressure of the bowlers. Border similarly brings batting prowess with an average of 50 and can trundle down a few overs of left arm spin. Unfortunately for me, neither are good enough bowlers to fill this slot.
Another possibility is Kallis. On pure stats without concern for strike rates the guy is a certainty. But he scores too slowly for me coming in at 6. Neither is quite the attacking bowler I want. Ravi Shastri was a fine all-rounder, but his bowling is not quite attacking enough he being a slow left-armer with an average of 40 or so per wicket. Carl Hooper is a similar all-rounder. A fine attacking batsman and good bowler; but not a match winner.
Kapil Dev certainly deserves thought. He was a great bowler, holding the world record for test wickets, many gained on the slow Indian wickets. He was a good attacking batsman. However, his batting does not quite measure up to the really top flight.
Hadlee is another great all-rounder. His batting however was not quite the match winning level to challenge the big guns. He is a strong candidate to open the bowling anyway.
Another player from the 70's was Tony Grieg. About 3500 runs at 40 and 140 wickets at 32 is certainly impressive. But he too misses out to the big match winners.
In recent times Andrew Flintoff has been impressive; 3000 runs at 32 with a 64 strike rate and nearly 200 test wickets at 30ish is pretty good. He had a big impact on the 2005 ashes as well.
All these great players aside it comes down to two for me; both match winners with ball and bat. First there is Imran Khan with a batting average of 37 at good speed, a bowling average of 22 and strike rate of 53. 23 5 wicket bags and 6 hundreds! His batting is not quite as red hot as his bowling, but he is a brilliant player for sure! Then there is Ian Botham. He lost it in his latter years which affected his figures but they are still rather impressive. 5000 runs at 33 and 383 wickets at 28! HIs batting strike rate was 60 and bowling 58. 14 hundreds and 17 5 wicket bags. I am going to go for Botham. In his early years he was the man; winning the Ashes single handedly. Imran can still make the side as a bowler.
Wicketkeeper
For me this is an easy one. Marsh, Knott, Healy, Dujon, Bari are all great glovesmen. But none comes close to to Gilchrist as the whole package. What a shame he came into test cricket so old. He has kept brilliantly and consistently to a great attack including Warne and McGrath. His batting is simply spectacular, averaging near 50 at an awesome strike rate of 82! He is also now second in test dismissals as a wicketkeeper (372) to his predecessor Healy (395).
Fast Bowlers.
There have been a swag of impressive quicks. I will list them with their wickets, averages, strike rates, 5 for's and economy rates. I will add up their ranking on each and from that will select the ones with the lowest. I will let the stats do the talking on this one.
Lillee: 355 (10) at 23.92 (12) SR 52 (8) 23 5 fors (5=) ER 2.75 (10) (47)
McGrath: 557 (1) at 21.68 (4) SR 51.9 (7) 29 5 fors (2) ER 2.50 (4) (18)
Hadlee: 431 (3) at 22.29 (6) SR 50.8 (4=) 36 5 fors (1) ER 2.63 (8) (22)Donald: 330 (11) at 22.25 (5) SR 47 (3) 20 5 fors (11) ER 2.83 (12=) (42)
Imran Khan: 362 (9) at 22.81 (7) SR 53.7 (10) 23 5 fors (5=) ER 2.54 (6) (37)
Wasim Akram: 414 (4) at 23.62 (10) SR 54.6 (12) 25 5 fors (4) ER 2.59 (7) (41)
Waqar Younis: 373 (8) at 23.56 (9) SR 43.4 (1) 22 5 fors (8=) ER 3.25 (14) (39)
Malcolm Marshall: 376 (7) at 20.94 (2) SR 46.7 (2) 27 5 fors (3) ER 2.68 (9) (23)
Michael Holding: 249 (14) at 23.68 (11) SR 50.9 (6) 23 5 fors (5=) ER 2.79 (11) (51)
Joel Garner: 259 (13) at 20.57 (1) SR 50.8 (4=) 7 5 fors (14) ER 2.47 (3) (32)
Courtney Walsh: 519 (2) at 24.44 (13) SR 57.8 (13) 22 5 fors (8=) ER 2.53 (5) (41)
Curtley Ambrose: 405 (5) at 20.99 (3) SR 54.5 (11) 22 5 fors (8=) ER 2.30 (1) (28)
Pollock: 402 (6) at 23.19 (8) SR 58.1 (14) 16 5 fors (12=) ER 2.39 (2) (40)
Willis: 325 (12) at 25.20 (14) SR 53.4 (9) 16 5 fors (12=) ER 2.83 (12=)(59
Others such as Dev, Vaas, A. Roberts, McDermott, Ntini, Gillespie, Srinath, Hoggard, Caddick, Gough, Lee, C. Cairns, Streak and M. Hughes deserve a mention but have not had the impact of the others.
The top three come out as McGrath, Hadlee and Marshall. Ambrose misses out, just! I am surprised that Lillee didn't rank higher.
Spinners
I will do the same thing for the spinners with more than 200 wickets
Warne 706 (1) 25.35 (2) 57.4 (2) 37 5 fors (2) 2.65 (6) (15)
Muralitharan 674 (2) 21.73 (1) 54.4 (1) 57 5 fors (1) 2.39 (3) (8)
Kumble 538 (3) 28.59 (4) 65 (4) 22 5 fors (3) 2.50 (4) (18)
Underwood 297 (4) 25.83 (3) 73.6 (8) 17 5 fors (5) 2.10 (1) (21)
Bedi 266 (5) 28.71 (5) 80.3 (10) 14 5 fors (8) 2.14 (2) (30)
Chandrasekher 242 (6) 29.74 (6) 65.9 (5) 16 5 fors (6) 2.70 (8) (31)
Singh 238 (7) 29.86 (8) 63.7 (3) 19 5 fors (4) 2.81 (10) (32)
Qadir 236 (8) 32.80 (9) 72.5 (7) 15 5 fors (7) 2.71 (9) (40)
Vettori 229 (9) 34.28 (10) 76.7 (9) 13 5 fors (9=) 2.67 (7) (44)
S. Mushtaq 208 (10) 29.83 (7) 67.6 (6) 13 5 fors (9=) 2.64 (5) (37)
The spinners then are Muralitharan and Warne with Kumble and Underwood number 3 and 4. Even though Muralitharan rates above Warne statistically, I will rate Warne above him because he is the greatest spinner in the game, and unlike Murali, there are no questions concerning his action which for me remains rather dubious.
The Top Eleven Then:
M. Hayden (Australia)
S. Gavasker (India)
V. Richards (West Indies)
R. Ponting (Australia)
B. Lara (West Indies)
I. Botham (England)
A. Gilchrist (Australia)
R. Hadlee (New Zealand)
M. Marshall (West Indies)
S. Warne (Australia)
G. McGrath (Australia)
Other squad members
S. Waugh (if a batsman-bowler is needed at 6)
M. Muralitharan (if it is a turning track and 2 spinners are needed)
A. Kumble (if it is a real turner and 3 spinners are needed)
Captain is R. Ponting (Australia)
It all seems right but should Lillee be in for McGrath or Hadlee? And should I. Khan be in for Botham? Again, should Sehwag come in now ahead of the slower Gavasker? Greg Chappell too was a legend and it is hard to leave him out. Finally, should Muralitharan be let off the hook for his action and put in ahead of Warne.
And who would they play?
What do you think?
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Highlights 2006
Here are my global highlights for 2006.
Sportsman of the year: Roger Federer winner of 3/4 major tennis tournaments and second in the other one! Not bad. Just beat out Tiger who won 2/4 major golf tournaments. Third is Michael Greis winner of 3 Winter Olympic Biathlon medals. Fourth is Fernando Alonso, winner of the Formula One Motorsport Champs.
Sportswoman of the year: Amelie Mauresmo wimmer of 2/4 major tennis tournaments. Second is Ahn Hyun Soo of South Korea who won three golds and a bronze at the winter Olympics speed skating. Third is team mate Jin Sun-Yu who won 3 speed skating golds as well! Fourth is another speed skater Cindy Klassen who won 1 gold, 2 silvers and 2 bronzes at the same event. These women are legends!
Sportsteam of the year: Italy soccer team. Winners of the biggest event of the biggest sport of the year; a no brainer. Second though is the Spanish Basketball team which won the world champs including the USA!
Twit of the year: No brainer: Zidane! That head butt was great TV but a brain implosion of glorious madness!
NZ Sportsman of the Year: Richie McCaw! A legend. Mahe Drysdale a close second.
NZ Sportswoman of the Year: Valerie Adams. No challenges
NZ Sportsteam of the Year: All Blacks of course; what a team!
NZ Twit of the Year: Mmmmm. A hard one! Has to be the chairman of the NZ rugby league Sel Bennett over the Nathan Fien affair! Talk about a litany of stupidity!
Sportsman of the year: Roger Federer winner of 3/4 major tennis tournaments and second in the other one! Not bad. Just beat out Tiger who won 2/4 major golf tournaments. Third is Michael Greis winner of 3 Winter Olympic Biathlon medals. Fourth is Fernando Alonso, winner of the Formula One Motorsport Champs.
Sportswoman of the year: Amelie Mauresmo wimmer of 2/4 major tennis tournaments. Second is Ahn Hyun Soo of South Korea who won three golds and a bronze at the winter Olympics speed skating. Third is team mate Jin Sun-Yu who won 3 speed skating golds as well! Fourth is another speed skater Cindy Klassen who won 1 gold, 2 silvers and 2 bronzes at the same event. These women are legends!
Sportsteam of the year: Italy soccer team. Winners of the biggest event of the biggest sport of the year; a no brainer. Second though is the Spanish Basketball team which won the world champs including the USA!
Twit of the year: No brainer: Zidane! That head butt was great TV but a brain implosion of glorious madness!
NZ Sportsman of the Year: Richie McCaw! A legend. Mahe Drysdale a close second.
NZ Sportswoman of the Year: Valerie Adams. No challenges
NZ Sportsteam of the Year: All Blacks of course; what a team!
NZ Twit of the Year: Mmmmm. A hard one! Has to be the chairman of the NZ rugby league Sel Bennett over the Nathan Fien affair! Talk about a litany of stupidity!
Years best
As it is the day before Christmas I want to celebrate sport from a God-point-of-view. In recent times I have begun to give thanks to God as I have realised that sport is close to his heart. What, you say? What has God to do with sport? Well, he made us physical. Ancient Greeks despised the body and celebrated the mind. They saw human existence as being trapped in a weak shadow of reality in the evil of matter. However, the Judeo-Christian ethic celebrates the whole person. We are made in God's image, physical, to eat and be whole. The Christian is the temple of God. He made us creative, creativity in forming games to enjoy is part of being human. So for me sport is one of humanities great gifts. It is a healthy way of interacting, socialising, competing and having fun.
Sport has indeed become idolatrous and tarnished with cheating through drugs etc, materialism as it has become big business and a win-at-all-costs mentality. Yet this does not invalidate sport. It is good and to be enjoyed.
I love sport. I am an indoor rower, a NZ champion and have had two age group world records. When I row I love to enjoy being human. I feel alive. It improves my health and brings balance to me.
So for me I do not worship sport, I worship the God of sport. I refuse to allow it to be my idol but something that leads me to the real God, the God who made this awesome sporting world!
And one more thing. Some see heaven as a bore! No way! Heaven will be awesome, sport, sport and more sport (for those who love it). You will be able to fully experience sport without injury and take on the big boys full on without injury. It will be undistorted. So I will keep following the God of sport this Christmas giving thanks that he became physical and came amongst us and ran, swam and threw along with his Jewish friends.
So to anyone who actually reads this; merry Christmas; don't miss Christ this Christmas.
Sport has indeed become idolatrous and tarnished with cheating through drugs etc, materialism as it has become big business and a win-at-all-costs mentality. Yet this does not invalidate sport. It is good and to be enjoyed.
I love sport. I am an indoor rower, a NZ champion and have had two age group world records. When I row I love to enjoy being human. I feel alive. It improves my health and brings balance to me.
So for me I do not worship sport, I worship the God of sport. I refuse to allow it to be my idol but something that leads me to the real God, the God who made this awesome sporting world!
And one more thing. Some see heaven as a bore! No way! Heaven will be awesome, sport, sport and more sport (for those who love it). You will be able to fully experience sport without injury and take on the big boys full on without injury. It will be undistorted. So I will keep following the God of sport this Christmas giving thanks that he became physical and came amongst us and ran, swam and threw along with his Jewish friends.
So to anyone who actually reads this; merry Christmas; don't miss Christ this Christmas.
Friday, December 22, 2006
NZ Batting Woes
Having said that the Murali affair is a tragedy to me, this cannot be blamed for NZ's shocking batting. For me the problem with the NZ batsmen is not one of ability but of technique. I was watching the Aussies, Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Hussey, Clark, Gilchrist and then there is Martin, and they all have one thing in common; excellent technique. They have different strengths but they have wonderful defences on both feet, and can play the full range of shots according to the book. They icing on the cake is that they can also smash it!
When I look at NZ's batsmen over recent years they have Stephen Fleming apart, had appalling techniques. They do not use their feet effectively against speed or spin. Many have visible weaknesses like falling away to the off side, playing away from their bodies against pace, standing flat footed on the crease line against spin. They simply aren't schooled in the art of batting.
When I look back over the last twenty years there have been some NZ players with superb techniques. Richardson against pace. Crowe; exquisite against all bowling. Turner was brilliant. John Reid (the left hander) was flawless. Andrew Jones was an exception in a sense, but if you looked closely he played with a straight bat and good technique as did Coney.
The current crop of Astle, MacMillen and co need to be put out to pasture.
I am not surprised at their lack of technique. I remember taking a coaching course in the 80's and they told us not to worry about good technique, encourage them to simply hit it. That is like learning reading with phonics! You need the basics if you are going to be a good batsman.
So, it is time for a change. Teach them the basics from youth and hopefully the rest will come. We need a new generation of batsmen who know the basics of the full range of shots and then we will see a change.
When I look at NZ's batsmen over recent years they have Stephen Fleming apart, had appalling techniques. They do not use their feet effectively against speed or spin. Many have visible weaknesses like falling away to the off side, playing away from their bodies against pace, standing flat footed on the crease line against spin. They simply aren't schooled in the art of batting.
When I look back over the last twenty years there have been some NZ players with superb techniques. Richardson against pace. Crowe; exquisite against all bowling. Turner was brilliant. John Reid (the left hander) was flawless. Andrew Jones was an exception in a sense, but if you looked closely he played with a straight bat and good technique as did Coney.
The current crop of Astle, MacMillen and co need to be put out to pasture.
I am not surprised at their lack of technique. I remember taking a coaching course in the 80's and they told us not to worry about good technique, encourage them to simply hit it. That is like learning reading with phonics! You need the basics if you are going to be a good batsman.
So, it is time for a change. Teach them the basics from youth and hopefully the rest will come. We need a new generation of batsmen who know the basics of the full range of shots and then we will see a change.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Murali?
It has to be the biggest disgrace in world cricket that within a year or 5 the greatest wicket taker in the world will be a chucker. I know such a view is not popular in today's PC world and in a world where the Asian force in cricket is huge, but it is ridiculous. Warne is a freak and it is a tragedy that he will set a record that will be quickly eclipsed by Murali. Without doubt Warne is the greatest spinner of all time and his legacy will be stamped out by an bowler who breaks the essential rule of cricket, he is a chucker!
Watching him in the recent NZ series, he is certainly testing the 15 degree mark! But what is this 15 degree mark anyway? Who established that? It is an act of legitimation to avoid seeking to deal with the backlash that would come if Murali was banned as he should be!
Anyone who throws a ball around knows that you can't bowl a leggie with an off-spin action unless you chuck. It is a shocker that the opportunity was not taken when he first hit the scene to send him off for a complete action-renovation or to get another job!
For me it makes a mockery of world cricket not only that he destroys teams like NZ by chucking, but will be seen in years to come as the greatest wicket taker of all and probably the first to pass 1000 wickets! If I was running world cricket he would have been put out to pasture!
Watching him in the recent NZ series, he is certainly testing the 15 degree mark! But what is this 15 degree mark anyway? Who established that? It is an act of legitimation to avoid seeking to deal with the backlash that would come if Murali was banned as he should be!
Anyone who throws a ball around knows that you can't bowl a leggie with an off-spin action unless you chuck. It is a shocker that the opportunity was not taken when he first hit the scene to send him off for a complete action-renovation or to get another job!
For me it makes a mockery of world cricket not only that he destroys teams like NZ by chucking, but will be seen in years to come as the greatest wicket taker of all and probably the first to pass 1000 wickets! If I was running world cricket he would have been put out to pasture!
Monday, December 18, 2006
Go the Aussies
It is the day after the Ashes and it is time to salute Australian cricket. I am one eighth Aussie, my Dad's Mum was from there, so a little part of me is rather Australian.
I love Australian cricket. It is sensational. Warne has to be the best bowler I have ever seen. I used to bowl leg-spin in my youth and I simply cannot believe he can bowl so consistently. His life may be a disaster off the field, but he can sure bowl. Hussey is a freak. He is en-route to have the second best record of any batsmen since Bradman. Ponting is sensational. I am not sure if he is the best I have seen but he ranks with G. Chappell, Richards and Lara for sure. Matthew Hayden may be passed his best, but he is the best opener I have seen. Then there is McGrath; he is past his best too, but still one of the best of all time. The rest of them are legends too whether it be Lee, Clark (he is going to be a legend for sure), Langer (a legend), Martin (bon voyage), Symonds (he will do great things in tests), Clarke etc.
The English are not bad I reckon. I think they would spank NZ at this time! Mind you, who wouldn't with our batting lineup! They have simply been outclassed. I hope they can find some form for the remainder of the games.
So here's to the Aussies! Good on ya mate. I will always support NZ against Aussie, but deep down I know the Aussies are the best.
I love Australian cricket. It is sensational. Warne has to be the best bowler I have ever seen. I used to bowl leg-spin in my youth and I simply cannot believe he can bowl so consistently. His life may be a disaster off the field, but he can sure bowl. Hussey is a freak. He is en-route to have the second best record of any batsmen since Bradman. Ponting is sensational. I am not sure if he is the best I have seen but he ranks with G. Chappell, Richards and Lara for sure. Matthew Hayden may be passed his best, but he is the best opener I have seen. Then there is McGrath; he is past his best too, but still one of the best of all time. The rest of them are legends too whether it be Lee, Clark (he is going to be a legend for sure), Langer (a legend), Martin (bon voyage), Symonds (he will do great things in tests), Clarke etc.
The English are not bad I reckon. I think they would spank NZ at this time! Mind you, who wouldn't with our batting lineup! They have simply been outclassed. I hope they can find some form for the remainder of the games.
So here's to the Aussies! Good on ya mate. I will always support NZ against Aussie, but deep down I know the Aussies are the best.
Friday, December 15, 2006
NZ Greatest Women's Sports Teams
My last post looked at NZ's greatest men's sports teams. This time I will look at the women. I will not include rowing pairs like the Evers-Swindells but if I did they would win hands down.
The candidates are:
Netball world champ teams
1. 1967 World Champs Winners
2. 1979 World Champs Winners (with Australia and Trinidad/Tobago)
3. 1987 World Champs Winners
4. 2003 World Champs Winners
Softball world champ winners
1. 1982 World Champ Winners
Rugby world champ winners
1. 1998 world champs winners
2. 2002 world champs winners
3. 2006 world champs winners
Cricket world cup winners
1. 2000 world cup winners
So how does one pick out of these. None of these are truly global sports. However, softball is played by Japan, USA, Canada along with Australia meaning it is the closest probably of the sports above. Cricket is also more international that netball with the Asian nations playing. Rugby is a late comer. So my order is:
1. 1982 Softball world champ winners
2. 2000 cricket world cup winners
3. 1967/87/2003 netball world champ winners
May there be many more!
The candidates are:
Netball world champ teams
1. 1967 World Champs Winners
2. 1979 World Champs Winners (with Australia and Trinidad/Tobago)
3. 1987 World Champs Winners
4. 2003 World Champs Winners
Softball world champ winners
1. 1982 World Champ Winners
Rugby world champ winners
1. 1998 world champs winners
2. 2002 world champs winners
3. 2006 world champs winners
Cricket world cup winners
1. 2000 world cup winners
So how does one pick out of these. None of these are truly global sports. However, softball is played by Japan, USA, Canada along with Australia meaning it is the closest probably of the sports above. Cricket is also more international that netball with the Asian nations playing. Rugby is a late comer. So my order is:
1. 1982 Softball world champ winners
2. 2000 cricket world cup winners
3. 1967/87/2003 netball world champ winners
May there be many more!
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Walking?
I was at an athletics event the other day. One of the events was the 2000m walk. I watched with my kids and we discussed who was running and who was walking. It was tough to tell. It seemed to us that the best concealed runner was the fastest and it was really a game of deceit!
It reminded me of my distaste for race walking as a sport. I believe it violates the principle of athletics. Athletics involves getting from one place to another as fast as possible. It involves jumping as far as possible whether it is up or along the ground and whether it involves a variety of jumps (e.g. tiple jump) or one (e.g. high/long jump). It involves throwing an implement as far as possible.
Race walking involves a convoluted set of qualifications in terms of motor movement which are very subjective and difficult to discern. So it is the one who can do the best job of running while looking like walking who wins. Why on earth they don't just make it a running race? Don't get me wrong; I am not understating the amazing effort involved in race walking; in fact it is tough!
I will never forget Craig Barrett's Kuala Lumpar Commonwealth dehydration disaster as case in point.
However, I will also not forget the poor Australian woman disqualified by the judges at the 2000 Sydney Olympics entering the stadium because some judge disapproved of her style; poor girl, she didn't do as good a job of cheating.
I think race walking should be removed as a sport from international and other athletics competitions and consigned to its own world for those who are keen. Rather, we should have races from one point to another where the athlete seeks to get there as fast as possible on legs (and arms if they want!). They can walk if they think it will be quicker but I don't think any will go for it.
It reminded me of my distaste for race walking as a sport. I believe it violates the principle of athletics. Athletics involves getting from one place to another as fast as possible. It involves jumping as far as possible whether it is up or along the ground and whether it involves a variety of jumps (e.g. tiple jump) or one (e.g. high/long jump). It involves throwing an implement as far as possible.
Race walking involves a convoluted set of qualifications in terms of motor movement which are very subjective and difficult to discern. So it is the one who can do the best job of running while looking like walking who wins. Why on earth they don't just make it a running race? Don't get me wrong; I am not understating the amazing effort involved in race walking; in fact it is tough!
I will never forget Craig Barrett's Kuala Lumpar Commonwealth dehydration disaster as case in point.
However, I will also not forget the poor Australian woman disqualified by the judges at the 2000 Sydney Olympics entering the stadium because some judge disapproved of her style; poor girl, she didn't do as good a job of cheating.
I think race walking should be removed as a sport from international and other athletics competitions and consigned to its own world for those who are keen. Rather, we should have races from one point to another where the athlete seeks to get there as fast as possible on legs (and arms if they want!). They can walk if they think it will be quicker but I don't think any will go for it.
Monday, December 4, 2006
NZ Greatest Men's Sports Team
I admit that the lists on the previous days are marginal in that there have been some great sportsmen and women who were a part of teams and probably deserve to be a part of the lists. So what about NZ's greatest male sports teams. Here is a list of possibilities.
There have been a number of great rugby teams
1. The 1905 All Blacks (One controversial loss on a tour of Britain)
2. The 1924 All Blacks (Unbeaten in Britain but didn't play Scotland)
3. The 1956 All Blacks (Beat South Africa for the first time in NZ)
4. The 1965-69 All Blacks (Beat South Africa, Lions (4-0), unbeaten on British tour etc)
5. The 1977-78 All Blacks (Beat Lions, First NZ Grand Slam in Britain)
5. The 1987-89 All Blacks (Won the World Cup; unbeaten for three years)
6. The 1996-98 All Blacks (First Series Win in South Africa; Tri-Nations)
7. The 2005-2006 All Blacks (Tri-Nations both years; Grand Slam of Britain; Unbeaten 2007 tour) (But will they win the Rugby World Cup?)
There are a few cricket teams that deserve a mention
1. 1980 (Beat great West Indian Cricket Team)
2. 1985-86 (Beat Pakistan at home; beat Australia away and at home in a test series; beat England for first time in an away series).
3. 2000 (Won ICC trophy)
Other great achievements of NZ Sport's Teams
1. 1971-72 NZ 8's (Winner Gold Medal 1972 Olympics)
2. 1976 NZ Hockey Team (Winner Gold Medal 1976 Olympics)
3. 1982 NZ Soccer Team (Qualified for Soccer World Cup)
4. 1996 Men's softball team world champs
5. 2000 Men's softball team world champs
6. 2004 Men's softball team world champs
7. 1995 America's Cup Team Winners
8. 2000 America's Cup Team Winners
9. 1992 Eisenhower Trophy Golf Winners
10. 2000 Basketball Team (4th at World Champs)
11. 2005 Tri-Nations League Team Winner
Double's teams like Ferguson and MacDonald in Kayaking, the Evers-Swindell sisters could also get a mention but I chose to treat them as individuals rather than a team because they are pairs.
To be a finalist, the team had to have won meaning the soccer and basketball teams miss out. So my finalists are:
1. 1987 Rugby World Cup winners (we now know how hard this is to win. That was a great team).
2. 1985 Cricket Team: they were sensational beating Australia and England for the first time on their home patches.
3. 1972 Rowing 8's: it is not easy to win the 8's at the Olympics. This was the time when the eastern Europeans were at their steroid boosted best!
4. 1995 America's Cup Team who won the America's Cup in the US
5. 2000 America's Cup Team who defended the Old Mug in NZ
6. 1976 Hockey Olympic Gold medalists (like the rugby world cup, this is not easy to win)
I have not made the softballers finalists because of the limited numbers of teams and that baseball is the male version in many nations.
Top 3.
This is based on the international dimension (how widely played) and the level of performance. None of these sports are truly global in the way that soccer or athletics is. America's Cup is elitist. Rowing is limited to the western world. Rugby is not global and limited to a few nations as is cricket. Hockey is more global perhaps including Asian nations. So it is not easy. Weighing it up in a totally subjective way my top three is.
1. America's Cup Victories
2. Rowing 8's
3. Hockey World Cup
There have been a number of great rugby teams
1. The 1905 All Blacks (One controversial loss on a tour of Britain)
2. The 1924 All Blacks (Unbeaten in Britain but didn't play Scotland)
3. The 1956 All Blacks (Beat South Africa for the first time in NZ)
4. The 1965-69 All Blacks (Beat South Africa, Lions (4-0), unbeaten on British tour etc)
5. The 1977-78 All Blacks (Beat Lions, First NZ Grand Slam in Britain)
5. The 1987-89 All Blacks (Won the World Cup; unbeaten for three years)
6. The 1996-98 All Blacks (First Series Win in South Africa; Tri-Nations)
7. The 2005-2006 All Blacks (Tri-Nations both years; Grand Slam of Britain; Unbeaten 2007 tour) (But will they win the Rugby World Cup?)
There are a few cricket teams that deserve a mention
1. 1980 (Beat great West Indian Cricket Team)
2. 1985-86 (Beat Pakistan at home; beat Australia away and at home in a test series; beat England for first time in an away series).
3. 2000 (Won ICC trophy)
Other great achievements of NZ Sport's Teams
1. 1971-72 NZ 8's (Winner Gold Medal 1972 Olympics)
2. 1976 NZ Hockey Team (Winner Gold Medal 1976 Olympics)
3. 1982 NZ Soccer Team (Qualified for Soccer World Cup)
4. 1996 Men's softball team world champs
5. 2000 Men's softball team world champs
6. 2004 Men's softball team world champs
7. 1995 America's Cup Team Winners
8. 2000 America's Cup Team Winners
9. 1992 Eisenhower Trophy Golf Winners
10. 2000 Basketball Team (4th at World Champs)
11. 2005 Tri-Nations League Team Winner
Double's teams like Ferguson and MacDonald in Kayaking, the Evers-Swindell sisters could also get a mention but I chose to treat them as individuals rather than a team because they are pairs.
To be a finalist, the team had to have won meaning the soccer and basketball teams miss out. So my finalists are:
1. 1987 Rugby World Cup winners (we now know how hard this is to win. That was a great team).
2. 1985 Cricket Team: they were sensational beating Australia and England for the first time on their home patches.
3. 1972 Rowing 8's: it is not easy to win the 8's at the Olympics. This was the time when the eastern Europeans were at their steroid boosted best!
4. 1995 America's Cup Team who won the America's Cup in the US
5. 2000 America's Cup Team who defended the Old Mug in NZ
6. 1976 Hockey Olympic Gold medalists (like the rugby world cup, this is not easy to win)
I have not made the softballers finalists because of the limited numbers of teams and that baseball is the male version in many nations.
Top 3.
This is based on the international dimension (how widely played) and the level of performance. None of these sports are truly global in the way that soccer or athletics is. America's Cup is elitist. Rowing is limited to the western world. Rugby is not global and limited to a few nations as is cricket. Hockey is more global perhaps including Asian nations. So it is not easy. Weighing it up in a totally subjective way my top three is.
1. America's Cup Victories
2. Rowing 8's
3. Hockey World Cup
Greatest Female Sportswomen NZ
So who stands alongside Peter Snell on the female side of things as NZ's greatest sportswomen thus far.
The candidates.
1. Yvette Williams (gold medal long jump 1952 Melbourne and a swag of other athletics medals and acheivements)
2. Elsie Wilkie (winner of 2 world's bowls champs and in 1977 beat three of NZ's best male champs)
3. Sarah Ulmer (winner of gold in women's pursuit 2004, world records, and other commonwealth golds)
4. Erin Baker (winner of 8 world triathlon titles [sprint and ironman] over her career and a duathlon title!)
5. Sandra Edge (netball midcourt legend)
6. Irene van Dyk (netball shooting superstar)
7. Caroline Evers-Swindell (rowing gold 2004 Olympics and numerous world champ titles)
8. Georgine Evers-Swindell (rowimg gold 2004 Olympics and numerous world champ titles)
9. Analise Coberger (silver winter Olympic gold 1992 plus other world titles)
10. Susan Devoy (Squash 4x World Champ; 8x British Champion plus many other events)
11. Beatrice Faumuina (Shot put winner of World Champs 1997 and 2 Commonwealth Golds)
I would like to include Jean Batten, but I do not consider flying a plane from Britain to NZ solo a sport; like Ed Hillary's climb of Everest, it is a glorious and astonishing feat, but not sport (see my earlier blog on what is a sport?). Valerie Vili is the next who will contend for this title but needs to win a big one; I am sure it will come.
So who is the best?
It comes down to
1. Yvette Williams
2. Erin Baker
3. Irene van Dyk
4. The Evers-Swindells
5. Susan Devoy
For me it is a no-brainer. Susan Devoy is head and shoulders above the rest; 4 world squash titles and 8 British Opens (the equivalent of the World Champs)! She is a legend! She could have gone on as well, but chose to retire and have a family. She now runs multi-sport events and raises money for charities, so she is the real-deal for sure.
After that, Erin Baker; she is not recognised as much as she should be because she competed before the triathlon hit the Olympics etc; but she was the best by far.
Then the Evers-Swindells. For me, if they win the next Olympic gold they will go to nos 1. They are multiple champions.
Then comes Yvette Williams; I wanted her to win because I know her family! But she was a briliant athlete and still the only NZ woman to win an Olympic gold in athletics! Finally, Irene! She is a legend. Again if she and the girls win the next world champs, she will move up for sure.
My order:
1. Susan Devoy
2. Erin Baker
3=. Georgina and Caroline Evers-Swindell
5. Irene van Dyk
So arise King Peter (Snell) and Queen Susan (Devoy)... it sounds like something out of the "Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe!
The candidates.
1. Yvette Williams (gold medal long jump 1952 Melbourne and a swag of other athletics medals and acheivements)
2. Elsie Wilkie (winner of 2 world's bowls champs and in 1977 beat three of NZ's best male champs)
3. Sarah Ulmer (winner of gold in women's pursuit 2004, world records, and other commonwealth golds)
4. Erin Baker (winner of 8 world triathlon titles [sprint and ironman] over her career and a duathlon title!)
5. Sandra Edge (netball midcourt legend)
6. Irene van Dyk (netball shooting superstar)
7. Caroline Evers-Swindell (rowing gold 2004 Olympics and numerous world champ titles)
8. Georgine Evers-Swindell (rowimg gold 2004 Olympics and numerous world champ titles)
9. Analise Coberger (silver winter Olympic gold 1992 plus other world titles)
10. Susan Devoy (Squash 4x World Champ; 8x British Champion plus many other events)
11. Beatrice Faumuina (Shot put winner of World Champs 1997 and 2 Commonwealth Golds)
I would like to include Jean Batten, but I do not consider flying a plane from Britain to NZ solo a sport; like Ed Hillary's climb of Everest, it is a glorious and astonishing feat, but not sport (see my earlier blog on what is a sport?). Valerie Vili is the next who will contend for this title but needs to win a big one; I am sure it will come.
So who is the best?
It comes down to
1. Yvette Williams
2. Erin Baker
3. Irene van Dyk
4. The Evers-Swindells
5. Susan Devoy
For me it is a no-brainer. Susan Devoy is head and shoulders above the rest; 4 world squash titles and 8 British Opens (the equivalent of the World Champs)! She is a legend! She could have gone on as well, but chose to retire and have a family. She now runs multi-sport events and raises money for charities, so she is the real-deal for sure.
After that, Erin Baker; she is not recognised as much as she should be because she competed before the triathlon hit the Olympics etc; but she was the best by far.
Then the Evers-Swindells. For me, if they win the next Olympic gold they will go to nos 1. They are multiple champions.
Then comes Yvette Williams; I wanted her to win because I know her family! But she was a briliant athlete and still the only NZ woman to win an Olympic gold in athletics! Finally, Irene! She is a legend. Again if she and the girls win the next world champs, she will move up for sure.
My order:
1. Susan Devoy
2. Erin Baker
3=. Georgina and Caroline Evers-Swindell
5. Irene van Dyk
So arise King Peter (Snell) and Queen Susan (Devoy)... it sounds like something out of the "Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe!
Sunday, December 3, 2006
Greatest Male Sportsperson NZ
It is a tough thing to decide on the greatest NZ sportsman. The main candidates for me are:
Bob Fitzsimmons (boxing world title)
Anthony Wilding (tennis wimbledon 2x)
Denny Hulm (formula one champion)
Ivan Mauger (speedway champion 6x)
Bob Charles (golf British Open and others)
Colin Meads (All Black)
Peter Snell (athletics 3 gold medals; other records and titles)
Winton Rufer (soccer)
Michael Campbell (golf US Open and others)
Mark Sorenson (Captain NZ Softball team for 2 World Titles plus one other)
Russell Coutts (sailing America's Cup 3x; Olympic gold)
Richard Hadlee (cricket)
Mark Todd (equestrian 2 Olympic Golds; heaps of other titles)
Danyon Loader (swimming 2 Olympic Gold; 1 silver; world titles, world records)
Ian Ferguson (Kayaking 4 Olympic Gold; 1 silver; world titles)
Paul MacDonald (Kayaking 3 Olympic Gold; 1 silver; 1 bronze)
How do you choose between these legends? For me it can be narrowed down to:
Denny Hulm (formula one champion): this is so tough to win!
Peter Snell (athletics 3 gold medals): a freak, retired young, world's best in his field at the time by a country mile!
Russell Coutts (sailing America's Cup 3x; Olympic gold): we underestiate this guy because he was not "loyal"; but surely what he has done is unbelievable! And more may be yet to come.
Richard Hadlee (cricket): awesome, as good as there has been from in a weak cricketing nation!
Danyon Loader (swimming 2 Olympic Gold; 1 silver; world titles, world records): underestimated because he does not scrub up well on camera compared to others. No other Kiwi has won an olympic swimming gold! He won two in a tough global sport in the modern era.
Ian Ferguson (Kayaking 4 Olympic Gold; 1 silver; world titles): This guy was a freak. Most Olympic golds and with MacDonald, unbelievable!
Note: Rufer suffers for only playing at the very top once when very young. He did not play much for NZ so hard to know how he ranks at the top of the most competitive sport in the world. Daniel Carter is en-route to be in this list, if they win the 2007 world cup and he plays a lead role. Ditto for Richie McCaw. Bob Fitzsimmons misses out because it was so long ago and it is hard to know how good he was. Wilding similarly. Mauger misses out because speedway is not a high profile sport. Charles and Campbell miss out because they won only one major and did not kick onto multiple performances. Meads and other rugby players miss out because of the nature of their sport as a team sport and not a truly global game. On the other hand Hadlee was just so good at the top level that he can't be neglected. Paul MacDonald misses out but maybe shouldn't. Todd misses out because he is on a horse in an elite wealth-based sport; but really impressive!
My final Ranking
1. Peter Snell: Never really tested, the best in his generation.
2. Russell Coutts: Could ultimately eclipse Snell, three America's Cups! Unbelievable.
3. Danyon Loader: Undervalued! A great athlete.
4. Richard Hadlee: Glorious performer!
5. Ian Ferguson: May rank higher if the sport was higher profile. He is a true legend.
6. Denny Hulm: anyone who wins this thing is a legend.
Bob Fitzsimmons (boxing world title)
Anthony Wilding (tennis wimbledon 2x)
Denny Hulm (formula one champion)
Ivan Mauger (speedway champion 6x)
Bob Charles (golf British Open and others)
Colin Meads (All Black)
Peter Snell (athletics 3 gold medals; other records and titles)
Winton Rufer (soccer)
Michael Campbell (golf US Open and others)
Mark Sorenson (Captain NZ Softball team for 2 World Titles plus one other)
Russell Coutts (sailing America's Cup 3x; Olympic gold)
Richard Hadlee (cricket)
Mark Todd (equestrian 2 Olympic Golds; heaps of other titles)
Danyon Loader (swimming 2 Olympic Gold; 1 silver; world titles, world records)
Ian Ferguson (Kayaking 4 Olympic Gold; 1 silver; world titles)
Paul MacDonald (Kayaking 3 Olympic Gold; 1 silver; 1 bronze)
How do you choose between these legends? For me it can be narrowed down to:
Denny Hulm (formula one champion): this is so tough to win!
Peter Snell (athletics 3 gold medals): a freak, retired young, world's best in his field at the time by a country mile!
Russell Coutts (sailing America's Cup 3x; Olympic gold): we underestiate this guy because he was not "loyal"; but surely what he has done is unbelievable! And more may be yet to come.
Richard Hadlee (cricket): awesome, as good as there has been from in a weak cricketing nation!
Danyon Loader (swimming 2 Olympic Gold; 1 silver; world titles, world records): underestimated because he does not scrub up well on camera compared to others. No other Kiwi has won an olympic swimming gold! He won two in a tough global sport in the modern era.
Ian Ferguson (Kayaking 4 Olympic Gold; 1 silver; world titles): This guy was a freak. Most Olympic golds and with MacDonald, unbelievable!
Note: Rufer suffers for only playing at the very top once when very young. He did not play much for NZ so hard to know how he ranks at the top of the most competitive sport in the world. Daniel Carter is en-route to be in this list, if they win the 2007 world cup and he plays a lead role. Ditto for Richie McCaw. Bob Fitzsimmons misses out because it was so long ago and it is hard to know how good he was. Wilding similarly. Mauger misses out because speedway is not a high profile sport. Charles and Campbell miss out because they won only one major and did not kick onto multiple performances. Meads and other rugby players miss out because of the nature of their sport as a team sport and not a truly global game. On the other hand Hadlee was just so good at the top level that he can't be neglected. Paul MacDonald misses out but maybe shouldn't. Todd misses out because he is on a horse in an elite wealth-based sport; but really impressive!
My final Ranking
1. Peter Snell: Never really tested, the best in his generation.
2. Russell Coutts: Could ultimately eclipse Snell, three America's Cups! Unbelievable.
3. Danyon Loader: Undervalued! A great athlete.
4. Richard Hadlee: Glorious performer!
5. Ian Ferguson: May rank higher if the sport was higher profile. He is a true legend.
6. Denny Hulm: anyone who wins this thing is a legend.
Saturday, December 2, 2006
What is a great sport?
Yesterday I blogged about what is a sport. But what is a great sport? What makes it great?
1. Popular Appeal: I am a believer that humanity knows intuitively what a great sport is. Soccer is the most popular of sports. Others that have global appeal are athletics, basketball, tennis, golf etc. The worlds knows a good sport.
2. Simplicity: I think a good sport is simple to engage in, easy to pick up. Sports like running, cycling etc are like this. So is soccer and basketball. For me rugby is hampered by its complexity as is Grid Iron! Cricket too is rather too complex for many. A good sport is simple.
3. Few rules: linked to simplicity is that a sport does not have too many rules. This is one of the great advantages of soccer, it is a great sport in its few rules. Again rugby and grid iron fall short on this plain. Netball too is far to static and dominated by the whistle.
4. Involvement: While to play any sport at the top level is tough, being able to play a sport easily makes it great. Running then is a great sport in this regard. Soccer and basketball are easy to play for almost anyone. Rugby again is a little difficult although it does have the advantage of attracting a wider range of body types than other sports.
5. Low cost and accessibility: Some sports are limited because of equipment and other costs. This is the great weakness of golf; even though it is a simple and great sport, it costs a small fortune to play the game in club fees and equipment costs. Soccer and running again win out without any costs. Triathlon is a glorious sport, but is weakened by this. Motor sport is inaccessible to almost all on this basis. Rowing is weakened by this too.
6. Skill challenge: a great sport calls for interesting skills in a variety of areas. Running is a little mundane in this regard. Soccer, rugby, netball, basketball, golf, tennis, triathlon etc are good sports in this regard.
So as I peruse these attributes of a great sport I come to the conclusion that the greatest sport is soccer, even though I am a rugby man. However there are many great sports; play them!
1. Popular Appeal: I am a believer that humanity knows intuitively what a great sport is. Soccer is the most popular of sports. Others that have global appeal are athletics, basketball, tennis, golf etc. The worlds knows a good sport.
2. Simplicity: I think a good sport is simple to engage in, easy to pick up. Sports like running, cycling etc are like this. So is soccer and basketball. For me rugby is hampered by its complexity as is Grid Iron! Cricket too is rather too complex for many. A good sport is simple.
3. Few rules: linked to simplicity is that a sport does not have too many rules. This is one of the great advantages of soccer, it is a great sport in its few rules. Again rugby and grid iron fall short on this plain. Netball too is far to static and dominated by the whistle.
4. Involvement: While to play any sport at the top level is tough, being able to play a sport easily makes it great. Running then is a great sport in this regard. Soccer and basketball are easy to play for almost anyone. Rugby again is a little difficult although it does have the advantage of attracting a wider range of body types than other sports.
5. Low cost and accessibility: Some sports are limited because of equipment and other costs. This is the great weakness of golf; even though it is a simple and great sport, it costs a small fortune to play the game in club fees and equipment costs. Soccer and running again win out without any costs. Triathlon is a glorious sport, but is weakened by this. Motor sport is inaccessible to almost all on this basis. Rowing is weakened by this too.
6. Skill challenge: a great sport calls for interesting skills in a variety of areas. Running is a little mundane in this regard. Soccer, rugby, netball, basketball, golf, tennis, triathlon etc are good sports in this regard.
So as I peruse these attributes of a great sport I come to the conclusion that the greatest sport is soccer, even though I am a rugby man. However there are many great sports; play them!
Friday, December 1, 2006
What is a sport?
Interesting question. What qualifies as a sport? I heard a discussion recently on radio sport to this effect. For me a sport is an activity that involves these elements.
Firstly, competitiveness. That is, one person/team is trying to beat another in a pursuit. The aim of a sport is to win. You can play sport to not win and to merely have fun; but built into the essence of the activity, is a system to delineate win, lose or draw.
Secondly, rules and fairness. That is, there is an organised set of rules to govern the game to ensure fairness. This calls into question climbing Mt Everest as a sport. Even though I would rate what Sir Edmund Hillary did on Everest as the greatest physical achievement by a New Zealander, I do not consider it a sport as it was not a governed, fair race to the top of Everest. I do not think that Hillary should have been listed second in the recent Radio Sport poll of NZ's greatest history makers in sport. In terms of running, running an 800m on the track is a sport; going for a run is physical activity.
Thirdly, physicality. That is, there is some degree of physical effort involved in the activity. Sitting at a board moving pieces is not a sport then, it is a board game. Golf on the other hand, although more gentle than some sports, is definitely a sport. Indeed, the effort required in hitting a ball at the moment of striking can be quite intense.
Fourthly, a time limit and result. A sport has clearly demarcated time frame and result. The result may be a win, a loss or a draw. Having a draw as a result is not a weakness in a sport; rather it recognises the equality of the competitors. Time frame is critical. Again, the conquering of Everest is an impressive physical achievement but it was not in the frame of a governed sport.
If this is correct, how do some activities look? To me there is a distinction between sports, games, physical and non-physical past-times. Games are static affairs (e.g. chess) or activities which are sports but are played for fun. Physical past-times would be things like walking, gardening, jogging, fishing and other enjoyable outdoor pursuits that have no real goal other than doing what one does or does not have a competitive goal in an organised context.
So, for me then, unfortunately and although it was one of the greatest physical achievements of the twentieth century, climbing Mt Everest was not sport. I would rank Sir Edmund Hillary among our greatest history makers perhaps behind Rutherford, Kate Shepherd and several others; but it was not sport by my reckoning.
Firstly, competitiveness. That is, one person/team is trying to beat another in a pursuit. The aim of a sport is to win. You can play sport to not win and to merely have fun; but built into the essence of the activity, is a system to delineate win, lose or draw.
Secondly, rules and fairness. That is, there is an organised set of rules to govern the game to ensure fairness. This calls into question climbing Mt Everest as a sport. Even though I would rate what Sir Edmund Hillary did on Everest as the greatest physical achievement by a New Zealander, I do not consider it a sport as it was not a governed, fair race to the top of Everest. I do not think that Hillary should have been listed second in the recent Radio Sport poll of NZ's greatest history makers in sport. In terms of running, running an 800m on the track is a sport; going for a run is physical activity.
Thirdly, physicality. That is, there is some degree of physical effort involved in the activity. Sitting at a board moving pieces is not a sport then, it is a board game. Golf on the other hand, although more gentle than some sports, is definitely a sport. Indeed, the effort required in hitting a ball at the moment of striking can be quite intense.
Fourthly, a time limit and result. A sport has clearly demarcated time frame and result. The result may be a win, a loss or a draw. Having a draw as a result is not a weakness in a sport; rather it recognises the equality of the competitors. Time frame is critical. Again, the conquering of Everest is an impressive physical achievement but it was not in the frame of a governed sport.
If this is correct, how do some activities look? To me there is a distinction between sports, games, physical and non-physical past-times. Games are static affairs (e.g. chess) or activities which are sports but are played for fun. Physical past-times would be things like walking, gardening, jogging, fishing and other enjoyable outdoor pursuits that have no real goal other than doing what one does or does not have a competitive goal in an organised context.
So, for me then, unfortunately and although it was one of the greatest physical achievements of the twentieth century, climbing Mt Everest was not sport. I would rank Sir Edmund Hillary among our greatest history makers perhaps behind Rutherford, Kate Shepherd and several others; but it was not sport by my reckoning.
What is a sport?
Interesting question. What qualifies as a sport? I heard a discussion recently on radio sport to this effect. For me a sport is an activity that involves these elements.
Firstly, competitiveness. That is, one person/team is trying to beat another in a pursuit. The aim of a sport is to win. You can play sport to not win and to merely have fun; but built into the essence of the activity, is a system to delineate win, lose or draw.
Secondly, rules and fairness. That is, there is an organised set of rules to govern the game to ensure fairness. This calls into question climbing Mt Everest as a sport. Even though I would rate what Sir Edmund Hillary did on Everest as the greatest physical achievement by a New Zealander, I do not consider it a sport as it was not a governed, fair race to the top of Everest. I do not think that Hillary should have been listed second in the recent Radio Sport poll of NZ's greatest history makers in sport. In terms of running, running an 800m on the track is a sport; going for a run is physical activity.
Thirdly, physicality. That is, there is some degree of physical effort involved in the activity. Sitting at a board moving pieces is not a sport then, it is a board game. Golf on the other hand, although more gentle than some sports, is definitely a sport. Indeed, the effort required in hitting a ball at the moment of striking can be quite intense.
Fourthly, a time limit and result. A sport has clearly demarcated time frame and result. The result may be a win, a loss or a draw. Having a draw as a result is not a weakness in a sport; rather it recognises the equality of the competitors. Time frame is critical. Again, the conquering of Everest is an impressive physical achievement but it was not in the frame of a governed sport.
If this is correct, how do some activities look? To me there is a distinction between sports, games, physical and non-physical past-times. Games are static affairs (e.g. chess) or activities which are sports but are played for fun. Physical past-times would be things like walking, gardening, jogging, fishing and other enjoyable outdoor pursuits that have no real goal other than doing what one does or does not have a competitive goal in an organised context.
So, for me then, unfortunately and although it was one of the greatest physical achievements of the twentieth century, climbing Mt Everest was not sport. I would rank Sir Edmund Hillary among our greatest history makers perhaps behind Rutherford, Kate Shepherd and several others; but it was not sport by my reckoning.
Firstly, competitiveness. That is, one person/team is trying to beat another in a pursuit. The aim of a sport is to win. You can play sport to not win and to merely have fun; but built into the essence of the activity, is a system to delineate win, lose or draw.
Secondly, rules and fairness. That is, there is an organised set of rules to govern the game to ensure fairness. This calls into question climbing Mt Everest as a sport. Even though I would rate what Sir Edmund Hillary did on Everest as the greatest physical achievement by a New Zealander, I do not consider it a sport as it was not a governed, fair race to the top of Everest. I do not think that Hillary should have been listed second in the recent Radio Sport poll of NZ's greatest history makers in sport. In terms of running, running an 800m on the track is a sport; going for a run is physical activity.
Thirdly, physicality. That is, there is some degree of physical effort involved in the activity. Sitting at a board moving pieces is not a sport then, it is a board game. Golf on the other hand, although more gentle than some sports, is definitely a sport. Indeed, the effort required in hitting a ball at the moment of striking can be quite intense.
Fourthly, a time limit and result. A sport has clearly demarcated time frame and result. The result may be a win, a loss or a draw. Having a draw as a result is not a weakness in a sport; rather it recognises the equality of the competitors. Time frame is critical. Again, the conquering of Everest is an impressive physical achievement but it was not in the frame of a governed sport.
If this is correct, how do some activities look? To me there is a distinction between sports, games, physical and non-physical past-times. Games are static affairs (e.g. chess) or activities which are sports but are played for fun. Physical past-times would be things like walking, gardening, jogging, fishing and other enjoyable outdoor pursuits that have no real goal other than doing what one does or does not have a competitive goal in an organised context.
So, for me then, unfortunately and although it was one of the greatest physical achievements of the twentieth century, climbing Mt Everest was not sport. I would rank Sir Edmund Hillary among our greatest history makers perhaps behind Rutherford, Kate Shepherd and several others; but it was not sport by my reckoning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)