What a performance by Tonga. Sensational! Brilliant! South Africa got out of jail. It was the South African second team I suppose, so it doesn't mean a lot in one sense. On the other hand, Tonga exposed weaknesses in the South Africans.
Really NZ should win this world cup. England are average. Ireland are aweful. France are average as Argentina proved. South Africa and Australia can be good. But, if NZ plays to their potential, does not have a shocker, they should not lose this one. But we have said this before.
I really do hope they win. What sort of reception will Graham Henry and the team get if they do not! They will be hammered mercilessly. Talkback will be a free for all! I hope they win too because they have been so much better than the world for 4 years, it would be greatly sad if they do not.
I will go out on a limb. I think they will.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Kudos to Graham Henry
I was listening to Radio Sport today and I though Brendon Telfer made a brilliant point. He suggested that Graham Henry, Wayne Smith and Steve Hanson could not do much more to help NZ win the cup. Once they hit the quarters and it is knock out, it is no longer up to them but the players. I think he is so right. When they go onto the field, apart from a few substitutions, it is not the coaches any more but the players.
This got me thinking about John Mitchell and John Hart. Why were they so castigated. Especially Hart; it was the players going to sleep in 1999 that lost us that match, not Hart. In 2003 one could criticise MacDonald being picked, but it was the players who played so poorly and without vitality.
We need to mature as a nation and accept what happens. So I thought I would be the first to get in.
Regardless of the results at the world cup, Kudos to Graham Henry. He could do no more. They are brilliantly prepared. Some of us think that their combinations may not be quite what they could be. But the truth is, what a great three years! Awesome! We have been the best and no doubt are the best. Whether we win now depends on the players. It also depends on the other teams. Will one of these teams play the game of their lives e.g. France 1999? It also depends on the refs?
So I just want to say, well done Graham Henry. Regardless of the result, I honour you as a brilliant coach. I also pay tribute to John Mitchell and John Hart; hard luck, well done.
This got me thinking about John Mitchell and John Hart. Why were they so castigated. Especially Hart; it was the players going to sleep in 1999 that lost us that match, not Hart. In 2003 one could criticise MacDonald being picked, but it was the players who played so poorly and without vitality.
We need to mature as a nation and accept what happens. So I thought I would be the first to get in.
Regardless of the results at the world cup, Kudos to Graham Henry. He could do no more. They are brilliantly prepared. Some of us think that their combinations may not be quite what they could be. But the truth is, what a great three years! Awesome! We have been the best and no doubt are the best. Whether we win now depends on the players. It also depends on the other teams. Will one of these teams play the game of their lives e.g. France 1999? It also depends on the refs?
So I just want to say, well done Graham Henry. Regardless of the result, I honour you as a brilliant coach. I also pay tribute to John Mitchell and John Hart; hard luck, well done.
Friday, September 14, 2007
The Evidence: South Africa are the team to beat
In March this year I wrote (http://sportdivine.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html) that the final of the world cup will be NZ vs South Africa. I wrote, 'If this is the final it will be tumultuous, aggressive and incredibly close. I think the South Africans will be formidable if they get there and it will be anyones game. I do believe unless terrible injury intervenes (or food poisoning etc), NZ will win this one.'
I still think this, but the demolition of England today by SA 36-0 is evidence, SA are good, really good! I can't see them being stopped before the final. NZ will have to be at the absolute top of their game to compete and perhaps win.
Mind you, it is not clear how good SA are in light of the utter ineptitude of England. They have no pace to the breakdown, lumbering gorilla's in the forward pack, have no penetration and pace out wide. Robinson is a danger from broken play, but one man can do so much. So perhaps it was more about England's weakness. If so, then the northern teams are not a threat!
But it is tracking toward my prediction except for one thing, this could be the start of an era of greatness for SA. They have the makings of a great team.
I still think this, but the demolition of England today by SA 36-0 is evidence, SA are good, really good! I can't see them being stopped before the final. NZ will have to be at the absolute top of their game to compete and perhaps win.
Mind you, it is not clear how good SA are in light of the utter ineptitude of England. They have no pace to the breakdown, lumbering gorilla's in the forward pack, have no penetration and pace out wide. Robinson is a danger from broken play, but one man can do so much. So perhaps it was more about England's weakness. If so, then the northern teams are not a threat!
But it is tracking toward my prediction except for one thing, this could be the start of an era of greatness for SA. They have the makings of a great team.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Are the AB's Chokers?
It is going around, particularly in the northern hemisphere, thatthe All Blacks are chokers. It is believed that they will choke again this time. On the face of it, this appears to have some truth. We won the first world cup brilliantly and have not won since despite dominating world rugby through that period. So is it fair to call them chokers? This can only be assessed by looking at each effort.
Well we can say for sure we did not choke in 1987; we won superbly without being threatened.
Neither did we choke in 1991. It was clear in 1989-91 that the All Blacks were on the decline and Australia on the rise. We lost that 1991 semi because they were better; a great forward pack, sensational inside backs and the brilliant Campese; whereas the NZ team was aging and past its best.
In 1995, but for food poisoning, we would have won that world cup, and won it well. The 1996 result put that into perspective, as NZ stormed through SA. It wasn't choking that lost that cup, but sickness.
In 1999 we did not choke but we lost because the AB's went off the boil and allowed an absolutely brilliant French side on the day to tear them apart. It was not choking but complacency as the AB's felt they had it won. Looking back, the Australians too were superior that year. They had a good forward pack, brilliant backs. We had a lot of weaknesses; few of that team are looked upon as great players and there were holes through the team. We were just not that good.
In 2003 again we did not choke but we were not as good as we think. Poor selections and a team that was not as well led and lacked experience lost to a battle-hardened clevely led Australian team.
NZ are not chokers then. They have proved this again and again on tours of SA, winning tri-nations, grand slams etc. It is demeaning to the teams that beat them to say this. The question for me is not, will we choke? Rather, it is, are we good enough? It looks good at this stage, but the South Africans and Australians are formidable opposition.
Well we can say for sure we did not choke in 1987; we won superbly without being threatened.
Neither did we choke in 1991. It was clear in 1989-91 that the All Blacks were on the decline and Australia on the rise. We lost that 1991 semi because they were better; a great forward pack, sensational inside backs and the brilliant Campese; whereas the NZ team was aging and past its best.
In 1995, but for food poisoning, we would have won that world cup, and won it well. The 1996 result put that into perspective, as NZ stormed through SA. It wasn't choking that lost that cup, but sickness.
In 1999 we did not choke but we lost because the AB's went off the boil and allowed an absolutely brilliant French side on the day to tear them apart. It was not choking but complacency as the AB's felt they had it won. Looking back, the Australians too were superior that year. They had a good forward pack, brilliant backs. We had a lot of weaknesses; few of that team are looked upon as great players and there were holes through the team. We were just not that good.
In 2003 again we did not choke but we were not as good as we think. Poor selections and a team that was not as well led and lacked experience lost to a battle-hardened clevely led Australian team.
NZ are not chokers then. They have proved this again and again on tours of SA, winning tri-nations, grand slams etc. It is demeaning to the teams that beat them to say this. The question for me is not, will we choke? Rather, it is, are we good enough? It looks good at this stage, but the South Africans and Australians are formidable opposition.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Dixon, Federer, Woods and Powell
Far out. What a day in sport? Firstly, we have kiwi Scott Dixon running out of gas 200m from the line in the final race of the season in the IndeCar series! How can it be? Now I am not a petrol head, but this has to be someone's fault and it shouldn't have happened! Poor Scott! But dang it, someone should pay!
Then there is the brilliance of Federer; his 12th Grand Slam title! This is amazing. The guy is a freak!
Then there is Woods again winning, this time coming from behind with brilliant putting. We live in an age with 2 of the greatest sportsmen in history; what a privilege!
What about Powell; 9.74 100m! Far out, brilliant! Or is it? He lost the World Champs 100m to Tyson Gay the other day. He seems to choke. True! But he is fast! That is quick. Then again, is he on something?
Then there is the brilliance of Federer; his 12th Grand Slam title! This is amazing. The guy is a freak!
Then there is Woods again winning, this time coming from behind with brilliant putting. We live in an age with 2 of the greatest sportsmen in history; what a privilege!
What about Powell; 9.74 100m! Far out, brilliant! Or is it? He lost the World Champs 100m to Tyson Gay the other day. He seems to choke. True! But he is fast! That is quick. Then again, is he on something?
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Cricket Combined Stats 2: Bowlers
A couple of blogs ago I discussed the best batsmen of the modern period. What about the bowlers.
Match winners get a swag of 10 wicket match bags and 5 wicket innings bags.
Most 10 Wicket Bags
1. Muralitharan (20)
2. Warne (10)
3. Hadlee (9)
4. Kumble (8)
5. Lillee (7)
6. I. Khan; Underwood (6)
8. Younis; Akram; Akhtar (5)
Most 5 Wicket Bags
1. Muralitharan (68)
2. Hadlee (41)
3. Warne (38)
4. McGrath (36)
5. Younis (35)
6. Kumble (35)
7. Botham (27)
8. Ambrose (26)
9. Khan, Dev (24)
The stars stand out here; the two spinners Murali and Warne with Kumble and then Underwood in behind. The quickies Hadlee, Lillee, McGrath, Younis, Khan, Akram, Ambrose, Dev and Botham.
The really great bowlers have superb strike rates (balls per wicket). Here we see Akhtar and Younis again with Donald and Lee there. Here Younis really figures in combination with his great 5 wicket and 10 wicket bag stats. Others who are starting to figure prominently are McGrath and Akram.
Best Strike Rate
1. Akhtar; Younis (36.6)
3. Donald (40.0)
4. Lee (40.2)
5. Agarker (41.3)
6. Ntini (43.2)
7. Gough 43.5)
8. McGrath, Akram (44.5)
9. Bishop (45.6)
Best Economy Rate
1. Gibbs (1.99)
2. Underwood, Bedi (2.18)
4. Statham (2.33)
5. Trueman (2.61)
6. Ambrose (2.65)
7. Chatfield (2.76)
8. Hadlee (2.77)
9. Muralitharan (2.83)
10. Walsh (2.88)
Trueman enters the stats here. Ambrose and Hadlee of the quicks above. The spinners Gibbs, Underwood and Bedi are amazingly parsemonious. Murali is hard to get away. One of Walsh's secrets is seen here.
Traditionally the bowlers with the best average are seen as the greatest. There is good reason for this, as their stats bring together their economy with their wicket taking. Here we see the greatness of the quicks Trueman, Donald, Hadlee, Ambrose, Marshall, Holding, Lillee and Akram. The only spinner to feature is Murali.
Best Average
1. Trueman (21.56)
2. McGrath (21.76)
3. Muralitharan (21.84)
4. Donald (22.04)
5. Hadlee (22.10)
6. Ambrose (22.11)
7. Marshall (22.71)
8. Holding (22.84)
9. Lillee (23.22)
10. Akram (23.57)
The ability to take wickets in a pure sense cannot be disregarded.
Most Wickets
1. Muralitharan (1157)
2. Warne (1001)
3. McGrath (949)
4. Akram (916)
5. Kumble (903)
6. Pollock (801)
7. Younis (789)
8. Walsh (746)
9. Vaas (703)
10. Dev (687)
Here the two spinners Murali and Warne stand out. The quicks who have featured throughout McGrath, Akram and Younis stand out.
Putting it together:
Clearly two spinners dominate, Murali and Warne. If we pick the best one it depends a little on how we regard Murali's action. I have a problem here because despite all the decisions of the IRB etc, I can't help feeling there is a problem. How does one bowl a leggie with an off-spinners action without bending the arm? On the other hand, Warne bowls the world's most difficult bowling art; leg-spin bowling. So for me he gets the number one slot.
The best quickies I will not try and pick out; but will go for a group. These include Hadlee, McGrath, Akram, Younis, Lillee, Trueman, Ambrose, Donald, Khan, Holding and Marshall.
Match winners get a swag of 10 wicket match bags and 5 wicket innings bags.
Most 10 Wicket Bags
1. Muralitharan (20)
2. Warne (10)
3. Hadlee (9)
4. Kumble (8)
5. Lillee (7)
6. I. Khan; Underwood (6)
8. Younis; Akram; Akhtar (5)
Most 5 Wicket Bags
1. Muralitharan (68)
2. Hadlee (41)
3. Warne (38)
4. McGrath (36)
5. Younis (35)
6. Kumble (35)
7. Botham (27)
8. Ambrose (26)
9. Khan, Dev (24)
The stars stand out here; the two spinners Murali and Warne with Kumble and then Underwood in behind. The quickies Hadlee, Lillee, McGrath, Younis, Khan, Akram, Ambrose, Dev and Botham.
The really great bowlers have superb strike rates (balls per wicket). Here we see Akhtar and Younis again with Donald and Lee there. Here Younis really figures in combination with his great 5 wicket and 10 wicket bag stats. Others who are starting to figure prominently are McGrath and Akram.
Best Strike Rate
1. Akhtar; Younis (36.6)
3. Donald (40.0)
4. Lee (40.2)
5. Agarker (41.3)
6. Ntini (43.2)
7. Gough 43.5)
8. McGrath, Akram (44.5)
9. Bishop (45.6)
Best Economy Rate
1. Gibbs (1.99)
2. Underwood, Bedi (2.18)
4. Statham (2.33)
5. Trueman (2.61)
6. Ambrose (2.65)
7. Chatfield (2.76)
8. Hadlee (2.77)
9. Muralitharan (2.83)
10. Walsh (2.88)
Trueman enters the stats here. Ambrose and Hadlee of the quicks above. The spinners Gibbs, Underwood and Bedi are amazingly parsemonious. Murali is hard to get away. One of Walsh's secrets is seen here.
Traditionally the bowlers with the best average are seen as the greatest. There is good reason for this, as their stats bring together their economy with their wicket taking. Here we see the greatness of the quicks Trueman, Donald, Hadlee, Ambrose, Marshall, Holding, Lillee and Akram. The only spinner to feature is Murali.
Best Average
1. Trueman (21.56)
2. McGrath (21.76)
3. Muralitharan (21.84)
4. Donald (22.04)
5. Hadlee (22.10)
6. Ambrose (22.11)
7. Marshall (22.71)
8. Holding (22.84)
9. Lillee (23.22)
10. Akram (23.57)
The ability to take wickets in a pure sense cannot be disregarded.
Most Wickets
1. Muralitharan (1157)
2. Warne (1001)
3. McGrath (949)
4. Akram (916)
5. Kumble (903)
6. Pollock (801)
7. Younis (789)
8. Walsh (746)
9. Vaas (703)
10. Dev (687)
Here the two spinners Murali and Warne stand out. The quicks who have featured throughout McGrath, Akram and Younis stand out.
Putting it together:
Clearly two spinners dominate, Murali and Warne. If we pick the best one it depends a little on how we regard Murali's action. I have a problem here because despite all the decisions of the IRB etc, I can't help feeling there is a problem. How does one bowl a leggie with an off-spinners action without bending the arm? On the other hand, Warne bowls the world's most difficult bowling art; leg-spin bowling. So for me he gets the number one slot.
The best quickies I will not try and pick out; but will go for a group. These include Hadlee, McGrath, Akram, Younis, Lillee, Trueman, Ambrose, Donald, Khan, Holding and Marshall.
AB's and France
Great start! Wow, that first 20 was freakish! Italy were blown away. Carter was great, McCaw sensational, Williams brilliant! Way to go.
Now the French! Well it is actually no surprise; Argentina has had the wood on France for a few years now. France may still top the pool. Let's say Ireland beat Argentina and France beat Ireland, all eminently possible; it may still see France top the pool.
What this has done to me is made the last 3 games fearsome for NZ. If we hit France in the quarters that is very possible; then we will have Aussie and SA in the semi and final. This will be a tough world cup to win. We are the best team; have the best players; but it does not mean we will win it. Injuries will mean a lot. We are already in a bit of trouble with Smith, Robinson and Thorne out for a while. Let's hope they are not bad injuries. Aussie are definitely a better team than 12 months ago as is SA. It is going to be a huge ask!
Now the French! Well it is actually no surprise; Argentina has had the wood on France for a few years now. France may still top the pool. Let's say Ireland beat Argentina and France beat Ireland, all eminently possible; it may still see France top the pool.
What this has done to me is made the last 3 games fearsome for NZ. If we hit France in the quarters that is very possible; then we will have Aussie and SA in the semi and final. This will be a tough world cup to win. We are the best team; have the best players; but it does not mean we will win it. Injuries will mean a lot. We are already in a bit of trouble with Smith, Robinson and Thorne out for a while. Let's hope they are not bad injuries. Aussie are definitely a better team than 12 months ago as is SA. It is going to be a huge ask!
Friday, September 7, 2007
Triathlon wierdness
It seems wierd to me to read in the paper the other day that the Kiwi blokes at the world triathlon champs buttoned off and one even pulled out in the run because in 2 weeks they have to race for Olympic places at Beijing. Wierd to timetable the trial 2 weeks after the worlds! Why not make the worlds a qualifying race? Sure, it is good to qualify on the Olympic course, but it demeans the world champs. What would I know I suppose?
Valerie and Mahe... yeah
What a great effort by the Kiwi's at the World Rowing Champs and the World Athletic Champs. Valerie Vili is a legend. She has now won a big one! To win the world shot put champs is utterly incredible. She used to belong to the same athletics club as my daughters; in fact she presented their awards at a recent athletics awards. She is wonderful athlete. Kimberley Smith is also brilliant. 5th in the world on the track up against the African middle distance athletes is sensational! Nick Willis and Nina Rolsten did brilliantly as well; 10th and 13th. New Zealanders have no idea how amazing these performances are! Way to go! These athletes are all incredibly inspirational to my girls who all race for Auckland and hopefully soon for NZ. Go NZ!
And what about the rowing! Fantastic. Mahe Drysdale is brilliant. 3 World championships in a row is absolutely amazing. If he can add gold in Beijing next year, he is truly one of the very greats of NZ sport. By the time he and Valerie are finished I think they will both be on the list for sure! The other rowing gold winners (Kiwi Coxless Four of Carl Meyer, James Dallinger, Eric Murray and Hamish Bond and Duncan Grant in the lightweight sculls) are also amazing. Especially brilliant are the Four who beat one of the most incredible field every coming from last to first! The Ever-Swindell Twins and Twaddle and Bridgewater are also fantastic. I wouldn't write either team off for next year! Being an avid competitive indoor rower, I know a little of the pain these guys go through. They are freaks!
I am sure if the AB's win the world cup as I hope they do; I am sure they will win the ultimate Halberg award; but in the sober light of day considering the competition, I think Mahe and Valerie both had more to beat and a stiffer task to win their golds. I would give it to Valerie actually, in that rowing is not such a global sport.
One other thing; I love Valerie Vili's name because you can spin it around; Go Vilarie Vale!
And what about the rowing! Fantastic. Mahe Drysdale is brilliant. 3 World championships in a row is absolutely amazing. If he can add gold in Beijing next year, he is truly one of the very greats of NZ sport. By the time he and Valerie are finished I think they will both be on the list for sure! The other rowing gold winners (Kiwi Coxless Four of Carl Meyer, James Dallinger, Eric Murray and Hamish Bond and Duncan Grant in the lightweight sculls) are also amazing. Especially brilliant are the Four who beat one of the most incredible field every coming from last to first! The Ever-Swindell Twins and Twaddle and Bridgewater are also fantastic. I wouldn't write either team off for next year! Being an avid competitive indoor rower, I know a little of the pain these guys go through. They are freaks!
I am sure if the AB's win the world cup as I hope they do; I am sure they will win the ultimate Halberg award; but in the sober light of day considering the competition, I think Mahe and Valerie both had more to beat and a stiffer task to win their golds. I would give it to Valerie actually, in that rowing is not such a global sport.
One other thing; I love Valerie Vili's name because you can spin it around; Go Vilarie Vale!
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Cricket Combined Stats
I was roaming wisden cricinfo the other day and found that the records page now had combined stats for test, one-day and 20-20 cricket. They are exceedingly interesting in terms of assessing the quality of players. I have always felt that when we put together the different types cricket we get a real feel for the quality of players.
The records reflect some interesting points in terms of great batsmen.
In terms of centuries the rankings are:
1) Tendulkar 78
2) Ponting 56
3) Lara 53
4) Kallis 39
5) M. Waugh 38
6) Hayden 37
7) Dravid 36
8) Ul-Haq, S. Waugh, Ganguly, Haynes, V. Richards 35
Clearly Tendulkar stands out! Then Ponting and Lara are well ahead of the others.
In terms of averages the rankings of the top players are (over 45):
1) Ponting 49.60
2) Kallis 49.46
3) Richards 48.75
4) Hayden 48.58
5) Tendulkar 48.06
6) Miandad 46.99
7) Dravid 46.72
8) Yousuf 46.52
9) Lara 46.28
10) Gavasker 46.20
In terms of total runs the rankings for the top players are (Over 17,000 runs)
1) Tendulkar 26,390
2) Lara 22,358
3) Ul-Haq 20,563
4) Dravid 19,998
5) Ponting 19,941
6) Jayasuriya 18,999
7) S. Waugh 18,496
8) A.Border 17,698
9) J. Kallis 17,609
When one considers these; the top 6 batsmen of the modern era would appear to be:
1) Tendulkar
2) Ponting
3) V. Richards
4) B. Lara
5) Kallis
6) Dravid
The top openers would bre Hayden and Gavasker.
The records reflect some interesting points in terms of great batsmen.
In terms of centuries the rankings are:
1) Tendulkar 78
2) Ponting 56
3) Lara 53
4) Kallis 39
5) M. Waugh 38
6) Hayden 37
7) Dravid 36
8) Ul-Haq, S. Waugh, Ganguly, Haynes, V. Richards 35
Clearly Tendulkar stands out! Then Ponting and Lara are well ahead of the others.
In terms of averages the rankings of the top players are (over 45):
1) Ponting 49.60
2) Kallis 49.46
3) Richards 48.75
4) Hayden 48.58
5) Tendulkar 48.06
6) Miandad 46.99
7) Dravid 46.72
8) Yousuf 46.52
9) Lara 46.28
10) Gavasker 46.20
In terms of total runs the rankings for the top players are (Over 17,000 runs)
1) Tendulkar 26,390
2) Lara 22,358
3) Ul-Haq 20,563
4) Dravid 19,998
5) Ponting 19,941
6) Jayasuriya 18,999
7) S. Waugh 18,496
8) A.Border 17,698
9) J. Kallis 17,609
When one considers these; the top 6 batsmen of the modern era would appear to be:
1) Tendulkar
2) Ponting
3) V. Richards
4) B. Lara
5) Kallis
6) Dravid
The top openers would bre Hayden and Gavasker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)