What You Can Get Away With » Sport

One of the small highlights of the recent World Cup for me was the BBC showing the official FIFA World Cup films on BBC Two on weekend mornings. In the 1982 film – G’Ole! – there’s a moment near the end when the camera pans over the crowd for the final and shows a Colombia 1986 banner, the only time that tournament ever appeared on camera.

Colombia had been selected to host the 1986 World Cup but withdrew from hosting later in 1982 because of a host of domestic and economic problems. In the words of President Betancur: “We have a lot of things to do here and there is not enough time to attend to the extravagances of Fifa and its members.” Colombia 1986 is the only time a country has not hosted the World Cup after being awarded it.

Luckily for FIFA, there do still remain several countries willing to attend to their extravagances, and indeed will compete to provide more and more extravagances in order to get to host the World Cup. That’s why there was heated bidding for the rights to stage the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, and why some have cried foul after they were awarded to Russia and Qatar. Since they were awarded, there’s been constant criticism of the Qatar 2022 decision, and recent events in Ukraine have also made people question whether it’s right to host the 2018 tournament in Russia and Nick Clegg has called for it to be taken away from them.

Unlike the complaints about Qatar, the arguments given for having the 2018 World Cup are almost entirely political, based on the recent actions of the Russian Government, though they tend to ignore that world sporting bodies are generally autocratic institutions themselves and don’t really respond to that sort of argument. Despite the fact it opens up a lot of other questions – should British clubs refuse to play in Russia in UEFA tournaments? If FIFA don’t change their minds, should the home nations boycott 2018? – it’s a legitimate thing to propose.

However, if you want to scupper your entire campaign very quickly, what you shouldn’t do is this:

Talking about the situation in Ukraine, Nick Clegg raised the question on whether Russia should host the World Cup in 2018:

“He (Putin) can’t constantly push the patience of the international community beyond breaking point and still have the privilege and honour of receiving all the accolades in 2018 for being the host nation of the World Cup.”

In light of Russia’s actions, one option could be to bring the World Cup to England instead.

If you agree, sign this petition.

We the undersigned call on England to host the 2018 World Cup instead of Russia.

That’s currently on the Lib Dem website, and suddenly turns it from legitimate concerns about Russia to one of the countries beaten by Russia in the 2018 bidding trying to get revenge. It weakens the case against Russia hosting it by associating it with England getting the tournament instead and thus makes it into a contest of two countries, not weighing up the merits of one.

The reason I brought up Colombia 1986 at the start of this post was because when the decision was made to not have the World Cup there, it wasn’t because another country had stepped forward and said ‘we’ll do it instead’. The decision to not host the tournament and the decision of the location of the replacement were separate, and if FIFA were to decide to take it from Russia, there’d surely be an open process (well, open by FIFA standards) to decide the replacement, as happened for 1986 (with Mexico selected over the USA and Canada). One could also look at the ongoing dispute over Qatar 2022, where the USA (probably the most likely location for it if it doesn’t happen in Qatar) are being very careful not to put themselves forward as the alternative, but instead are keeping the debate about whether it should be in Qatar at all.

(I’d also question if England was able to host the tournament on such short notice, given the suggested new stadiums and expansions proposed in the original bid. If Russia were to lose it, and it was to stay within Europe, the most logical new host would likely be France, given the work they’re currently doing for Euro 2016.)

This might just be an overenthusiastic staffer at Great George Street getting carried away and starting off a petition without thinking about it, but it’s a huge own goal. If you want to make the case against Russia, you should do that, and not confuse the issue by trying to fly an England flag at the same time.

, , , ,

I was pretty surprised when they announced that the start of this year’s Tour de France would be in Yorkshire. That it would come back to Britain was no surprise but the Yorkshire bid had seemed to come up quite late in the day and seemed doomed to lose out to Scotland. Edinburgh seemed a much better backdrop for a Grand Depart than Leeds, after all.

That, though, was to assume this would follow the format of previous Grand Departs outside France. The formula is pretty simple – a prologue time trial around the host city that shows off all its best sights, then one or two generally flat stages to take the race back to France. The Tour has started using road stages rather than time trials for the opening stage in recent years, but only when it started in France.

What Yorkshire showed is that you can use the Tour to promote a whole region through the Grand Depart, and that the race organisers are willing to throw in tricky stages as part of it. Stage 2 shook up the race much more than a prologue time trial would have done. Dozens of riders could have ended up in yellow after Sheffield, rather than the Martin or Cancellara battle in a time trial.

Having millions of people lining the route, and making the start of the Tour a massive event across another country means we’re now going to see more Grand Departs following the Yorkshire formula. The format for the next Grand Depart in Utrecht was already agreed as the traditional prologue and flat stages formula, but the next time it goes outside of France (likely to be in 2017 or 2018) I think we’ll see somewhere that wants to set up a much more interesting start. Barcelona’s been mentioned as a possible destination, but what we could see is stages that get to roam across the whole of Catalonia.

It also means the Tour’s next Grand Depart in Britain is a question of when and where, not if. I’d expect it either in 2020 or 2021, but there’ll be lots of places now thinking they could follow Yorkshire’s example. Imagine a start in Edinburgh that rolls out through the hills of the Borders followed by a stage in the Lake District? Or going to Wales for a thrash through Snowdonia or the Brecon Beacons? The Tour of Britain has brought out big crowds on Dartmoor for its stages there, and that could be the centrepiece for a bid from the South West.

Finally, what we also saw on Sunday was that the Pennines offer a great platform for a race. There’s surely the scope to build on the success of the Grand Depart and organise a regular one-day classic that could follow a similar route and create some great racing in the style of Liege-Bastogne-Liege? (You could even make sure the route takes in Lancashire and Yorkshire and call it the Tour of the Roses) Britain still doesn’t have a World Tour race, and as the Tour of Britain’s unlikely to make that step up, this could be a real legacy from the Tour de Yorkshire.

, , ,

Going back over my old blog posts, I’m reminded that I created the ‘alternative Ashes’, tracking where the trophy would be if every Test cricketing nation was allowed to compete for them, not just England and Australia.

In our last update, the Ashes had made their way to Sri Lanka but now they’ve moved on again. Australia won this year’s series between the two countries 3-0, so as well as winning the Warne-Muralitharan trophy, they’ve now claimed the Ashes back as well. Their first defence of them will be against India next month.

,

Nicole Cooke retires

One of Britain’s most successful road cyclists ever retired today. Nicole Cooke won races all over the world, including a World Championship and an Olympic gold medal in 2008, but she got a fraction of the attention that riders like Mark Cavendish and Bradley Wiggins have received.

I think her retirement shows some of the problems that are faced by women in cycling, especially the lack of attention they receive. Cooke’s retirement has made headlines, though that seems to be just as much for the fact that she’s not gone quietly into retirement as it is for the fact that she’s retired. As she says:

“Tyler Hamilton will make more money from a book describing how he cheated than I will make in all my years of honest labour.”

For me, that goes to the heart of the problem – Cooke and her fellow female professionals have slogged it out around the world, delivering some exciting racing with huge ability, yet she’s had to talk about Armstrong, Landis and Hamilton to get significant attention for her retirement.

So to redress the balance, here’s my favourite memory of her career – winning the Olympic road race in Beijing. Unfortunately, the editing of the video is terrible, and it misses out the key moment when the lead group of five come round the final bend and start the drag to the finish. At that point, Cooke looked like she’d made a mistake and been dropped off the back of the group, but she powered up the final straight, overhauled the others and won the medal.

Chapeau, Nicole Cooke! Or ‘het!’, if you want it in Welsh.

, ,

Giro D’Ireland

We’ve already heard how the 2014 Tour de France will be starting in Leeds, but that might not be the first British Grand Tour of that year. Reports have come out today that the 2014 Giro D’Italia will be starting in Belfast, with the opening stages taking it from Northern Ireland into the Republic, probably to Dublin.

It’s all unconfirmed as yet, but perhaps another indication that the UK remains the largest untapped market for professional cycling in Europe. The other interesting part is that according to that Cycling Weekly report, new rules mean a Grand Tour must run for at least five days before the first rest day, which opens up the possibility of the race having some stages in Wales or England before heading back to Italy. Though there is also the possibility of them putting on a short stage around Dublin one morning, and using the afternoon to fly all the riders and teams back to Italy ready to start again in the morning.

One has to wonder now if the Vuelta a Espana will follow the path of the Tour and Giro in coming to the UK. Edinburgh’s likely interested, following it’s defeat by Yorkshire for the Tour, and as the Vuelta loves hilly stages, there might even be the prospect of it heading up into the Highlands. That might sound far-fetched, but a couple of months ago, so did the Tour de France starting in Leeds.

, , , ,

Jennie’s post on the Tour de France coming to Yorkshire reminded me of a Twitter conversation I had a while ago with Richard Gadsden where we discussed the possibility of creating a major women’s cycling race in Britain.

One of the reasons for the Tour de France coming here in 2014 is because cycling is one of the fastest-growing sports in Britain. Bike sales are up, viewing figures for cycling on TV are high and cycling events bring out huge crowds to watch, whether they’re in a velodrome or on the road. Obviously, the sponsors want to tap into that market and the way to do that is to bring major races here. The problem is that – in men’s racing at least – there’s very little space in the calendar to bring races here. Aside from Grand Tour starts (and don’t be surprised if the Giro D’Italia or the Vuelta a Espana starts in Edinburgh in 2015 or 2016), there’s no space on the World Tour calendar for a race in Britain, and the UCI seem keener to create new races outside of Europe anyway.

There will be the Ride London Classic next year, and the Tour of Britain continues to attract a good field of riders because of its proximity to the World Championships, but unless World Series Cycling actually comes to pass and Britain gets one of the ten races, then there’s very little chance of a regular major race here.

However, it’s a completely different story when we look at women’s professional cycling. As is the case in so many other sports, it’s the men’s version that gets all the coverage and the money, while the women get the few bits that are left over, and as we’ve seen recently, also suffer the cutbacks before the men do. Nicole Cooke has spent large parts of her career winning races in the same style Bradley Wiggins has managed this year (she was World and Olympic champion in 2008) but gets a fraction of the coverage (and the sponsorship) that he does.

What this means is that unlike men’s racing, there are nowhere near as many women’s races, and there’s a huge dearth of them at the top of the sport. There are a bunch of small races, and ones a handful of stages, but only recognised Grand Tour – the Giro Donne (Giro d’Italia Femminile), and even that isn’t certain for next year.

It seems to me that Britain would be a good place to hold a high-profile multi-stage race, and professional women’s cycling is in need of the same. Doesn’t it make sense for the two to come together? The Olympic crowds turned out just as heavily for the women’s road race as they did for the men’s and I believe that you could both get the crowds out for a women’s Tour of Britain as well as getting the media coverage for it. Because it would be pitched as a Grand Tour, and thus at the top of the field, it could feature a lot of the tough climbs that the men’s race avoids – why not have a stage or two in the Lakes, the Highlands or across the steepest part of the Pennines?

Britain has a long tradition of women cyclists who didn’t get anything like the same attention as the men. Jennie mentioned Beryl Burton and I’ve already talked about Nicole Cooke, but there are others like their fellow world champion Mandy Jones or Yvonne McGregor who never got the recognition they deserved. There’s a new crop of great young British women cyclists – Lizzie Armitstead, Laura Trott, Jo Rowsell, Dani King, Lucy Garner and others – who are desperately looking for the opportunities that are easily available for their male counterparts. Giving them a major race at home, with a home crowd cheering them on and a media that’s already shown lots of interest in them, could be just what we need to kick off a real step change in cycling and attitudes to women’s sport in Britain.

Of course, it’s easy for me to say what a good idea this is, as I’ve not got the money to invest in trying to make something like this happen (though it is on my list of ‘things to give money to’ if I ever have a EuroMillions win) but what would be the steps to make this happen? What sort of funding and backing would be needed, and where would it come from? The original Grand Tours and major cycle races came about mainly because newspapers wanted to make a name for themselves and generate exclusive content that their rivals wouldn’t have. One hundred years on, perhaps we should be looking to websites that want to make a name for themselves?

,

-It’s been announced this morning that the 2014 Tour de France will be starting in Yorkshire. Yorkshire had been bidding for a while to bring the race back to Britain, but the expectation had always been that it’d be sometime later in the decade, so this is a welcome surprise.

The 101st Tour will start in Leeds – presumably with a prologue time trial around the city – followed by another stage in Yorkshire, and then a third stage starting somewhere in the south of England and finishing in London. More details will come in January, but I’m sure people are already poring over their maps of Yorkshire to put together dream routes. A lot of the highest roads in England are in the North Pennines around Yorkshire, so it could be possible to put together a decently hilly stage, even if none of them would rank above a category 3 for the Tour.

I’m also curious to find out where the other stage will be – if it’s starting further south and heading into London, there’s a chance it could start or pass through somewhere in the East (Cambridge, maybe?) which would make a nice stopping-off point on the way home after a weekend in Yorkshire.

This will be the Tour’s fourth visit to Britain – in 1974, they had a stage racing up and down the Plymouth bypass, in 1994, the opening of the Channel Tunnel was marked by two stages taking them from Dover to Portsmouth, and in 2007, the Grand Depart was in London. The gap between British stages is getting smaller, and a natural progression (and the economics of going to what’s probably Europe’s fastest growing cycling market) suggests the Tour could return again this decade – and there has also been interest from Edinburgh in hosting a Grand Depart.

See you in Leeds in 2014!

, ,

Eight months before Le Grand Depart in Corsica, we now know the full route for the 2013 Tour de France. It’s the 100th Tour, and the organisers have clearly set out to make it a memorable one.

It follows the approach the Tour organisers have taken a lot in recent years of letting the action of the race reach a crescendo in the final week, with the first two weeks as a steady build up to the finale. There’ll be lots of dramatic images in the first two weeks, but a lot of that will cover for the main contenders waiting in the pack, conserving as much energy as possible for the Alps.

The start in Corsica will be the first time the Tour has visited the island (meaning all of European France will now have been visited by the race) and the opening stage is designed to end in a sprint finish. Of course, a break could get clear, but it looks likely that it’ll be the first opportunity to see Omega Pharma-Quick Step working for Mark Cavendish in the Tour as he attempts to shed the record of having the most Tour stage wins without ever wearing the yellow jersey.

Unlike last year, the wearer of the maillot jaune could change a lot over the first week. The next two stages in Corsica provide opportunities for breaks to get clear over the mountains, and then the Team Time Trial in Nice will shake the order up again. If the favourites keep their powder dry in the Pyrenees at the end of week one, then there’s a chance for a climber to get away and put themselves into yellow for a day or two. The big names will be able to hide in the shadows until midway through week 2, when the first individual time trial arrives on the road to Mont Saint Michel.

After that, the Tour really picks up as it heads south towards the Alps. Bastille Day will be a monster for the riders – a 242km stage over bumpy terrain but with only one categorised climb: Mont Ventoux. Because after five hours of riding, your day’s not complete without going up one of the Tour’s legendary climbs, is it? With a rest day following, this is where the big names are going to be duelling each other to the top. A hilly time trial a couple of days after that will shake up the order some more, before we come to the undisputed queen stage of the 100th Tour.

There were lots of rumours floating around about the 2013 race going up Alpe D’Huez twice to mark the 100th Tour on its most iconic climb. I heard suggestions that it would be part of two different stages, that one climb would be a time trial, even that there’d be a descent of it, but I definitely wasn’t expecting it to be climbed twice in one stage. Expect lots of shots of anguished riders getting to the top at the end of the first climb and realising they’ve got to do it again. I’ve already made sure my diary’s clear for the 18th July next year, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the camper vans are heading there now to ensure they get a good spot.

There’s still more climbing for two days after that, and it’s possible that the race could be decided on the climb to Annecy Semnoz on the final Saturday. It’s a new climb and a new stage finish location, which means the roads round there will be packed full of pro cyclists on scouting missions next spring.

The riders get a few hours longer to recover before the final stage into Paris, though. They’re departing from Versailles and passing through the gardens of the palace on their way to the Champs-Elysees, but it’ll be as the sun is getting low in the sky. For what I believe is the first time since the finish switched to the Champs-Elysees, it’ll be an evening finish with the final sprint expected to take place at sunset (around 2145 local time, 2045 UK time). It’s almost as if they asked what could be a better backdrop for the finale than Paris, and realised the only possible answer was Paris at night. Or maybe hoteliers want to ensure that people coming for the finish stay for the night, rather than getting the evening Eurostars and TGVs back home.

The big question, of course, is who’s going to win it? There’s great anticipation about Wiggins getting the chance to take on Contador and Schleck, but he’s also talked about attempting the Giro/Vuelta double next year and leaving the Tour to Chris Froome. As the course looks nicely balanced between time trialling and climbing – with the prospect of climbers having to attack on the last few stages to claw back time lost in the TTs – it does look very open. Will Nibali centre his season around it again, or will he switch back to targeting the Giro? How much will the young challengers – Van Garderen, Rolland and Pinot – have improved over the winter?

Whoever gets to wear yellow in Paris, it looks like it’ll be a fantastic race and hopefully will the spectacle and drama the Tour needs to remind people that cycling has always been about more than just Lance Armstrong.

,

Back in January 2011, I looked at what would have happened if cricket’s Ashes weren’t restricted to being won by Australia and England. As much cricket has been played since that time, I thought it was time for an update to see what had happened since then.

At that point, India held the Ashes, holding them after a drawn series with South Africa. Their next series was in summer 2011, when they visited England, and lost 4-0, thus handing the Ashes back to England.

England, however, weren’t able to hold onto the Ashes very long, and lost them 3-0 to Pakistan in their first series. I believe this is the first time the Ashes changed hands outside a Test-playing country, as the series was held in the neutral territory of the UAE.

Pakistan also failed to keep a grip on the Ashes, travelling to Sri Lanka and losing the series there 1-0. Sri Lanka remain the holders of the Ashes, and will make their first defence of them against New Zealand at home in Novemeber.

Following that, the alternative Ashes will next be up for grabs in the Australia-Sri Lanka series around New Year, or in England’s visit to New Zealand in early 2013.

, ,

So, unless they suddenly remember a third set of sporting events they’d agreed to hold in London this year, that’s it for the 2012 Games. There’s been a lot of talk about how we can carry forward all the good feeling and the spirit of the Games, but rather than go into a general ‘why the Olympics and Paralympics prove we must support my politics‘ piece I wanted to look at sport on TV, following on from this post I wrote during the Olympics about BBC Sport.

I was prompted into it by noticing that while Channel 4′s coverage of the Paralympics was excellent, the only mention of sport on C4 in the future was all the horse racing coverage they have coming up in the next year. As with the Olympic sports, there’s been lots of talk about how exciting and interesting the Paralympic sports have been to watch, but few moves to bring them to the viewing public. Yes, people could get up off their couches to watch it live, but not everyone has what they want to see available on the doorstep, or the means to travel and see it.

The point I’m ambling towards is that this summer has shown that not only are there great athletes competing in a huge variety of sports, but that there’s an audience that wants to watch them. Surely it’s not beyond the wit of the TV companies to realise that and bring it to our screens? It doesn’t have to be the huge sporting glut of the last month – though I expect sports channel viewing figures to go up as people avoid going cold turkey with their viewing habits – but a return of something like Grandstand or World Of Sport. Rather than shunting each sport off into a separate programme, have something that shows everything, that – like the Games did – can surprise you by introducing you to something fascinating that you’ve never seen before.

Rather than the absurdity of watching men watching football on screens we’re not allowed to see and shouting the score, why not give the public actual sport, played by a wide range of people?

, , ,