A few years ago, I came up with the concept of the Alternative Ashes, effectively a linear championship of Test cricket, looking at what would have happened if every cricketing nation played for the Ashes rather than just England and Australia.
The rules are the same as those for the regular Ashes – a team holds the title until they lose a Test series to another nation who then hold it until they’re defeated and so on until there is no more cricket left to be played. At our last update a couple of years ago, Australia had just taken the title from Sri Lanka, but what happened next?
So, England will take back the original Ashes at the end of this series, but the alternative Ashes still remain in Pakistan’s hands. England’s first series this winter? A trip to the UAE to face Pakistan in a three-test series with the chance to reunite the two titles.
It’s an Ashes series, and one side appears to be spectacularly out of form. Their first innings has been a very bad performance where the opposition’s “seamers had shown what could be done by bowling straighter and to a fuller length than their counterparts” and their batsmen “were occasionally undone by deliveries performing contortions at speed”. At the forefront of the falling wickets, one of their bowlers had “moved further up the list of bowling immortals”.
Batting was much easier for the other side, and they racked up a score around 400, declaring with nine wickets down, creating the sort of first innings lead that sides just don’t come back to win from.
The second innings for the troubled side didn’t offer them much prospect of success. There were some chinks of light compared to the bad first innings, but with seven wickets down and still 90 runs behind, “the distant objective of avoiding an innings defeat surely their only available prize”.
Yes, that’s the position for Australia at the start of today’s play at Trent Bridge, but the description above and the quotes are all from the 1981 Headingley Test. England, following on after a poor first innnings in response to Australia’s 401-9, had collapsed to 135-7. Ian Botham was still in and Graham Dilley had just walked out to the centre to join him – and if you don’t know what happened next, here’s the Wisden report those quotes came from. Sure, Adam Voges isn’t Ian Botham, but neither was Botham himself back then – Headingley and the two Tests after it were what turned from being a great all-rounder into a legend.
Incidentally, it’s interesting that there aren’t any dramatic interpretations of that series, despite all its potential for storytelling. There’s the traditional comeback story of Botham hitting his lowest point and bouncing back, coupled with the story of Mike Brearley who was the surely the last player to be selected for a Test side purely for his skills as a captain. All that with a background of a Royal Wedding and riots across Britain and I’m wondering why there’s been no Damned United-esque exploration of that series.
I’ve just watched Chris Froome take the yellow jersey in stage 3 of this year’s Tour de France and it’s got me thinking about how much blind chance plays in sporting success. Froome’s luck, for instance, seems very variable – this year, he’s managed to avoid a big crash today, and be in the right place yesterday when the peloton split to gain time on a lot of his rivals, but last year he spent the first few stages watching everything go wrong for him, and ended up pulling out with a broken arm before the first week was done. In 2012, he managed to lose over a minute on almost everyone on one of the early stages when he punctured towards the end of the stage, and that lost time helped to lock him into the role of supporting rather than challenging Bradley Wiggins later in the race.
There is the old adage that you make your own luck and in some of those cases, that is true – he ended up in the lead group yesterday by knowing where to be in the crosswinds, for instance – but cycling is a sport where luck seems to play a huge role. Consider that getting a puncture at the wrong moment can happen to anyone, even without larger chance effects like this:
That’s from 2003, where Joseba Beloki was probably the closest of anyone to beating Lance Armstrong in a Tour, but chance had him at the front of the chase group (and he, Armstrong and the others would likely have been alternating that role) as they encounter the dangerous stretch of road. Beloki crashes, breaks his femur and is out of the race. Armstrong avoids him, travels through a field without coming off, rejoins the race and carries on to victory. It would be his record-equalling fifth win in the Tour (until they were all taken away, of course) but he could have been that guy who’d won four Tours, not seven, if luck had run differently that day.
Which brings me to the question – which is the physical sport in which luck plays the greatest part? Is it cycling, or does pure randomness have a greater role in something else? And what great sporting moments were we given or denied because of pure luck?
NickPolitics, Sport, ToriesComments Off on Bringing American sports to Britain: another unfunded Tory pledge?
Here’s something interesting I noticed in the Tory manifesto over the weekend. In a section headlined ‘We will build on our Olympic and Paralympic legacy’ on page 42, tbere;s a commitment to support elite sports funding along with a list of big events happening in Britain over the next few years and then this:
We will support new sports in the UK, in particular through greater links with the US National Football League, the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball, with the ultimate ambition of new franchises being based here.
It’s curious that this turns up in a section headlined Olympic and Paralympic sport, as only one of those (basketball) is an Olympic sport. They’re also the only new sports mentioned in that section, with no mention of developing any of the other Olympic and Paralympic sports. It feels an odd priority to identify helping major American sports leagues into the UK when talking about ‘new sports’ – not least because there are already long established British leagues in American football, basketball and baseball.
There’s also a question of cost associated with bringing the NFL, NBA or MLB anywhere. While everyone likes to gasp about the huge amounts of money in American sports, a lot of that is supported by government spending, especially on stadiums. The NFL especially is infamous for demanding that cities contribute or pay entirely for new stadiums and new facilities, using the threat of moving teams to cities that are willing to pay to make them cough up. It’s a model where every team is encouraged to demand as much as it can get from its host city, or they’ll decamp and find someone willing to be fleeced, and London’s just the latest city to be waved at others in an effort to make them open their wallets.
Planning to bring an American franchise here is committing to take part in a bidding war with American cities seeking the same thing, with the one willing to give the sweetest deal the victor. It’s another unfunded pledge from the Tories, looking to throw hundreds of millions into attracting already wealthy sports to come here, when that same money could have a revolutionary effect on sports already in Britain. Imagine what it could do for developing women’s sport or para-sport instead of being sunk into enticing someone else?
And I thought Tories didn’t believe in Government picking winners…
“And yes, some of that money will pay for artificial turf instead of real grassroots.”
This announcement actually happened a few months ago, but I’m surprised it didn’t get more publicity then: George Osborne is giving £50m towards supporting grassroots sport. This sounds like good news and surely this will help sports with little funding and support develop and build the infrastructure they need to retain people in the sport in the face of all the money that gets spent on the big sports.
George Osborne has pledged £50m of Government funding to promote grass-roots football, in a move he said would make England’s national team “the best in the world”.
The Chancellor unveiled the funds as he hailed Abu Dhabi’s commitment to investing in the UK at the opening of a new £150m football academy by Manchester City Football Club.
Yes, not only is he giving £50m to a sport that has so much money sloshing around that teams can spend £50m on a single player, he’s announcing it as one of the global super-rich who now own large chunks of the game in England is announcing another huge spending of money that’s far beyond the dreams of most entire sports, let alone individual teams.
I’m sure English grassroots football will benefit from that money, but it would benefit much more from the FA enforcing a fairer distribution of income across the game, instead of letting it concentrate more and more in the upper echelons. Giving £50m of Government money to make up for the FA’s inability to support the grassroots isn’t my idea of money being well spent or a long term sporting economic plan.
Imagine what other sports could do with that cash. Grassroots cycling could use just a fraction of it to organise closed-road racing for young riders, giving them invaluable safe experience. Imagine the athletic facilities and swimming pools it could fix up or reopen, the underfunded boxing gyms it could support, the ageing gymnastic equipment it could replace, the community coaches in all sports it could train. But no, giving money to football gets the headlines, so football gets the cash, even if it doesn’t need it.
One of my abiding memories of the Liberal Democrat special conference that approved the coalition deal was the journey back from it. My phone had only a small amount of charge left and I was desperately trying to eke it out as I sat on the train while also trying to keep as up to date as I could with the final of the ICC World Twenty20 championship.
The battery lasted just long enough to get to the end of the game, as England cruised past Australia’s total to win. After years of failing to make a breakthrough and actually win a world championship in any form of the sport, England had finally achieved it. A new era beckoned, one where the long stored up potential would finally be unleashed.
And now here we are five years later, with all that promise of 2010 long gone, and today the final Liberal Democrat conference of the Parliament starts on the same day that England limp out of the Cricket World Cup after one of their most ignoble performances, capping off several years of progressively worse disappointments.
Never mind, the management have promised to go and look at that data, and I’m sure they’ll find what they need to justify themselves there.
There occasionally comes to every long term blogger a time when you realise that you’e made a huge and colossal mistake. Not a simple error that’s easily edited away or corrected before anyone can notice, but a massive mistake of judgement that would cause anyone who sees it to instantly think less of you as a person. When you realise that you’ve made such a mistake, the only honourable course of action is to hold your hands up, admit that you were fundamentally wrong and throw yourself on the mercy of your readership, hoping you will get a second chance.
That’s where I am today. In two recent posts (here and especially here – I apologise for the title, obviously) I have made horrendous errors that I must apologise for. These were errors in my fundamental assumptions about how the world works, and as such I need to rethink my position on a lot of things before posting on this subject.
Yes, it is true. I assumed England possessed at least a basic level of competence at playing cricket and so would be able to qualify for the quarter-finals of the World Cup. I was fundamentally wrong to believe this and assert it here on this website, and I apologise to those of you who had to read such obvious nonsense with no basis in reality. I can only say that I hope to do better in future and not to make such ridiculous errors and assumptions again.
Now, here’s why England will definitely win the Rugby World Cup…
This weblog is purely a personal site and unless explicity stated otherwise any opinions stated are purely personal and do not represent those of Colchester Liberal Democrats, Castle Ward Liberal Democrats or Colchester Borough Council.