Tony Dunne

Just read that Tony Dunne died, aged 78. He was a key member of the great Man U team of the 60s, at right back. One of the best defensive fullbacks I have seen. He was one of the fastest footballers I've seen live and also incredibly quick over short distances and a great tackler. The position of fullback has changed so much since then that it's now hard to assess current players. In Tony's day the main function of a fullback was to take away byline crosses with providing cover for the centre half as the other main job. So-called "overlapping" fullbacks had started to come in as fullbacks joined the attack. Carlos Alberto of Brazil was the great inspiration for this. Even though Tony had great speed he was an indifferent crosser of the ball. (Mind, you the balls he played with were far harder to cross than the lightweight balls that came in about 30 ears ago, but that's rant for another occasion.)
Compared to Tony almost all of the fullbacks of the past 20 years don't come off very well as far as defensive duties are concerned but they are now important parts of offense. In effect, the outer two of the usual 3 center backs are now more-or-less comparable to fullbacks of Dunne's era. In general, they're not that good in cutting out byline crosses. To take away wingers getting around the outside you need a combination of anticipation and quickness. Tony had both in abundance. The taller backs 3s are often good at reading the play but too slow to be able to react like a 5foot4 Tony Dunne. All pro footballers are amazingly quick by comparison with the average person but at that level fractions make a difference. There is also a specific technique to jockeying wingers and timing the tackle that many of today's defenders have not mastered in the way Dunne did.
Tony Dunne, I salute you and, to his family, unlikely as they are to read this, my deepest condolences.

Bradman is the only undeniable GOAT

Everyone talking GOAT (Greatest of All Time) these days so I thought I'd point out that in the major sports only Bradman is the undeniable GOAT. In soccer there's maybe a dozen players for whom a plausible case could be made. In golf it's either Tiger or Jack but the are arguments for either (I think it's Tiger). In tennis you have Federer (my pick) but it could be Laver, Borg, Nadal or Djiokovic. In basketball there's Jordan, Magic Johnson, Bill Russell, possibly Shaq. Baseball has Ruth, Aaron, Walter Johnson, Willie Mays, maybe a few others. The discussion around NFL is frankly pathetic; a universal punditry consensus has coalesced around Tom Brady, who is merely the beneficiary of a long career under a bona fide genius coach (if a little shady), Bill Bellichick. Take the current season. Brady's numbers are way down but this is the fault of his receivers, it seems. He's the GOAT, therefore the problem is elsewhere. The test will come when he finally retires and Bellichick keeps winning. In the real skills-based debate, there's Marino, Elway, Moon, Rodgers, Manning among QBs and Taylor and Rice among other positions. I've become more convinced that the QB position is highly overrated. Attention of focused on the QB but the position's contribution to a win is not more than other positions. The O-line is more important that the QB and the Oline's efficiency is conditioned by the opposing DLine.

Two Rays of Sunshine Gone Out

Within the last week Ray Wilson and Ray Wilkins passed away. Two more good uns gone.
Ray Wilson was the second-best defensive fullback that I ever saw and the best that I've ever seen live (when he played for Everton). The best was Bixente Lizarazu. (All-around, the honour goes to Piero Maldini.) Wilson has never been given his due. He was fast, a superb tackler and positionally sound. He only tackled when he had to and went in like a cobra. On the rare occasions that he missed his recovery was almost supernatural. Lizarazu was the same only more so. Both were tagged by unfortunate incidents that have colored their greatness. Wilson made a poor clearance header to set up Germany's first goal in the 1966 World Cup Final. Lizarazu was beaten by the Greek winger on the edge of the box to set up the winning goal in the 2004 Euro semifinal. No footballer is perfect. Even the very best make mistakes. When defenders make mistakes it can look bad. The punditry have been very unkind to both of these great fullbacks but none of the pundits ever got to wear a World Cup Winner's medal. Ray Wilson I salute you!
Ray Wilkins also took undeserved stick during and after his playing career for supposedly "sideways" passing. One of the positive development since Wilkins retired is the general appreciation of possession football. The acknowledged great Andres Iniesta passes back or sideways far more than Wilkins did but that was before such stats were recorded. Wilkins was a superb midfielder. Brian Clough once said that speed in football is important in two respects: the speed in knowing what to do do with the ball before you have it and then the speed of doing something with it. Wilkins had both of these types of speed. If he passed back or to the side it was because that computer in his brain knew that was the best play for that situation. If he saw the chance to stick a forward pass between two defenders then the pass that he gave would be perfectly measured. Wilkins always seemed to have time because he knew everything going on around him. He was also, like Michael Carrick of the current generation and Pat Crerand of mine, always in the right position on the field. Ray Wilkins, I salute you!

NFL Defense Analysis: Steel Curtain Most Dominant

All the talk about the Legion of Boom got me wondering about how the Seahawks' vaunted D compares with other Ds in other eras. The stats are all from the NFL official website. The most dominant defenses have been; Rams (73-77), Steelers (73-77), Da Bears (83-87), Bucs (2001-05), Ravens (1999-2002) and Seahawks. Taking 5 year averages is a bit arbitrary but we can look at individual years within this range. The Purple People Eaters of the 70s don't make the list because within the span of the Vikes' fruitless SB appearance they only led a defensive category in one year. All of the selected tenacious Ds have at least two. I think that the most meaningful stats are both the absolute and relative ppgs (points per game) but ypg, sacks, interceptions and fumbles are all relevant. It is first worth noting that both ppgs and ypgs have increased over time. Avg ypg in 1970 were 270; in 2016 345 and ppg from 19 to 22, with a fair amount of yearly variation for each. The 75 Rams hold the season record (14 games) for lowest ppg and for lowest ppg relative to the league average. For yardage it's the Steelers by a huge difference. The Rams also have the lowest five year ppg avg. Incredibly, though, the Rams did not win a SB in its D heyday whereas the Steel Curtain racked up 2 wins. As much as I was hoping that Da Bears would come out on top, the Steelers seem to edge out the Rams for the crown. However, Da Bears do clearly lead in Sacks, which made them so much fun to watch. As far as I can see, no official stats are kept on yards lost due to sacks. The Seahawks D really does not stack up against the others. The Legion of Boom may be, arguably, the best secondary but the total D is not that impressive in historical context.

RAMS
1973	12.71	211	45	20	1	3	68%	77%	21	0
1974	12.9	243	44	24	2	0	74%	88%	29	0
1975	9.6	237.3	43	22	2	1	48%	80%	26	1
1976	13.6	261.1	45	32	3	1	71%	86%	29	0
1977	10.4	255.4	36	25	1	0	61%	89%	32	0
	11.85	241.55	42.6	24.6	1.8	1	65%	83%	26.25	0.25

STEELERS
1973	15	210	33	37	3	1	80%	76%	36	1
1974	13.5	189	52	25	2	1	77%	68%	33	1
1975	11.6	162	43	27	2	0	58%	55%	34	1
1976	9.9	138	41	22	0	1	52%	46%	40	0
1977	17.4	243	32	31	0	0	101%	85%	28	0
	12.50	174.75	40.2	28.4	1.4	0.6	72%	66%	34.33333333	1

BUCs	PPG	YPG	SACKS	INT	TDs	Safety	PPG %avg	YPG%avg	Fumbles	TDs
2001	17.5	280	42	28	0	0	90%	90%	20	0
2002	12.25	252.8	43	31	4	1	58%	79%	24	1
2003	16.5	264	36	20	3	1	81%	85%	23	0
2004	19	304	45	16	1	0	91%	95%	32	0
2005	17.1	274	36	17	3	1	86%	89%	16	1
	16.47	274.96	40.4	22.4	2.2	0.6	80%	87%	24.75	0.25

RAVENS	PPG	YPG	SACKS	INT	TDs	Safety	PPG %avg	YPG%avg	Fumbles	TDs
1999	17.3	277	49	21	4	1	85%	88%	24	0
2000	10.3	165	35	23	0	1	51%	53%	26	0
2001	16.6	265	45	16	1	0	85%	85%	31	1
2002	22.1	354	33	25	2	0	105%	110%	34	1
2003	17.6	281	47	24	0	0	86%	90%	37	0
	16.78	268.40	41.8	21.8	1.4	0.4	81%	84%	30.4	0.4

SEAHAWKS	PPG	YPG	SACKS	INT	TDs	Safety	PPG %avg	YPG%avg	Fumbles	TDs
2012	15.3	306	36	18	2	0	68%	90%	16	1
2013	14.4	274	42	28	3	2	62%	79%	29	1
2014	15.9	267	37	13	1	1	72%	78%	27	0
2015	17.3	292	37	14	0	0	78%	85%	17	3
2016	18.2	319	42	11	0	1	82%	93%	22	1
	16.22	291.6	38.8	18.25	1.2	0.75	70%	83%	22.25	1.25

BEARS	PPG	YPG	SACKS	INT	TDs	Safety	PPG %avg	YPG%avg	Fumbles
1983	18.8	321	51	21	2	0	86%	96%	25	1
1984	15.5	241	72	21	1	1	73%	73%	31	0
1985	12.4	258	64	34	4	3	58%	79%	24	1	SB
1986	11.7	258	62	31	1	2	57%	80%	36	1
1987	18.8	281	70	13	0	2	87%	86%	33	0
		15.44	271.8	63.8	24	1.6	1.6	72%	83%	29.8	0.6

Era-weighted goalscoring

The above chart shows average goals per game in the English First Division and Premier League between 1929 and 2015. In the 1960s the long run average fell from over 3.3 goals per game to 2.7 which has persisted for almost 50 years. The only factor that can really explain this is the rise of more defensive tactics. Until the 1960s formations were based on "WM" - the M representing two fullbacks and a centre-half with two wing halfs playing upfield and the "W" two wingers and a centre-forward supported by two inside forwards. The first of the now hegemonic numerical formations was 424 with one of the wing-halfs withdrawn to the back line. The Italians pioneered the "sweeper" - one of the back 4 plating slightly behind the other 3. English football has always preferred either the twin centre-half model or a defensive wing half. All of the subsequent permutations that the talking heads go on about ad nauseam have made very little difference, it seems, compared to simple move of 4 defenders instead of 3. I don't have any good answers for the decline from 1939 to 1950 and subsequent rise; food for thought. Among the many observations that may be made from this one that occurs to me is a re-evalaution of Alan Shearer. The all-time record for 1st Division/EPL goals in a season is Dixie Dean's 60; this would be 38 in the modern era. Shearer scored 34 in 93/4, part of a three-season run of 31, 34 and 31. (Andy Cole is the only other player to have scored 34). His career total of 283 EPL goals would have been 370 in Dean's era.

President Zaphod/Cubs Win
I used to have an idea that G-D sometimes contracts out the script for certain decades to writers. Ronald Reagan, for example, seemed more like a Kurt Vonnegut creation than a real person. In the same spirit, I hypothesize that Douglas Adams, before he passed, was asked to script the current epoch. At one point in the Hitchhiker's Guide saga Zaphod Beeblebrox is put in the Total Perspective Vortex, a device that shows every being how small they are in relation to the universe. Zaphod emerges with an even larger ego. We will see how DTT emerges from the White House Total Perspective Vortex. And if he grows any more heads and arms.
On more usual subjects, I've turned around on Rooney. I now applaud his surpassing Charlton in goals for England and United. Among today's players he stands out as an anachronism. He wears his heart on his sleeve and leaves nothing on the pitch. He has definitely gone back as a player, though. For a forward, that slight loss of pace is a killer. As I've said before, we're in an era, roughly since the mid 90s, in which it's easier to score. If Charlton played in this era he would have scored far more goals.
As a Cubs fan of more than 40 years' standing, I'm still not quite able to take in the achievements of the 2016 team. I'd grown comfortable with the Cubs as lovable losers. My lifetime record of Cubs games at Wrigley is even worse than the Cubs' record over that span. (I've the scorecards to prove it.) The win was so wonderful, I half-think it's a dream. The 7th game couldn't have been scripted better.  (I am also a little sad for  Cleveland; I'll be pulling for them from now on.)  I had to go to fairly extraordinary measures to see the Cubs this year, since the planned game in June was superseded by family events. Got to see them beat the Giants, 4-3 in a thriller. Going forward, I'm a bit fearful that more of the World had got to see the wonders of Wrigley and will want to go there, making tickets even more difficult to get. Having said that, everyone should go to Wrigley at least once.

Is Dylan the Bradman of Songwriters?

 The question of whether or not Dylan "deserves" the Nobel for literature depends on if songs are "literature", which depends on what you think "literature" is. If we grant the premise, then Dylan should get a Nobel, without a doubt. Should other songwriters get the Nobel or is Dylan in his own category? Candidates include, inter alia,: Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Oscar Hamerstein, Paul Simon, Randy Newman, Leonard Cohen, Tom Paxton, Richard Thompson and Loudon Wainwright III. On balance, despite great respect for these, I conclude that Dylan is the Bradman. His lyrics encompass several genres and styles, showing knowledge and respect for the various forms while unsurpassed as an innovator. In particular there are the, mainly 60s and 70s, songs that bear the imprint of the French Surrealist poets that no-one else has been able match - Visions of Johanna, It's Allright Ma I'm only Bleeding, Mr Tambourine Man, When the Ship Comes In, Highway 61 Revisited, etc..

Skills vs Achievements
I've riffed on this before, but the untimely death of the great Johan Cruyff got me thinking some more about how to classify sports figures. There are two kinds of discussions that people have about the relative quality of professional sports personalities: those that emphasize achievement and those that emphasize skills. Obviously, some discussions feature both but there is, I submit, a strong tendency for individuals to favour one approach or the other. This tendency seems to me to correlate with the type of sport.
I'm struck by how pundits and fans alike of NFL are fixated on Superbowl wins. This is mainly shown in discussions of quarterbacks but is present in the evaluation of all players. For quarterbacks, these discussions are absurd: it's as if the QB is responsible for some outrageous percentage of outcomes, say 50%. In fact the QB is one of 22 positions, all of whom must contribute to defeat or victory.
In contrast, discussions of the merits of cricketers focus almost entirely on skills and soccer is very similar. Not surprisingly, individual sports are weighted towards achievements. Yet, when the evaluation turns to the very highest levels, relative skills enter the discussion. Take golf, probably the outlier for weighting evaluation towards wins. I've read many turgid articles and threads about Tiger vs Jack with a lot of arcane discussion of the strength of their competing fields. These are unsolvable puzzles. We can never know how many wins Tiger would have had if he were Jack's age and vice versa. What we can do is look at their relative skills. On this basis, it is clear that Tiger was the better golfer. I score them as even tee-to-green and on the mental game but Tiger was decisively better on and around the green. (By saying "was", I'm not writing Tiger off but he's 40 now and we can make a reasonable comparison with Nicklaus up to that age.) In tennis the wins-based analysis narrows the field of all-time greats to Federer, Sampras and Laver - subject to what Djokovic and Nadal do in their remaining years. When we look at skills, Sampras is eliminated immediately - he was the best server, ever, but the rest of his game was not at the same level. I'm actually still ambivalent about Federer-Laver, as much as I admire Federer. The one clear advantage he has over Laver is the serve but I'm not convinced that had Laver the use of modern rackets he would have been almost as good. That wristy motion with large, light rackets would have been a (bigger) nightmare for opponents. On the rest of the game - groundstrokes, volleys, return of serve, court movement - there's nothing to choose. I think Laver was a better volleyer but that may be ascribed to racket technology, too; i.e. return of serve is easier with modern rackets. The female side is interesting: wins say it's Margaret Court-Smith vs Serena Williams but they dominate(d) by having a serve that was/is 30% better than the next best server. I think that Navratilova was likely the best all-round female tennis player yet seen.
This brings me back to Cruyff. Cruyff, as a player, was such a one-off that it's hard to say where he fits in the all-time great ranking. He was also a manager/coach of tremendous influence, which also sets him apart from everyone else. I got a little narked with the emphasis on the "Cruyff turn" - as if his sublime skills as an improviser could be reduced to one technique, albeit one that has been copied to excess. The straight skill-comparison approach that I've sketched before falls down when the relative weights of the skills are omitted. Is heading as important as passing? Tackling as reading the game? So, while I still favour Georgie, I'm tending towards a mealy-mouthed approach that says that there's about six players who were better than anyone else but it's a matter of personal preference as to the ranking. Best.Pele.Cruyff. Beckenbauer. Maradona. Maybe Matthews, maybe Zidane, maybe di Stephano.
Finally, some notable musical deaths set this discussion into relief. In music, only skill matters but the evaluation of skill varies according to taste, upbringing and musical knowledge. Does anyone care how many platinum records George Martin produced? Or Bowie or Prince? All we remember is the music they made and we're grateful for all of them.

Another RIP - Richie Benaud
Richie Benaud died within the past few days. Another of my boyhood heroes down. While I modelled Jim Laker, an offspinner, there was something about Benaud's style that, even though he was captain of the "enemy" - the Aussies - I really liked. He was enthusiastic and showed it at a time when the game was still dominated by "stiff upper lip" culture. Even though I wasn't yet ten and TV coverage was limited I still remember his famous match-winning spell at Old Trafford in 1961 bowling into the rough from the bowlers' follow-through. What was amazing was to see him become a legend - I don't use the word lightly - as a cricket commentator and journalist. He has achieved an extraordinary status, beloved by three generations of cricket fans. For those who don't follow cricket it's likely impossible to explain this. North American sports fans would be truly baffled. What all the quoted reactions say is, for once, entirely true: he followed the rule, "if you don't have anything to say to add to what you see, say nothing". The corollary; when he spoke, it was worth listening. This, of course, is very "old school", very pukka, very cricket, yet Benaud was modernizer; his love of the game was so deep that he wanted to see it advance and played a surprisingly influential role  in that process. There will not be another.

A Different Game but still Enjoyable
I'm watching the World Cup of cricket highlights. In many ways the game is unrecognizable from what I knew as a kid. In the most literal way, the rules are different. I don't understand the rules about fielding placements. (There weren't any when I was active.) Batsmen now get a free hit after a no-ball. Video replay has removed doubt about behind the wicket catches, lbws, stumpings and runouts. The massive 50-over scores are just not comparable to the early days of one-day cricket. Yet there's some lovely stroke play to go with the slogging and some excellent bowling.