Ponting lbw b Panesar?

While the abject failure of England on the last day of the 2nd test at Adelaide was undoubtedly one of the great surprises in cricket history, the obvious imbalance between the Oz and England teams that underlies this debacle was diagnosed by this space at the time of England’ “great triumph” of 2005. England won the Ashes by dint of crooked officiating. In their heart of hearts I suspect that the English players know this; they collapsed partly from the pressure anyone feels when they’re “in over their heads”. In fact, a collapse of that order can only be explained psychologically.

Anyone who’s played team sports at any reasonable level is familiar with the way group psychology can overtake a team. Resignation can take over in any group; it’s part of our limitless ability for rationalization. “They’re just too good for us” – that’s a way for any team to “cop out”. Once that sentiment takes over, it’s hard to fight. Likewise, when a team knows that it’s good, it always feels it can win; give the Oz lads credit, England only collapsed in the face of their relentless belief that they could win.

I believe that both groups know that the result last time was a gift of the umpires, not a measure of relative ability, moxie and performance and this fuels both the positive psychology on the Aussies side and the negative psychology on the English side. In brief, there’s no chance that the disparity in the number of lbw decisions, leaving aside their timing, in the last Ashes series in England could be by chance.

The lbw decision remains the ‘dirty secret” of cricket. In fact, on the other side, the lbws given to the last England batsmen may well have contributed to the defeat. Their timing is suspicious but, unlike the series in England, there’s no statistical basis to accuse the current umpires of bias; we shall see.

Why would this be countenanced? Sadly, given the cultural history of cricket, as a putative standard for ethical conduct, we cricket fans have to face up to the obvious; cricket is a significant business. A lot of money changes hands in the name of cricket. The refereeing scandal in Italian Serie A soccer is a reminder that cricket’s own “bung” scandals – Kallis and others – are not exceptions. My deep suspicion is that some marketing genius is behind the current soap opera; what could build interest, therefore money for everyone, more than a dramatic Ashes win by England to be followed by a revenge match “down under”? I just wonder what the rest of the script is: gallant England pick themselves off the floor or brutal Aussies enjoy payback? Whatever sells the most tickets and glues the most eyeballs to the TV (thereby exposing said eyeballs to advertising). The lbws will tell the tale. With the build-up given Panesar by the English media, I would wager that he will be picked and “lbw b Panesar” will feature on the scorecard, irrespective of the outcome. My suspicion is that the Cobbers sticking it to the Poms will play better and we’ll get another clobbering rather than a squeaker or draw.

Why Rooney-obsession represents the failure of English soccer

I’ll get around to fleshing out the theory of sport but this post is about an important corollary. Following the logic of Charlton-Moore equivalency, the national obsession with Rooney reveals much about why England always fall short. To put it bluntly; while Rooney represents the choice of the majority of fans as the exemplar of “world class” England will never win the Big One. In the end the fans get what they deserve. In this case, very good, a lot of effort but no cigar. A similar case in a different sport is that of the Toronto Maple Loafs, which used to dominate ice hockey but has not won a championship since 1967. While the fans pack the stadium and prefer players like Ti Domi to Mats Sundin this drought will continue.

There was a load of drivel written for a month or so that Rooney had “lost it”. A player that good, once recovered from injury, doesn’t lose it. It was a matter of time before he got his confidence back. But the hysterical unbalanced coverage of the lad continues and has now flipped the other way. Here’s a telling example. Rooney turns and shoots and hits the bar. This is greeted as genius by a host of pundits. I saw Kenny Dalglish score about 6 goals like that and I would guess that in his career he probably hit about 30. Here’s the point. Dalglish was great player and if at the end of his career Rooney could be compared to him, that’s a great compliment. But Dalglish wasn’t Zidane, Maradonna, Cruyff, Moore, etc…

Paranthetically, I’ve now had a look at Carrick and he’s good. Typically, he’s underappreciated by most of English fandom. Those who like him really like him but the majority don’t – because the majority don’t grasp that he’s a class player who does all the “little things” that make a good team better. He reminds me a little of Crerand and there’s no higher praise than that.

Finally, never underestimate confidence as a factor in sports performance. Example A: Sachin Tendulkar. I remain stunned by his lack of form. Here’s the greatest bat of his generation and, after injury, he’s struggling. It’s very hard to imagine someone that good ever lacking confidence but that’s the only explanation. He’ll come good, though. Just watch.

A Theory of Sport, the Moore-Charlton Equivalency Principle and Zizou

In the last post I opined that fans, by and large, get the team they deserve. This actually follows from a general theory of sports – more strictly, sports performance – which, in turn, is derived from a theory of human performance. These will be outlined below but, first, let us pay tribute to Zizou. In doing so, we will touch on part of the Moore-Charlton Equivalency principle; specifically the latter part of it.

Unless he changes his mind (which he has done before, with respect to playing for France) July 9, 2006 will be last professional football match for Zinedine Zidane. Let us wallow in the moment and celebrate a great career. We are unlikely to see his like again – yes, even those of much less advanced age than this writer. His resurgence at this World Cup has been a delight and will likely remain the cherished memory that will become identified with the 2006 Mondiale. I say this knowing that the final chapter has not yet been written. My allegiances and my prognostications of victory are both with Italy. Despite this, should I be correct, this World Cup will be remembered as Zizou’s last bow. Just as 1970 was Pele’s. Moreover, this has been a fine World Cup with other memorable features, to name three: Ronaldo’s eclipse of Muller as all-time World Cup scorer (incidentally, Ronaldo only need 8 more goals to overtake Pele – this was also the swansong of a great striker); Ghana’s performance; and, the uplifting performance of the German team and its inspiring and admirable coach, Jurgen Klinsmann (a memorable scene was of him consoling his players, overcoming his own disappointment), which has also reflected the superb job of host carried out by the German people in general.

What is so special about Zizou? He is a unique combination of skill and strength. There have been a handful of players as skilful, a handful as strong but he is the sui generis . By strength I mean on the ball, in the tackle, in the air and in his stamina. There are those who speak in awe of the tragic Duncan Edwards in these terms. We shall never know. But that’s all the more reason to pay honour to this remarkable Frenchman. Videoturi te salute!

Among those who have spoken of the loss to football occasioned by the death of Duncan Edwards in the plane crash at Munich (not to mention most of the great Busby Babes team) is Bobby Charlton, himself a survivor of that same crash. Here’s how good Charlton was, for those who don’t know; he was even more skilful than Zidane. He also matched Zidane for the effort he put into every game he played. He just wasn’t a ballwinner. For those who doubt my assertion about skill, consider: Charlton scored 49 goals for England ( a joint record with Gary Lineker), Zidane currently 34 for France, in about the same number of games; Charlton was completely two-footed – with either foot he could hit thunderbolts, swerve a ball left and right, long and short, chip with backspin, hit long with overspin; and, without the flashy stepovers, Charlton was an even better dribbler. But, more later…

As mentioned, the general theory of sport is a direct application of the theory of human performance, which may be stated as follows: performance is conditioned by the following factors: the length of time spent at an activity; and, the nature of “culture” in relation to that activity. The latter may be unpacked further: “culture” consists of ideas, values and social arrangements. For sports this may be made more specific: sports performance for a group/nation is a matter of population, the interest in the sport, the infrastructure for the sport and the way people think about the sport (the specific small-c “culture”).

A Tale of Two Owens

Among its other virtues, football is like democracy; on the whole, fans get the teams (and media) that they deserve. Which may be why England will never again win the World Cup; 1966 is looking more and more like an aberration. Scanning the many blogs and comment sites it is apparent that, overwhelmingly, English fans are not able to distinguish the merely adequate from the good, the good from the great. However, the more revealing reactions are those of the press, which uniformly blames Eriksson, the target of its six-year vendetta, which followed the vendetta against Keegan and Taylor and is soon to be replaced by the vendetta against Maclaren.

The national obsession with Wayne Rooney has reaped its due reward. He’s a good but not great player and he wasn’t fit for the World Cup and should not have been on the squad. He was simply lamentable throughout, culminating in his sorry exit from the Portugal game. The collective denial over his performance was amazing. Far from suffering alone “up front” from a lack of support Rooney was where attacks went to die. His last 3 minutes on the pitch were telling. Lennon set him up in the box after a piece of dazzling skill and pace (by Lennon) and Rooney almost whiffed (with his healthy but weaker left foot) on the shot; Joe Cole slid in to the sliced effort and nearly scored. I must have seen 60 or more hours of Rooney for United and I’ve never seen him whiff even on far more difficult shots. Shortly after he lost control for the umpteenth time at midfield and flopped around trying desperately to get the ball back at the end of which he lunged onto Carvalho, knocking him over, and planted his foot in Carvalho’s privates as he got up. (If you look at the replay in slow-mo it looks like his hand goes into the crotch area just before he lunges!) Stunningly, he did this right in front of the ref! No video replay can ever yield as good a view as that afforded Senor Elizondo. I’ve opined elsewhere that Eriksson was forced into this but his quixotic choice of Walcott must go down as one of the more rash choices any major team manager has made.

British fandom’s views on the two Owens – Owen Hargreaves and Michael Owen – are just as revealing. Michael Owen is a great (but injury-prone) striker but underappreciated in the Rooney-mania that has dominated English media and fandom for the past year or so. It was his loss that was crucial. A fit Owen would have scored against Portugal sparing the team the embarrassment of penalty-kicks. Owen Hargreaves has finally been allowed to reveal his true colours – as a midfield powerhouse – after suffering criticism for years by media and fans. Hargreaves also exemplifies a quality not understood by the majority of English fans and media: effort is one thing, well-directed effort is another. The contrast with Rooney could not be greater. Fans love Rooney for his obvious effort; no one works harder than Hargreaves but a lot of it is invisible except to those who are watching him specifically. He moves purposefully all the time: filling space to close off options; pursuing his man with relentless determination when that is appropriate; moving into space to support the attack or provide options. None of the bull-in-a-china-shop antics that earned Rooney his red card. I’ve said this elsewhere but, more than ever, England are never going to win without another Bobby Charlton or some equivalent (which I’d hoped, forlornly, that Lampard-Gerrard might be). No-one worked harder than Charlton (no not even Nobby); it just didn’t look that way.

France showed that this version of the great Brazilian powerhouse was not up to the expected standards. Too many older players who, although still good enough to play for most teams, were too much for Kaka and Ronaldinho to carry. France had too many ballwinners in midfield. Ronaldinho is the best creative player in the World but is not a ballwinner. Zizou’s last hurrah shows what a unique player he has been because he combines creativity that was Ronaldinho’s equal in his prime with strength. Add Makelele and Vieira and that’s just too much. Brazil has relied on Cafu and Carlos Roberto to supplement the midfield and they’ve “gone back” a bit too much. Reflecting on Zizou, I realize I overestimated Gerrard; I’m still an admirer but he’s never going to be Zizou. I note in passing that France’s goal was a result of that commentators’ chestnut – slack marking. There was a Brazilian whose # I couldn’t make out at the edge of the box (it may have been Ronaldinho) when Henry made his run who should have read the situation and gone with him. He would likely have still scored but it was bad slip-up.

There’s an obvious way to reduce diving and general theatrics. At least at future World Cup tourneys. Assess players on video evidence after each game; those found to have faked a foul or exaggerated injury more than 3 times get a yellow that carries into their next game, those with 6 miss the next game. Video evidence on such matters can now be 100%. As a further suggestion – and I’ve not done the empirical analysis to back this up – would be for all leagues to up the % ex-pros and semi-pros among the ranks of refs. It’s very obvious that some of these refs – hard to believe for a World tournament – have never played at any level; they mistake bad tackles for mistimed tackles randomly. Even a pro would have trouble dealing with the fakery in real time – but would be fooled far less – hence there’s still a need for the video-review discipline.

As a footnote, FS (Fred) Trueman died on the weekend. I will never forget seeing Trueman for Yorkshire and Statham for Lancashire when the Roses still meant something. I’ve lauded Statham elsewhere; as much as I don’t want to admit it, FS was slightly better, which is to say only just behind Marshall and Lindwall. Trueman’s runup and action were a sight to behold; flowing grace and menace joined. Only Wes Hall compares. Trueman was also the first sports figure that I remember to make the point that sports smarts are not the same as school smarts. His era was still the era of the occasional “gentleman” or amateur player and he noted how several such bowlers of his acquaintance could bowl quite well but couldn’t get anyone out because they didn’t understand the importance of variation and analyzing a batsman’s technique. Needless to say, Fred was a master. The most famous example: when Fred bowled out a great West Indies lineup at Edgbaston by reducing his pace and bowling stock off-cutters. Coming full-circle, this is what most fans and media don’t understand about Rooney and Beckham. They’re both smart players (lovely layoffs and weighted short passes, adroit positioning etc. – “football smart” players still do dumb things); fan and media attention are directed toward what they aren’t – Rooney isn’t a great dribbler and Beckham isn’t the true World Class midfielder (like Zizou) that they wanted him to be. For Beckham it’s too late to appreciate him for what he was – a smart player with a fabulous right foot who was always well worth his shop. For Rooney, if he could only be appreciated for what he is, realistically, and not what he isn’t – Pele!, Best! Maradona! – he may become part of an England team that gets somewhere at the Euros. I wouldn’t put any money on it.

England can win despite the Rooney millstone

The role of the manager of national football squad is complex; it involves managing perceptions internal to the squad and external to the squad. The parallels and contrasts of England’s 2002 and current situations reveals Eriksson to be something of a master. The key difference this time around is that in 2002 Beckham really was needed for a legitimate shot at winning and Eriksson had to gamble on getting him match-sharp; this time Rooney is a sideshow, Beckham is still the real deal.

First, let us clarify the difference between “match-fit” and “match-sharp”. The former is physical criterion. Many players are “match-fit” with injuries that would have most of us hobbling around at home; pros get used to playing with sprains, bruises and pulls that reduce their effectiveness but not at that crucial point of maximum effort. When you’re not match-sharp, the flesh is willing and able but the mind-body connection is weak. At the level of play of a World Cup fractions of a second and inches count and these are lost to those not razor-sharp.

The England – Trinidad match illustrates these distinctions. Owen is clearly match-fit but not match-sharp; a match-sharp Owen would have had at least one goal, likely two. But he’s getting there. Rooney may be match-fit but is not close to match-sharp. He was a pale shadow of himself. He made one good pass and otherwise was dispossessed easily. A particularly good contrast was between the run he had down the left. The same fullback that match-sharp Downing was undressing had no difficulty stopping Rooney. Rooney’s technique for beating a tackler is all timing – a sudden acceleration – and it’s that precise timing that takes a few matches to get back.

Ericsson knows that Rooney isn’t sharp and so do the other players. Why did he keep Rooney in the squad and why did he play him against T&T? Partly to deflect the rabid English media and partly to serve the internal psychology of the squad. Rooney is popular within the squad and is a positive presence in training sessions. I think also that Ericsson knows that the Rooney obsession of the media and fans needles Owen and that Owen responds well to pressure. There’s also a chance that if England makes it to the final Rooney will be sharp and will pull a goal out of a hat. Until then, England is going to have to do it despite Rooney. I still think that they can.

A review of the T&T match tape reveals a far stronger England performance than the pundits would have us believe. More importantly, it augurs well for the much more difficult future. The biggest positive – Lampard and Gerrard are looking strong. Gerrard has got off the mark and Lampard is overdue; goals from them will be crucial in getting to and winning the Final. The defence looks good. Beckham has reminded us that he remains a true “World Class” player. Like Riquelme and, dare I say it, Ronaldinho, Beckham is going to create 3 or more really good chances a game. (Ronaldinho is in a class of his own at the moment because he can create his own goals out of nothing.) And I think that Sven will continue to manipulate the Owen-Rooney-Crouch situation to get the best out of all concerned.

Some miscellaneous thoughts. The new ball is definitely having its impact. Part of the reason I think Lampard & Gerrard will score is the ball – it’s obviously very light and/or hard (bouncy). You can see the coaches have told everyone to have a go from long distance. L&G just happen to be the best pair of ball strikers out of midfield that are available to any of the teams. More generally, the players are all having adjustment problems with the “feel” of the ball – numerous errors of control, far more than is normal for players of this caliber – and with the weight of their passes. This will all improve as the tournament progresses. I happen to think that the ball was part of the reason for the two most egregious misses so far – the Japanese player vs Croatia and Kewell vs Brazil.

France is still snake-bit. Their finishing remained lamentable (and a little unlucky), they were robbed of a goal and the Korean goal was an incredible fluke. (I’m also a bit worried – if France’s luck starts to turn, it could run over England.) It also illustrated the difference between Gallas and Terry (possibly between Terry and any other defender); Gallas just couldn’t react to the ball the way Terry did against T&T. Argentina do look great but they’re due for a let-down and I don’t see their midfield having so much possession against England’s midfield (if they meet). On the other hand, Brazil have yet to show their hand. Ronaldinho is overdue. I don’t know quite what to make of Ronaldo; I’ve never seen a great player look so ill at ease as he in the Croatia game. I don’t think it matters that much: I think Adriano is very dangerous and while I haven’t seen as much of Robinho, I’m sure he’ll replace Ronaldo well, if it comes to that. Yet, Brazil can be had – especially on the wings. I’ve always thought Roberto Carlos overrated (a prejudice I have about fullbacks – I think they should be able to defend) and now he’s old his defensive liabilities are magnified. Ditto but a bit less so, Cafu. If England play Brazil I relish the flank pace that Sven has at his disposal. I think Lennon can take Carlos, Cole or Downing can take Cafu.

Weep not for Wayne

While there has been much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth following the injury to Wayne Rooney, let me dare suggest that all of this alarm and despondency is misplaced.

Rooney is a very fine player but he is not a Zidane or Ronaldinho. His loss is not a fatal blow. Brazil has Ronaldinho but, if Lothar Mattaeus is to be taken seriously (which I do), they are far from a “shoo-in” because of weaknesses elsewhere, notably defence and goalie. England has no top-bracket star (the equivalent of Bobby Charlton in ’66) but a veritable gang of players just beneath that level of which Rooney is only one. Gerrard, Lampard and Owen fit in this bracket with Terry and Beckham pretty close. I think Joe Cole could be the “dark horse” who will finally be given a run because of Rooney’s absence. Cole scored a goal against United on Saturday that very few players are capable of scoring ( I haven’t actually seen Rooney score one like it). In a combination of strength, balance, skill, daring and determination, he spun past three United defenders in one move (none of them slouches) and finished clinically. Cole in Rooney’s role, behind Owen, is not much of a come-down, if at all.

Robinson has emerged as a fine keeper and the World Cup could be his place to rise to the next level. Terry is a rock and the rest of the defence is solid: Ferdinand’s tendency to go AWOL is far less of a problem with Terry there and Ferdinand is – make no mistake about this – one of the “class” defenders around these days. No-one wins a World Cup without a classy defender. They usually need a great midfielder and scorer, too but England’s midfield “committee” may prove good enough and Owen is a great scorer. The rest of the names bandied about – Bent, Crouch, etc. - are more-or-less irrelevant. Every squad has solid players just like these but they’re not going to put England over the top.

Speaking of Crouch, here’s a strange phenomenon. Like Koller of Czech, he’s a tall guy with great ball skills – but mediocre in the air! This is one of the great facets of soccer, that normal-sized or even small people can compete; indeed, they have advantages, namely low centre of gravity and quickness. Thus, let me warrant, Crouch is never going to score a goal like Cole”s (see above) (Rooney might). Big guys just go down too easily; the revenge of physics. What is less obvious is why he’s ineffective in the air. It’s essentially the same thing – high centre of gravity which makes him vulnerable to having his balance and timing thrown off by contact. If he didn’t have to compete with other players, he’d be unassailable but he does and he’s not. Let me add that he doesn’t head with power even when he gets an uncontested shot a the ball. Having said all that, I like him and think he’ll be a good role player in Germany in June.

More on George
Watching the AC Milan-Barcelona spurred, among other thoughts, an even greater appreciation of the genius of George Best. Ronaldinho is a wonderful player – surely the best in the World at the moment – but even he can’t take on players the way Georgie did. Ronaldinho has some amazing moves – the delightful Eric Cantona “hosted” ads that are everywhere now have some splendid Ronaldinho vignettes – but he just doesn’t compare to Best. Several times late in the game R took runs at the defence – and got bundled off the ball. I noticed two great contrasts with Best – R slows down as he approaches a man and his main technique for beating a man is a ball shift whereas Best – check any of the available videos – was breathtaking for the way he maintained or increased speed as he took players on and employed the fullest variety of ways with which a tackler can be fooled. R is more effective in broken situations where he can use his extreme quickness, ball manipulation skill and extra-sensory awareness to greatest effect to beat quickly one or two defenders who are already somewhat off-balance. Against top-class defenders who have the chance to “set up” something more is needed than ball tricks.

Maradona was the nearest to Best – his famous goal against England in 86 is a classic example of how he could just blow by top defenders in a way that R does not. His technique was a simple “show and go”, combined with sheer speed. This is not to diminish him: the greatest dribbler of all time – Stanley Matthews – had one technique, but it was perfect and unstoppable (he feinted to the inside and then accelerated to the outside – the key was exquisite timing and astounding acceleration). Best was truly astounding; he beat people every way and he did it at speed. He did have a favourite move and it’s his hallmark. With either foot he could drag the ball inside the tackler (inside with respect to the direction in which the tackler would be “leading” – a pro never goes in “square”) without breaking speed. The truly spectacular move that was unique to him was when he would collect the ball on the outside and drag it, in one motion across the tackler’s body, to the inside, often while accelerating . (I have seen others try it occasionally but usually fail – most recently, to his credit, Wayne Rooney). He literally turned great defenders “inside out” with this move. I’ve seen almost comical results with lesser players – they often fell over as George shot by them. If he was in an evil mood he would slow enough to let them lunge after him and drag the ball back the other way, sometimes repeating the procedure until the hapless tackler was stumbling around like a drunk!

Trouble in Paradise

By any measure the NFL is the most outstandingly successful sports league business in the World. But Paul Tagliabue and the owners will need to move adroitly next season to quell a grass-roots revulsion against the quality of officiating in the Playoffs. Initially the pet mass media in its reporting on the Super Bowl tried to suffocate any intimations that the Zebras had ruined the Main Event. A survey of blogs indicated that overwhelmingly the fans were not fooled and a trickle of columns has begun to appear giving voice to widespread frustration over the quality and influence of officials' calls.

It was apparent that at the Playoffs were meant to be a coronation for Indy but this all went horribly wrong at the very end of the Steelers game in a truly bizarre play featuring an exceedingly rare Bettis fumble and a bonehead move by Harper, who recovered the fumble that allowed Roethlisberger to trip him up. A decent QB (much less a Montana or Elway) still had time to win the game or at least set up an easy FG. Can't blame the Zebras for that but Indy should have been out of it long before then. The script then shifted to winning one for the chin and the bus (not that those are bad sentiments).

Officials are like anyone else, they get caught up in the hype and - hey who knows - maybe they're receptive over drinks from NFL mucakamucks that "gee it would be nice if..". It doesn't matter. Tagliabue and co. have to read the riot act and prevent any repetition.

All the talk about whether or not Brett Favre will or should retire reminds me of the undeserved belittling of Terry Bradshaw as a quarterback. At the core of this issue is the tricky question of how to distinguish the QB from the team. All of the usual suspects (Montana, Elway, Marino, Favre, Unitas and Bradshaw) played for good or even great teams for much of their careers. How good would they have been in a bad team? Compounding the problem is the usual peak vs career issue.

Without wading into these more general matters, the last couple of years have provided an interesting contrast between Green Bay and Favre in decline on the one hand and the Steelers and Bradshaw on the other. My recollection of the last two years that Bradshaw played is that the Steelers were a pretty poor team yet Bradshaw managed to keep them competitive. Favre has not done so well. Despite the almost universal aspersions cast upon Bradshaw’s intelligence, my impression remains that a lot of this was due to smart adjustments at the line of scrimmage and reactions to broken plays, specifically that Bradshaw was remarkably good at getting yardage out of unfavourable situations without giving up bonehead turnovers. Not so with the more acclaimed Mr Favre.

Without trying to diminish Favre, I remain puzzled at the lack of respect given Bradshaw.