Patriots vs Steelers

In contrast to last week, this was a better team winning. Last week's diatribe was not to say that the Patriots are not a great team led by a great coach and a great quarterback nor that games are fixed. Nevertheless, like any organization, the NFL develops "lines" on various issues and its employees second-guess what the executive originitors of the lines would like. In a game like yesterday there was no danger of the pats losing; no need for a helping hand. Last week they got one, admittedly after the Ravens doing their best to blow it. One almost perfect barometer of when a jobbing occurs is the player reaction. No-one knows better than pro players what the zebras are doing or what the league "buzz" is; being pros, with the exception of one or two flakes, they hew the company line. What we saw after last Monday was the genuine unsuppressed outrage of boy-men, who know the score but couldn't help themselves; they were jobbed and they know it. So do the Pats.

Does the NFL have to do this?

No wonder several Ravens players lost it at the end of this week’s MNF encounter against the Patriots. They had beaten the much-hyped Brady bunch but the zebras took it away from them.

This is how I think it works. The league lets it be known sotto voce that if there are any marginal calls they should go the way of the chosen team, which this year is NE. The example that was obvious to anyone willing to look was the Colts vs the Steelers in the semis two years ago - but the Colts were so inept, the zebras couldn’t deliver. This year it’s the hype about the perfect record and Brady being able to walk on water.

They don’t have top do this. The NFL is massively successful. It doesn’t need this kind of tawdry manipulation. Despite video replay, there is still a lot zebra discretion – mainly around varieties of holding, which is how they jobbed Billick’s boys on Monday.

I hold no brief whatever for the Ravens and have always had a soft spot the Pats and admiration for Bellichick. Moreover, there was no spread issue either way. But, fair do’s, MNF was a travesty.

The script for Sunday is really interesting though: Pats vs 9-3 Steelers who are being hyped. I get the sense that Philly broke the spell the week before. They found a way to get guys in Brady’s face; he’s really no better than anyone else when he doesn’t have half an hour to throw. The pats defence is not that good and vulnerable to inside routes (says Big John and I believe him).

Better balance on the Murali-Warne issue

On the other side of the Murali-Warne vs oldtimers issue I have to be the first to acknowledge that 700 wickets is a tremendous achievement. Further, to maintain the standard that both have reached over so much cricket puts them in the highest category. To reverse one of my earlier questions, would O'Reilly, Lindwall, Laker, Marshall etc. have compiled such low averages if they'd had to sustain their performance over so many matches insuch a compressed time? Well, we don't know, of course. (Although with Marshall we have someone closer to era in which Murali & Warne played.) Not only have both bowleers had to fight off fairly well-publicized injuries, I can guarantee that giving the ball the "rip" that they do, they played a lot (probably most) of their matches with sore fingers. Like the great performers in any walk of life (plumbers, footballers, musicians, etc.) they love(d) what they do and that drove their deeds. So, acknowledge their greatness ...but don't be blind to the past.

Reflecting on England’s failure to qualify for Euro 2008, I admit that I’m surprised but, looking over the lineup, the realization sinks in that this was a mediocre group. Beckham is a shadow of himself now but he’s still the classiest player on the squad that lined up today. In particular, though, I’ve never seen such a weak English defence. I’ve been a fan of Campbell over his career; in his prime he was a great central defender but he’s not at that level any more. Lescott, Bridge, Richards? England players? Richards may grow into one but as a group they’re underwhelming.

I’ve overestimated the midfield. I like Gerrard, Lampard, Cole and Hargreaves; these are all legitimate international players. Gerrard is just short of the top bracket: I don’t know what it is – he seems like the real thing but I’m forced to concede that there’s some spark missing. What it illustrates yet again is the Charlton-Moore equivalency principle. Just about every European national team – except Andorra, Liechenstein, Malta and San Marino – has midfielders roughly equivalent, which is no disgrace. To be a great team that bit of class is needed. Class that England have lacked since the Two Bobbies left the scene.

Crouch continues to confound. Hats off to the lad but I still think that he’s playing over his head at the highest international level. Despite my needling, Rooney is as good a forward as any – except for the true elite, which is currently exclusively non-Europeans (i.e. Messi, E’eto, Drogba, Crespo) with the possible exceptions of Henri and van Nistelrooy (with Torres possibly coming up).

Sadly, Owen has gone. The promise he showed in ’98 never quite materialized. That kind of pace seems hard to maintain with the rigours of modern pro football. It’s a mayfly thing. Ronaldo had it for a couple of years, too. They had marvelous careers but that electrifying speed of when they broke in was never to return once they suffered serious injury. I haven’t seen enough of E’eto since his injury to judge if he’s now lost that half-step.

Where does this leave England? Nowhere. But the good thing about nowhere is that every direction is a step towards somewhere. Two years to the next World Cup means that there’s time for the next Owen to appear; then, who knows? The media pundits will rabbit on endlessly about managers and systems but that’s marginal stuff; we await the next genuine class player or players. Until then, England may as well not take part.

More bleating about Murali

I note that the recent two-match Sri Lanka series in Australia does nothing for advocates of Murali as the "greatest finger-spinner ever". Seems his two match analysis was in the order of 3-over 300. His inability to dismiss the lads from Oz, especially in their own land, is a major knock against his claims. Great bowlers have to perform against great batsmen and Murali falls short.

More on Copa
Yesterday's match illustrated at least two characteristics of football that make it so compelling to its fans. When two reasonably close teams meet the result is truly unpredictable and driven by chance and also response to chance. I mentioned yesterday that I think we'd have had a very different match had Riquelme scored rather than hit the post. Second, even great players have technical flaws and don't always "come through". Riquelme is a wonderful player who has been a delight throughout the Copa but he doesn't have a good left foot nor the ability of some great one-footed players to adjust to almost any situation. On the chance I keep mentioning a Platini would have found away to hit it with his right foot and get it on target. Riquelme must have taken 20 free kicks from 40 yards in and for this game his touch deserted him. Messi just didn't come off; but -bless him- he never backed off. He's so direct that he just needs for one of his touches to work to create turmoil. Even with that, he had his usual "fox in the chicken run" effect on Brazil's defence and they were lucky to scramble the ball clear a number of times from follow-up efforts by other Argentinians. Frankly I haven't seen anyone since Best or Maradonna that puts the willies up a defence like Messi. Hope he doesn't get injured; even though he's a strong lad, like Rooney, he's still young and we've seen other tremendous talents - Brazil's Ronaldo and Owen come to mind - not quite reach the heights they could have because they lost a step to injury before they were 20. The other small error I note was Heinze not hustling to stay onside that led to the disallowed goal. He's a defender, true, but you expect a player of his calibre to have awareness at all times. It was probably too late to matter but you never know, in all of Argentina's other games we saw the "dam breaks" phenomenon - once they got one they got a lot.In any event, a "clean sheet" for Brazil's was a bit much. I speak as someone with no general favor for Argentina - I still remember Rattin, The Hand of God, the Beckham provocation - but right now, they're paying the best fitba on the globe. Finally, Brazil with Kaka and Ronaldinho will be very formidable. It will be very interesting to see how Dunga adapts when they return. Hat's off to Dunga and Brazil!

Argentina is the new Brazil
Brazil may have won the Copa America again over Argentina but they did it playing like Italy. Don't get me wrong: I like Italy but I've come to expect something different from Brazil. The aspect of Brazil's win that other nations should find most chilling is a new-found deadliness in front of goal. Except for a patch in the 8os and early 90s Brazil won by profligacy. They made so many chances that eventually they scored even on a bad day. No longer. This was a counter-attacking team today. Argentina controlled the play and even against a massed defence made enough chances to win. When Riquelme hit the post about 10 minutes after Julio Baptiste opened the scoring I had the sense it wasn't going to be Argentina's day. The most disturbing aspect of the game was the way Brazil made sure that they committed fouls 10-20 yards from the box; this is Carlos Dunga. I didn't see the final count but there must have been 20 or more, mainly on Messi. Far enough out to take away the threat of a direct strike.

Warne or Muralitharan; greatest bowlers ever?

Once again my humble submission was rejected by the Beeb. They started a blog question devoted to the above. The lead-in was the usual pastiche of anecdotes and random stats and considerations. I submitted a short piece indicating how such an analysis could be done systematically. This is apparently unacceptable. (By the way someone has set up a blog devoted to Beeb “censorship”.)

The current “debate” is another example of the hype of recency. There is no doubt that Warme and Murali have taken more wickets. The question is: if Bill O’Reilly or Hedley Verity or Wilfred Rhodes or Jim Laker (focussing on spinners) had played as many matches over a similar span of time against batsmen of comparable skill on comparable pitches would they have claimed about the same? At what cost? On the face of it Murali has a strong claim: 674 wickets at 21.7 runs per wicket in 110 matches. However, a more detailed look reveals that against the best batsmen of his era – Australia and India – he averages 32.5 and 31.4 in 26 matches. Given that many matches these would certainly be statistically different from his overall average at a high level (99%) of confidence. I conclude that Murali is as good against mediocre batting as, e.g. Laker (196 wickets in 46 matches at 21.2) was against all batting and merely average against good batting. Warne has taken more wickets (708) in many more matches (145) for an average of 25.4. However, Warne’s numbers are pretty consistent against all opposition, except for India who shellacked him but in a very small number of matches.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m admirer of both Murali and Warne. They just don’t warrant the hype. As for the comparison; it’s a bit of a toss-up.

Da Bears

Bradmetrics is rooting (not in the Oz sense!) heavily for Da Bears in the upcoming superbowl. This is going to be a nail-biter unlike the 1986 Bears which had surely the most overpowering defence in NFL history (yes, even surpassing the Steel Curtain and certainly the more recent Ravens and Bucs defences). It's hard to root against Tony Dungy, though. It's been very nice to see that even the mainstream media have noted that this supremely American championship this year features two coaches (Dungy and Llovie Smith) who show that you can win without pursuing "win at all costs".