quantumofsport.com

Sports calendar: The Big 10 for 2010

Having taken advantage of one or two quieter moments over the festive season to scour the schedules for the year ahead, quantumofsport.com is proud to present its brand new “Sports calendar 2010”. As ever, it will be a busy 12 months in the world of sport, with a range of top events competing for our attention. The calendar represents our (non-exhaustive) selection of what to look out for. We’ve also picked out – here below – ten of the biggest sporting occasions of the year, restricting ourselves to one entry for each sport we cover on a regular basis: it’s The Big 10 for 2010. Let’s hope there’s plenty of drama in store…

Feb 6-Mar 20, Six Nations rugby (for N. hemisphere fans at least!)
Feb 12-28, Winter Olympics, Vancouver, Canada
Apr 17-May 3, snooker World Championship, Crucible Theatre, Sheffield
May 16, Formula 1 Monaco GP (or any other between Mar 14 and Nov 14!)
Jun 11-Jul 11, soccer World Cup, South Africa
Jun 21-Jul 4, Wimbledon tennis
Jul 3-25, Tour de France (starting in Rotterdam and Brussels)
Oct 1-3, Ryder Cup golf, Celtic Manor, Wales
Oct 3-14, Commonwealth Games, New Delhi, India
Nov 25->, Ashes Test cricket series Australia v England

For the full calendar, click here.

Wrapping up the Ashes 2009.

Our man by the urn, The Worm, offers some honest and thoughtful reflections on the series as a whole.
 
So much has already been written about England’s series victory in the Ashes that it becomes a challenge to be both honest and original 72 hours on. Much has been focussed on the result, asking how and why the series came to pass as it did. But to study history means submitting to chaos while retaining faith in order and meaning; there was no unifying destiny to this series and but for a few moments here and there it would be Australia celebrating a retained urn. Sport is of course about results but results are sometimes the product of a moment or a millimetre.
 
What has passed has passed. These teams were every bit as close as predicted, and the series swung on a few crucial moments. Monty Panesar looked embarrassed to join in the Oval celebrations but in truth his last wicket stand with James Anderson in the first test was as decisive as any contribution to the series outcome. The opening session at Lords was another defining moment, Strauss and Cook wrestling initiative back before Australia’s measly first innings total. But just as the last minute goals are remembered best, so it was Stuart Broad’s thrilling spell on Friday afternoon that finally swung this series into the lap of the home side. But for any of these and we might be focussing on four centurions in an innings in Cardiff, the lawless first morning at Headingley and England’s failing middle order.
 
Yet no matter how well matched the teams were, it was rare to see them both playing at a level. Where one side dominated the other crumbled, more often than not in the first innings of the match. The three results told of heavy wins, heavy losses; 115 runs, an innings and 80 runs, 197 runs. None of the games were close, revealing parity even in the emotional fragility of the sides. Emotionally fragile? Australia? What must Allan Border and Steve Waugh make of this?
 
Much has been made of the disparity in statistics- Australia had the three highest wicket takers of the series and scored eight centuries to England’s two. But these are skewed by Cardiff where Australia achieved half of those three figure totals and took thirteen more wickets than England. Moreover, Anderson, Flintoff, Onions, Broad and Swann each had their moment where they took the initiative and provided match-winning spells. England had four fiver-fers, Australia two. Bowling wins matches, batting provides the platform.
 
The teams differed in their response to underachievement. Australia were too quick to discard Philip Hughes, a fledgling talent upon whom too much was expected. Fifty seven runs in three innings was far from the planned return but Hughes was dropped because the Australians feared that England had found a weakness in his response to the short ball that could not be fixed on this tour. Had they not lost at Lords, they may not have panicked. Shane Watson came in and averaged 48, but with a top score of 62 it never seemed that he had a big score in him, admirably managing to survive the new ball before losing his wicket when he should have pushed on. He fails to convince as a genuine opener.
 
They showed more loyalty to Mitchell Johnson in spite of only one performance of note. This left Brett Lee in the role of team butler and crucially kept Nathan Hauritz out of the Oval team, where the surface made Marcus North look like Shane Warne reincarnated in the body of a golfer. Australia relied on the bowling of the supposed second string - Ben Hilfenhaus throughout and as the series progressed, the impressive, aggressive Peter Siddle. Neither deserves to go home a loser.
 
England stuck with Ravi Bopara until his position became untenable. Pieterson’s injury may have earned him selection in the fourth test but after Headingley the media were right in their unanimous calls for a change. Like Hughes, he will return, and probably for the winter tour to South Africa. Bopara’s failure opened the way for Jonathan Trott’s timely, distinguished, nerveless introduction to test cricket. The Worm is delighted to admit he was wrong in criticising this selection; Trott displayed a refreshing ability to embrace the highest pressure that speaks of a long career in the high middle order. One wonders what this reveals of the South African mentality, thinking back to Pieterson’s self-assured early test innings. Of those who started the series, only Andrew Strauss (born in Johannesburg) showed such consistent steel; playing with purpose throughout the series, Strauss was justly voted England’s most influential player and has earned the lifelong mantle of "Ashes-winning captain". On such things are careers defined, and as an Englishman and Middlesex supporter it is with some pride that The Worm can reflect on the manner in which Strauss has turned his form around since the tour to New Zealand eighteen months ago.
 
Australia still have an enviable middle order; Hussey had a torrid series, unaware of the location of his off stump. His series would have been summed up by his first-baller to Graham Onions on the second morning at Edgbaston but for his brave hundred on the final day. Ponting and Clarke need no justification, while North showed calm once off the mark, likely to score either a duck or a century whilst making worthy contributions with the ball. Crucially, however, the lower order failed with the bat.
 
Matt Prior won the battle of the two wicket keepers, Brad Haddin scored more runs but not at crucial times. Prior played with an authority that belied the criticism that has dogged his test career. Few men in the England side have leadership quality about them; Prior does, and for the first time in his England career he has gone an entire series without looking out of place behind the stumps. He raised his game well. Behind him, Flintoff, Broad and Swann all scored telling runs to compensate for the failures of the higher order. This perhaps was the greatest difference between the two sides, saving England from substandard totals at crucial times. It is a while since England batted down to number nine and if they intend to make good on their claims to reach number 1 status they need a batting all-rounder to replace the leviathan Flintoff.
 
As the sun sets on a curious series, the unanswered questions return. This win is inconclusive and it ends with big doubts over Alastair Cook and Paul Collingwood, both of whom had only one big, if influential, innings. Cook may be redeemed by the lack of obvious openers to replace him, and his questionable standing as vice captain. Collingwood can only be redeemed by his evident value to the team ethic, but his first team status may not last to the winter. Cameos by the faces of ’05 did little to change their stock - Bell was exposed by nerves but still managed important runs, Harmison appeared as a welcome old friend but did nothing to warrant selection over Onions. If not quite a cameo, Flintoff’s role became more peripheral after his moment at Lords although his run-out of Ponting at the Oval was sublime sporting theatre and his celebration a perfect farewell. Come to me, he calls, his teammates and the nation obey.
 
The series enthralled and there were snippets of great quality but it will not live long in the memory as a whole. The nation was gripped at the weekends, but off the terrestrial channels it was noticably missing in the workplace. Remarkably, over twenty two days of intense cricket, the teams have not developed. They are, as the rankings suggest, fourth and fifth in the world and will move on with doubts, England to S Africa and Australia to home series against West Indies and Pakistan. This series suggest they are both international also-rans.

Broad puts England on unlikely brink.

Our man by the urn, The Worm, assesses the first two days of the final Ashes Test Match.

The pendulum has swung again as penduli have a tendency to do, and it is perhaps fitting that Flintoff’s heir apparent has taken the series away from Australia with a series-defining burst of 5/37, tearing through the heart of Australia’s batting line up with 4/8 in 21 balls. Stuart Broad has come to the party with controlled seam bowling that got such sudden results. Broad’s intelligence was particularly impressive, the planning which was so absent in Cardiff, perfectly executed. Ponting rushed by the bounce, forced to play on; Hussey given balls he couldn’t leave, defeated by the inswinger; Clarke encouraged to lean wide to scoop a drive to Trott. Broad played to the weaknesses of these experienced and high quality batsmen and showed how good, how bright he can be.
 
Jonathan Trott has impressed on debut. He has looked relaxed and undaunted, unlike the more experienced Collingwood who has been nothing short of terrible. Indeed, Trott’s authority, his footwork and his strokeplay suggest that he could, in time, graduate to the crucial number three position. And it helps that he is a terrific fielder. It would be nice to see him and Strauss put together a partnership this morning to take the game away from Australia and forestall the usual nailbiter. Strauss is playing a very personal game, bubbling with excitement at winning the toss and aware that he is the stability of the batting order, a captain who seems unable to rely on his batting colleagues. He has shown impeccable concentration, left anything he did not need to play and is leading by his actions. It is good to see.
 
Swann took 4 wickets but was given the benefit of some awful umpiring decisions, North got a huge inside edge and was given lbw, Johnson was a long way from the ball and was given out caught. On the other side, Bell and Strauss were both out to no balls on Day 1. For test cricket the umpiring standard has been uncharacteristically poor all series. As I write this, Asad Rauf has just made a magnificent decision to give Trott not out to the first ball of the day- it looked to all the world like it was caught behind but the replays showed it came off thighpad. Making up for some poor decisions yesterday, perhaps, but sadly for the visitors it is the inconsistency that can tip a close game in one direction or the other.
 
Australia are unfortunate to have lost the toss on this wicket. It put them in a situation of uncertainty which they did not respond to well. Batting collapses are rarely about great bowling in isolation; they tell of nerves and frailty, and for all their big totals it is the third collapse we have seen from them in the series. Telling statistics. As well as Broad bowled, as difficult as the wicket is, they should have got more than 160 and they faltered. Australia were defeated by the moment and it will probably cost them the series. Or is there time for another swing of the pendulum?

Meek England Destined To Fail If They Ignore The Headingley Panic.

Our man by the urn, The Worm, continues to cast his all-seeing eye over the seesawing Ashes series...

 

Was that it? A measly two and a half days and a result effectively decided within the first two hours. Even by the standards of English cricket collapses, this fourth test was one hell of a submission. There is a crushing finality about winning the toss, batting first and totalling 102; as the plain speaking Geoffrey Boycott would have it: “that were rubbish”.

Strauss should have been given out to the first ball of the match and clearly had his mind on things other than his batting. Perhaps this can be explained by the chaos of Friday morning or the proximity of an Ashes series victory and the impact that would have on his CV. With the openers’ failure to perform we were shown the awesome potential of England’s line-up to lose a series over the course of one session, the second time they may have attained such a grand achievement in a calendar year. The collapse was discernible by the loss of the second wicket, Bopara’s feeble backfoot push to Hussey, the very nature of the shot pronouncing absolute submission.

England’s collective frailty returns and at the worst possible moment, the business end of the series. Leaving the mental failing aside, how can this be explained in cricketing terms? Discipline (our old friend from Cardiff) and shot selection are again central.

Australia finally selected Stuart Clark, the metronomic stock-ball good-line bowler to complement Hilfenhaus. Add Siddle bowling short and aggressive, Johnson mixing it up, and overcast conditions allowing for a bit of swing and it made for a tricky first morning, one where the batsman’s greatest asset is a confident leave. But in this era of Twenty20 cricket and four-runs-an-over Tests, England’s batsmen could not suppress their instincts and man after man found himself caught behind square playing at balls they had no need to play. Cricketers, and batsmen in particular, are meant to be cerebral, to be able to think about their game and adapt. Failing that, the coaching staff need to be smarter and louder.

The Worm is reminded of that bullied feeling of 2006/7, but this time it feels so self-inflicted. England entered the match on the verge of series victory, three days later and that thought is inconceivable. England’s backroom is talking up the importance of keeping calm, but the panic is both understandable and necessary as we approach endgame. It tells us that this was not simply a defeat, it was a monumental shift of authority. So much was lost in this fourth test, and paramount to the anxiety is the high middle-order of Bopara, Bell and Collingwood. There seems no plausible way that the Oval test can be won with that line-up and this mindset.

Bopara simply has to be dropped. He was selected to play his shots, score freely and take the total forward but he cannot do that right now and he won’t at the Oval. He’s had seven goes in this series, that’s enough. An Ashes series often takes a victim – think Craig White or Geraint Jones. Bopara is broken, this was clear in his diffident first innings dismissal and his unfortunate, prophetic golden duck in the second. He can be fixed, but not this season. The match at the Oval is too big.

So who do the selectors turn to? Blood a test novice like Trott? Call on the other man in the wings, Rob Key? Wrong-foot us all and pick for the future with young Craig Keiswetter? Or do they bow to media pressure and turn to county cricket’s classiest bat, averaging 100 in 14 innings, Mark Ramprakash. The Worm must admit to having heard Ramprakash’s name mentioned in this context as far back as Cardiff but dismissed the idea as fanciful. Since then, with Michael Schumacher returning to a Grand Prix car and A-Ha all set to play the O2 arena, comebacks are becoming routine. There will be those who argue that it serves no purpose to bring back a 40 year-old for one final bow, that it will be to the detriment of the team’s progress. This is nonsense because for games of this magnitude you don’t select for next year, you pick the best XI available to you at this point in time. Ramprakash, who plays his county cricket at the Oval, has nothing to lose and this gives him the advantage of playing without the pressure to retain his spot. His comparative test failure was put down to his response to pressure although it is only fair to reflect that 90s test cricket was overrun with wonderful, world-class pace attacks. There are no young Englishmen with his calibre, and winning an Ashes series with him will benefit English cricket far more than blooding Jonathan Trott and watching him fail. It seems that Marcus Trescothick would turn down the chance of an international swansong, so we shall avoid going down that avenue.

The Worm is sure that the selectors will not be so bold and fully expects Trott to be the change to the team, another makeshift number three. Media clamour seems to spark the selectors into giving the people what they don’t want. England’s complacency is now to their detriment and they should be listening to the panic within English cricket, panic that stems from losing so much ground in such a short space of time. Bringing experience and solidity into the high middle-order will not guarantee victory, but it would make for a more level final game.

 

Two sides without aura, but which has the Ashes momentum?

It started with a decidedly uncontroversial comment about Australia’s aura. A non-story, but gleefully dispatched and replayed on the metaphorical big screen of easy journalism until it was either calculated genius or a risky bit of stubby-stirring. Seen from The Wormery it was a massive red herring - that Australia 2009 are less experienced and less intimidating than one of the all-time great sides is a fact. “Should this account for aura?” is a pseudo-intellectual debate. The players play and the hacks hack. Cricket is a game of solitude, the team performance depends on the accumulation of entirely individual achievements; individuals functioning selfishly, oblivious to talk of aura.

By the anticlimactic final sessions of the third 2009 Ashes test at Edgbaston the talk had shifted subtly from aura to momentum, scope for some less clear-cut debate. The series remains finely poised and still remarkably hard to call. What have we learned from this match?

 

Consider the role of the weather - not only were five sessions lost, preventing a fascinating climax, but the overhead conditions dictated the calibre of the bowling. England looked so bland on the first and last days yet mesmeric on Day 2. When the ball is swinging their attack looks lethal; ponder Onions’ thrilling two wickets in the first two balls of the day, and Anderson’s ball to dismiss Manou, the definition of explosive unplayability. But on the less dynamic days they failed with the ball, and without swing there is a lack of patience to tempt batsmen out with stock, persistent line-and-length deliveries - Anderson was underbowled, Flintoff visibly toiling under his increasing bulk, Onions honest but expensive, Broad still wayward. Swann, too, was off line on a final day which can be seen as a collective failure to take the initiative and which could prove costly come the end of this close series.

The Worm saw some signs of progress and self belief from the Australian performance amidst the talk of negative body language. On the final day they not only saved the match but got themselves into a potentially winning position, Day 2 a distant memory. Michael Clarke was, in particular, unflappable and has arguably taken over from Ponting as the key wicket in the line-up and the most technically correct player of the series.

 

For all the esotericism of the selection, Shane Watson played an important part with the bat. Still looking more the one-day player than test opener, he looked to score quickly but stuck around when needed in difficult sessions. Dropping bright-young-thing Hughes after one bad test was a clear panic decision, motivated by the increasing urgency to win a match to retain the urn. This fear can only grow as the opportunities diminish, leading one to wonder whether Lee is going to be rushed back before he is ready (even if recovered from injury, with no cricket for over a month selecting him would surely be far too great a gamble) or whether Stuart Clark will finally be seen.  

 

Hilfenhaus has not let up and remains the pick of the bunch; Johnson looked better on Day 4, aggressive, on line and prepared to chirp back at the batsmen, signs perhaps that we will see a performance of menace from him before the series ends. Nevertheless, the way Prior and Flintoff took the game from 168-5 on Sunday tells us that more control is needed from the Australian attack. With one of the experienced quicks coming into the side for Leeds, and the sense that this England batting line-up is due a match-costing low total in one of the next four innings, it seems the tourists are getting stronger for the push to the finish.

We go to Headingley with Bopara, Broad and Cook at the top of the vulnerability chart for England, but in reality there is no likelihood of a selection change unless Flintoff’s overworked, load-bearing joints give in. A word on Matthew Prior, who has made important contributions with the bat in all three matches, has improved his keeping immeasurably and looks to be carrying the authority of a senior player. Aware that some of his predictions thus far have been let down by events in reality, The Worm hopes this does not cue a pair and a crucial flurry of drops.

 

So where does the momentum lie? Much will be written, but in truth it is impossible to call. The fact is that England are now one win from regaining the Ashes. A strong position to be in, but are there hints that the pendulum is swinging back to the Gold and Green?