The off-season pessism at Newcastle was well-documented. But the belief now sweeping around St James’ Park is tangible.
The Toon held on to 4th place in the Premier League, as Alan Pardew’s men continued their unbeaten start to the season with a 3-1 win over Blackburn Rovers.
It was encouraging to see Demba Ba notch his first goal for the club – and then even more satisfying that the summer signing from West Ham managed to claim a hat-trick. The Senegalese striker joins Leon Best at the top of the Toon’s goalscoring chart, though Best himself missed a number of good opportunities to add to his season’s tally against Rovers this afternoon.
That minor complaint aside, though, Pardew and his squad deserve a lot of credit for the first six games of the season. Newcastle’s record is an impressive three wins and three draws, but perhaps the most striking statistic is that the Toon have conceded the fewest goals in the whole of England. Today’s consolation for Junior Hoilett was only the third time that the excellent Tim Krul has had his net breached in the league.
Admittedly, Nottingham Forest scored three in the Carling Cup tie in midweek, but even that wasn’t enough to overcome a resilient Newcastle, for whom captain Fabricio Coloccini grabbed a 120th-minute winner.
Newcastle have shown few signs of missing Jose Enrique, even with emergency left-back Ryan Taylor struggling at times to keep tabs on wingers exploiting his lack of positional experience. But Andy Carroll, Kevin Nolan and Joey Barton have been replaced well by Ba, Best, Gabriel Obertan, Sylvain Marveaux and the irrepressible Yohan Cabaye. With Hatem Ben Arfa finally getting back to full fitness and Davide Santon not needing surgery, Newcastle has turned the corner well in terms of the disruption of the overhaul of players.
Sure, there are still more than rumblings of discontent with Mike Ashley and his so-called Cockney Mafia. But the on-the-field performances have been encouraging, to say the least.
Ba had underperformed this season before today’s treble, but that can be largely attributed to the fact that he was fasting during the period of Ramadan. With Ba demonstrating his prowess, the defence tight and belief exuding from the Magpies, this – it has to be said unexpected – optimism will hopefully continue to prevail on Tyneside for a long time.
Saturday, 24 September 2011
England, even in winning, and France provide little to strike fear into later opponents
In all likelihood, England will face France in the Rugby World Cup quarterfinals, with the winner expecting to play either Ireland or Wales.
The Celts will be confident, whoever they face.
England waltzed to a 67-3 win over lowly Romania in Dunedin in today’s early match, scoring ten tries in a match that, on the face of things, should banish most of the bad feeling that has been lingering around the England team. Wingers Chris Ashton and Mark Cueto scored a hat-trick each, and the Oaks barely resisted a much-improved performance from England’s backs, with Manu Tuilagi and Ben Foden also cutting through the blue-shirted defence with ease.
But, despite the marked improvement from Martin Johnson’s men in comparison with the performances against Argentina and Georgia, this victory should not eliminate all the concerns within the English camp. This was not the same Romania side that ran Scotland so close – many of their more solid and experienced players started this game on the bench, resting before their encounter with Georgia, the one match they feel they have a chance of winning.
England also continued to commit silly penalties when it was not required, although, admittedly, the problem was nothing like the scourge that blighted their performances in the earlier pool matches. Judgement on England by their potential knockout opponents should be reserved until they give a dominating performance against a team of far more rugby calibre than Romania. Scotland should provide that challenge when the sides meet next Saturday; until then, there is little reason why Ireland, France and Wales should see England as having made any great progress in the past six days.
England were certainly impressive – but most teams would be in the face of a Romanian side that could not win its own lineout, could not catch and seemed frightened of taking the game to their opponents.
France, on the other hand, were a shambles. Apart from the first eight minutes, the controversial selection policy of Marc Lievremont had clearly not paid dividends – far from it. New Zealand were constantly on the attack and the backline – especially Ma’a Nonu, Dan Carter, Israel Dagg and substitute Sonny Bill Williams – seemed to break through their French opponents’ tackling almost at will.
Some passages of play resembled those seen in matches between teams with a far greater gulf in class than the Eden Park crowd expected to see. This was most obviously the case with the try within a matter of moments after the second half kick-off, when the All Blacks broke up the middle with almost embarrassing ease. Again, at the death, responding to a few minutes of French toil that finally brought Les Bleus seven points, the hosts raced downfield before spreading the ball to allow Williams himself to slide over for his side’s fifth score.
But it was more a case of the French being desperately disappointing than the All Blacks being imposing. France committed a catalogue of basic errors, were short of discipline and, for the most part, clueless. Their two tries were hardly demonstrations of any prowess – one was a fifty-metre interception score for Maxime Mermoz; the other, from Francois Trinh-Duc (Lievremont swallowed his pride to order him to replace Morgan Parra at fly-half), came from a tap penalty taken by Dmitri Yachvili while it appeared that the All Black forwards were still getting a talking-to from referee Alain Rolland.
Whatever Lievremont was trying to achieve with his almost-random selection policy was not achieved; even if, as conspiracy theorists have suggested, he wanted to lose, that will backfire considering the scale of this defeat. Lievremont is leaving his post as French coach at the end of the tournament, though, so his thinking could have been to employ a scorched-earth policy… At least that would explain the abysmal performance.
Ireland and Wales have both impressed so far – Ireland providing the shock of the World Cup by beating Australia; Wales by coming so close – on more than one occasion – to turning over the world champion Springboks. The winner of a quarterfinal between those two would have next to no evidence from today’s fixtures to fear either England or, especially, France, even if Lievremont were to restore his players to their natural positions.
That said, it would be typical of Ireland, but particularly of Wales, to self-implode themselves – they must prove, against Italy and Fiji respectively (wins over Russia and Namibia are a given) that France or England should fear them.
The Celts will be confident, whoever they face.
England waltzed to a 67-3 win over lowly Romania in Dunedin in today’s early match, scoring ten tries in a match that, on the face of things, should banish most of the bad feeling that has been lingering around the England team. Wingers Chris Ashton and Mark Cueto scored a hat-trick each, and the Oaks barely resisted a much-improved performance from England’s backs, with Manu Tuilagi and Ben Foden also cutting through the blue-shirted defence with ease.
But, despite the marked improvement from Martin Johnson’s men in comparison with the performances against Argentina and Georgia, this victory should not eliminate all the concerns within the English camp. This was not the same Romania side that ran Scotland so close – many of their more solid and experienced players started this game on the bench, resting before their encounter with Georgia, the one match they feel they have a chance of winning.
England also continued to commit silly penalties when it was not required, although, admittedly, the problem was nothing like the scourge that blighted their performances in the earlier pool matches. Judgement on England by their potential knockout opponents should be reserved until they give a dominating performance against a team of far more rugby calibre than Romania. Scotland should provide that challenge when the sides meet next Saturday; until then, there is little reason why Ireland, France and Wales should see England as having made any great progress in the past six days.
England were certainly impressive – but most teams would be in the face of a Romanian side that could not win its own lineout, could not catch and seemed frightened of taking the game to their opponents.
France, on the other hand, were a shambles. Apart from the first eight minutes, the controversial selection policy of Marc Lievremont had clearly not paid dividends – far from it. New Zealand were constantly on the attack and the backline – especially Ma’a Nonu, Dan Carter, Israel Dagg and substitute Sonny Bill Williams – seemed to break through their French opponents’ tackling almost at will.
Some passages of play resembled those seen in matches between teams with a far greater gulf in class than the Eden Park crowd expected to see. This was most obviously the case with the try within a matter of moments after the second half kick-off, when the All Blacks broke up the middle with almost embarrassing ease. Again, at the death, responding to a few minutes of French toil that finally brought Les Bleus seven points, the hosts raced downfield before spreading the ball to allow Williams himself to slide over for his side’s fifth score.
But it was more a case of the French being desperately disappointing than the All Blacks being imposing. France committed a catalogue of basic errors, were short of discipline and, for the most part, clueless. Their two tries were hardly demonstrations of any prowess – one was a fifty-metre interception score for Maxime Mermoz; the other, from Francois Trinh-Duc (Lievremont swallowed his pride to order him to replace Morgan Parra at fly-half), came from a tap penalty taken by Dmitri Yachvili while it appeared that the All Black forwards were still getting a talking-to from referee Alain Rolland.
Whatever Lievremont was trying to achieve with his almost-random selection policy was not achieved; even if, as conspiracy theorists have suggested, he wanted to lose, that will backfire considering the scale of this defeat. Lievremont is leaving his post as French coach at the end of the tournament, though, so his thinking could have been to employ a scorched-earth policy… At least that would explain the abysmal performance.
Ireland and Wales have both impressed so far – Ireland providing the shock of the World Cup by beating Australia; Wales by coming so close – on more than one occasion – to turning over the world champion Springboks. The winner of a quarterfinal between those two would have next to no evidence from today’s fixtures to fear either England or, especially, France, even if Lievremont were to restore his players to their natural positions.
That said, it would be typical of Ireland, but particularly of Wales, to self-implode themselves – they must prove, against Italy and Fiji respectively (wins over Russia and Namibia are a given) that France or England should fear them.
Friday, 23 September 2011
All Blacks should be wary of dismissing admittedly bizarre French selection
“Rugby World Cup’s $460 French farce,” exclaimed the broadsheet New Zealand Herald newspaper earlier this week upon hearing the news of Les Bleus’ controversial selection policy for their Pool A showdown with the All Blacks tomorrow morning.
Marc Lievremont, who will leave his post as French coach at the end of this tournament, has frequently courted criticism from the domestic media for the bizarre, inconsistent teams he selects, as well as his questionable man-management style. After a 22-21 defeat in Italy in the Six Nations Championship earlier this year, for example, he criticised his players for having betrayed the national shirt: “They are cursed with cowardice.”
For tomorrow’s fixture at Eden Park he has, according to the New Zealand press, plumbed new depths, disrespecting the tournament by aiming to lose deliberately in order to avoid the half of the draw containing Australia and South Africa (not to mention their World Cup nemesis, Argentina, should they beat Scotland on Sunday). A loss to the All Blacks would instead see the French competing with likely quarterfinalists England, Ireland and Wales for a place in the final.
The most obviously bizarre choice was Morgan Parra, who has been selected at outside-half despite plying his trade at scrum-half. His kicking – particularly from the tee –rivals that of most number tens, but the extent to which he can control the game, a vital skill for a fly-half to have, is certainly open for debate. In addition, Damien Traille, more accustomed to playing in the centre, is picked at full-back.
Predictably, France has reacted angrily to suggestions that they are seeking to lose deliberately; (tomorrow’s) scrum-half Dmitri Yachvili responded to the allegations with Andre Villas-Boasesque levels of sarcasm. Surely not even a coach as eccentric as is Lievremont would attempt to sabotage his own team in the manner that he has been accused of doing. A side of France’s talent will aim to get as far as the final – and that can hardly be squared with the apparent attempt to scoot in by the back door. France are good enough to beat either Australia and South Africa (and they know it), and if they beat the All Blacks in the pool stage, what is to say that they cannot repeat the feat in the semifinal?
After all the fuss, it would be typical of the French to go and beat the All Blacks, even in spite of all the huffing and puffing that Les Bleus had to go through in order to see off Japan and Canada in their previous matches in the pool. Or perhaps that should say that it would be typical of the All Blacks to lose to the French.
After all, New Zealand have always struggled against France in World Cups. In 1999 (semifinal) and 2007 (quarterfinal), the All Blacks, heavy favourites on both occasions, were upset by French upstarts. That considered – as well as the extra motivation that the New Zealand Herald and fellow media outlets will provide for France – the All Blacks and their fans would do well not to complain too much about the line-up their team will face.
Because, despite the strength of New Zealand’s own team, it is not too difficult to envisage a third successive Gallic World Cup victory over the perennial favourites.
Marc Lievremont, who will leave his post as French coach at the end of this tournament, has frequently courted criticism from the domestic media for the bizarre, inconsistent teams he selects, as well as his questionable man-management style. After a 22-21 defeat in Italy in the Six Nations Championship earlier this year, for example, he criticised his players for having betrayed the national shirt: “They are cursed with cowardice.”
For tomorrow’s fixture at Eden Park he has, according to the New Zealand press, plumbed new depths, disrespecting the tournament by aiming to lose deliberately in order to avoid the half of the draw containing Australia and South Africa (not to mention their World Cup nemesis, Argentina, should they beat Scotland on Sunday). A loss to the All Blacks would instead see the French competing with likely quarterfinalists England, Ireland and Wales for a place in the final.
The most obviously bizarre choice was Morgan Parra, who has been selected at outside-half despite plying his trade at scrum-half. His kicking – particularly from the tee –rivals that of most number tens, but the extent to which he can control the game, a vital skill for a fly-half to have, is certainly open for debate. In addition, Damien Traille, more accustomed to playing in the centre, is picked at full-back.
Predictably, France has reacted angrily to suggestions that they are seeking to lose deliberately; (tomorrow’s) scrum-half Dmitri Yachvili responded to the allegations with Andre Villas-Boasesque levels of sarcasm. Surely not even a coach as eccentric as is Lievremont would attempt to sabotage his own team in the manner that he has been accused of doing. A side of France’s talent will aim to get as far as the final – and that can hardly be squared with the apparent attempt to scoot in by the back door. France are good enough to beat either Australia and South Africa (and they know it), and if they beat the All Blacks in the pool stage, what is to say that they cannot repeat the feat in the semifinal?
After all the fuss, it would be typical of the French to go and beat the All Blacks, even in spite of all the huffing and puffing that Les Bleus had to go through in order to see off Japan and Canada in their previous matches in the pool. Or perhaps that should say that it would be typical of the All Blacks to lose to the French.
After all, New Zealand have always struggled against France in World Cups. In 1999 (semifinal) and 2007 (quarterfinal), the All Blacks, heavy favourites on both occasions, were upset by French upstarts. That considered – as well as the extra motivation that the New Zealand Herald and fellow media outlets will provide for France – the All Blacks and their fans would do well not to complain too much about the line-up their team will face.
Because, despite the strength of New Zealand’s own team, it is not too difficult to envisage a third successive Gallic World Cup victory over the perennial favourites.
Tindall's men must take the opportunity to prove a point
Ever a sensible face amongst the hysteria whipped up by the media and an attention-seeking security guard, England coach Martin Johnson has refused to rise to the bait of those pronouncing a sense of panic within his side’s ranks.
England, of course, remain unbeaten in this year’s Rugby World Cup, after having seen off Pool B top seeds Argentina and lowly Georgia, but the manner of those wins has simply encouraged the doom-mongers, who have this week been further encouraged by apparent late-night shenanigans engaged in by Johnson’s men.
Captain Mike Tindall, recently married to the Queen’s granddaughter Zara Phillips, played a central role in the controversy (such as it was), apparently captured on CCTV footage leaked by the aforementioned guard in an amorous embrace with another woman. The team as a whole were also involved in a bizarre dwarf-throwing incident in the party town of Queenstown. Most ridiculously, Johnson was criticised for allowing his squad to bungee jump; less frenzied coverage pointed out the marked difference with the England football team at last year’s World Cup campaign in South Africa, who were cooped up, bored, in their hotel rooms, something that was widely accepted as contributing towards their early exit.
That Johnson has not imposed such strict rules on his group of players – who are adults, after all – should reflect well on his man-management skills. However, while the controversy surrounding the team’s visit to bars and clubs is overblown, the players should know not to take advantage of their freedom, something which has also put unnecessary additional pressure on Johnson himself.
Following a fortnight of relatively negative headlines – the stale brand of rugby evident in the defeats of Argentina and Georgia as well as the reporting of England’s off-the-field antics – the team which steps out at against Romania on Saturday morning will feel that they have a huge point to prove.
Certainly, in purely rugby terms, England have hardly impressed so far. Some have pointed out, fairly, that England need not (and indeed should not) peak at such an early stage in the tournament. Even so, the performances have been undisciplined, lacking conviction. A narrow 13-9 win over an Argentina that is little more than a shadow of the side that finished third in 2007 was followed by a 41-10 win over Georgia, but that scoreline hardly reflects the difficulty that England – who led by only seven points at the break – faced. In both matches, England had a player sent to the sin bin, and they can be thankful that Georgia’s Merab Kvirikashvili and Argentina’s Martin Rodriguez have missed a total of eleven penalty kicks over the course of the last 160 minutes of play.
As the cliché states, it is a mark of a good team that they can still win even when playing badly. Even so, Saturday, and England’s third match at Dunedin’s Otago Stadium, provides an excellent opportunity to go some way to making amends for the (perceived and actual) shortcomings displayed so far. Romania is probably the weakest side in the pool, and you can only fear what could happen to them if England succeed in their attempts to make a statement, if they manage to draw a line under what has happened so far and start their campaign afresh. A win on the scale of South Africa’s 87-0 destruction of Namibia on Thursday is not completely out of the question, though it would represent a stunning turnaround in English fortunes.
Indeed, it would be foolish to count on such a scoreline, not least considering the difficulty Scotland had against the Eastern Europeans in their meeting two weekends ago. Scotland did secure a bonus-point win in Invercargill, but the 34-24 result indicates the discomfort that the Oaks – who only fell behind in the last five minutes of the match after a Simon Danielli double – caused for Scotland.
As such, England have named an arguably stronger side than the one that toiled so much against Georgia. Captain Tindall is recalled, and as he takes his place in midfield he will know that he will be the centre of attention. He will also, of course, also be aware of the most effective way to answer his critics. Jonny Wilkinson replaces Toby Flood, and England’s 2003 World Cup-winner will have no better opportunity to banish the demons of his previous start against Argentina, when he missed an unprecedented five kicks at goal out of eight. There are five further changes to the side that faced Georgia, as Mark Cueto, Alex Corbisiero, Steve Thompson, Louis Deacon and Tom Croft all start. Courtney Lawes, meanwhile, serves the second of his two-game suspension.
The Romanian players are no mugs, though, and they will put up a tough physical battle, particularly upfront. England have been penalised to such an extent that Romania’s gameplan will surely revolve around a tactic to draw infringements at the breakdown. The importance of eradicating ill-discipline will not be revealed so clearly against a side of Romania’s calibre, but England must eliminate that side of their game, which has so obviously frustrated both referees and Martin Johnson, before they encounter a team with the capability of taking advantage of those errors. Scotland, for example, would fancy their chances of overcoming an England side which fails to keep control in the manner that it has done so far. If England are serious about regaining the Webb Ellis trophy, they must demonstrate to their rivals on Saturday that they have – finally – turned up to the party. How well Romania manage to play the spoiler role will determine the scale of England’s win.
This was originally published at The Vibe
England, of course, remain unbeaten in this year’s Rugby World Cup, after having seen off Pool B top seeds Argentina and lowly Georgia, but the manner of those wins has simply encouraged the doom-mongers, who have this week been further encouraged by apparent late-night shenanigans engaged in by Johnson’s men.
Captain Mike Tindall, recently married to the Queen’s granddaughter Zara Phillips, played a central role in the controversy (such as it was), apparently captured on CCTV footage leaked by the aforementioned guard in an amorous embrace with another woman. The team as a whole were also involved in a bizarre dwarf-throwing incident in the party town of Queenstown. Most ridiculously, Johnson was criticised for allowing his squad to bungee jump; less frenzied coverage pointed out the marked difference with the England football team at last year’s World Cup campaign in South Africa, who were cooped up, bored, in their hotel rooms, something that was widely accepted as contributing towards their early exit.
That Johnson has not imposed such strict rules on his group of players – who are adults, after all – should reflect well on his man-management skills. However, while the controversy surrounding the team’s visit to bars and clubs is overblown, the players should know not to take advantage of their freedom, something which has also put unnecessary additional pressure on Johnson himself.
Following a fortnight of relatively negative headlines – the stale brand of rugby evident in the defeats of Argentina and Georgia as well as the reporting of England’s off-the-field antics – the team which steps out at against Romania on Saturday morning will feel that they have a huge point to prove.
Certainly, in purely rugby terms, England have hardly impressed so far. Some have pointed out, fairly, that England need not (and indeed should not) peak at such an early stage in the tournament. Even so, the performances have been undisciplined, lacking conviction. A narrow 13-9 win over an Argentina that is little more than a shadow of the side that finished third in 2007 was followed by a 41-10 win over Georgia, but that scoreline hardly reflects the difficulty that England – who led by only seven points at the break – faced. In both matches, England had a player sent to the sin bin, and they can be thankful that Georgia’s Merab Kvirikashvili and Argentina’s Martin Rodriguez have missed a total of eleven penalty kicks over the course of the last 160 minutes of play.
As the cliché states, it is a mark of a good team that they can still win even when playing badly. Even so, Saturday, and England’s third match at Dunedin’s Otago Stadium, provides an excellent opportunity to go some way to making amends for the (perceived and actual) shortcomings displayed so far. Romania is probably the weakest side in the pool, and you can only fear what could happen to them if England succeed in their attempts to make a statement, if they manage to draw a line under what has happened so far and start their campaign afresh. A win on the scale of South Africa’s 87-0 destruction of Namibia on Thursday is not completely out of the question, though it would represent a stunning turnaround in English fortunes.
Indeed, it would be foolish to count on such a scoreline, not least considering the difficulty Scotland had against the Eastern Europeans in their meeting two weekends ago. Scotland did secure a bonus-point win in Invercargill, but the 34-24 result indicates the discomfort that the Oaks – who only fell behind in the last five minutes of the match after a Simon Danielli double – caused for Scotland.
As such, England have named an arguably stronger side than the one that toiled so much against Georgia. Captain Tindall is recalled, and as he takes his place in midfield he will know that he will be the centre of attention. He will also, of course, also be aware of the most effective way to answer his critics. Jonny Wilkinson replaces Toby Flood, and England’s 2003 World Cup-winner will have no better opportunity to banish the demons of his previous start against Argentina, when he missed an unprecedented five kicks at goal out of eight. There are five further changes to the side that faced Georgia, as Mark Cueto, Alex Corbisiero, Steve Thompson, Louis Deacon and Tom Croft all start. Courtney Lawes, meanwhile, serves the second of his two-game suspension.
The Romanian players are no mugs, though, and they will put up a tough physical battle, particularly upfront. England have been penalised to such an extent that Romania’s gameplan will surely revolve around a tactic to draw infringements at the breakdown. The importance of eradicating ill-discipline will not be revealed so clearly against a side of Romania’s calibre, but England must eliminate that side of their game, which has so obviously frustrated both referees and Martin Johnson, before they encounter a team with the capability of taking advantage of those errors. Scotland, for example, would fancy their chances of overcoming an England side which fails to keep control in the manner that it has done so far. If England are serious about regaining the Webb Ellis trophy, they must demonstrate to their rivals on Saturday that they have – finally – turned up to the party. How well Romania manage to play the spoiler role will determine the scale of England’s win.
This was originally published at The Vibe
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
FIFA World Rankings: an amusing farce
If Argentina played Croatia, who would you expect to win? What about an encounter between Sweden and Norway? Would Welsh fans feel confident about beating Jordan? Scots, surely, would see their footballers as superior to those of Armenia?
Such are the type of questions, accompanied by much anguished hand-wringing, that arise each month as FIFA publish their official world rankings. This month sees Croatia take ninth place from Argentina, who drop to tenth, while Norway remain above Sweden (in 23rd and 25th places respectively). Wales, in 90th, are indeed behind Jordan (85th), while Scotland, in 52nd, are eight places in arrears of Armenia.
But it is hardly worth football fans getting excited – or despondent – about where their team is placed by the boffins. The scornful reaction of the press in this country when FIFA suggested last month that England was the world’s fourth best international team was indicative of the low regard in which the rankings are held.
The whole charade should be treated as little more than a mildly entertaining opportunity to feel aggrieved at your nation’s position. It represents the chance to exclaim indignantly to uncaring friends and colleagues that: “I can’t believe Northern Ireland has slipped below Gabon” or, somewhat pretentiously, “Isn’t it fascinating that Nicaragua have overtaken Tajikistan?”
The FIFA rankings only matter in their use for seeding teams for international tournaments and their qualification stages, meaning that discrepancies even in the lower half of the rankings can have a negative impact on those nations – and further hinder their prospects of rising in time for future tournaments.
For the UEFA qualifiers for the 2014 World Cup, for example, pot 6 contained Wales, Liechtenstein, Iceland, Kazakhstan (dubiously European, but that’s a different matter), Luxembourg, Malta, Andorra and San Marino. Wales and Iceland had the most grounds to feel aggrieved – neither team would have felt that they were worse than Azerbaijan or the Faroe Islands. Indeed Wales were actually placed joint-112th with the Faroes, who pipped Wales into pot 5 on what – alphabetical order?
Of course, there has to be a system that enables qualifying, and tournaments themselves, to be carried out (relatively) fairly. The rankings are generally accurate, and there are none of the glaringly obvious discrepancies that used to be a common feature of the system – in the early 2000s, for example, the United States benefited from the footballing paucity of most neighbouring CONCACAF nations to rise to 4th place.
But perhaps this should be based on real results, in a more direct and transparent manner than appears to be the case with the FIFA rankings. This month England slipped from 4th to 8th, and while it is generally agreed that this is a more truthful appraisal of the team’s prowess, the fall came despite two wins out of two since the August table was published.
An alternative method of seeding would be to base it on nations’ standing in the previous qualifying campaign, something that would also give far more of an incentive to teams already out of the running to qualify this time around. I’m sure this proposal has its flaws; indeed, it would probably be laughed at. But then again I’m no expert. After all, I still think that Finland are better than Sierra Leone.
Such are the type of questions, accompanied by much anguished hand-wringing, that arise each month as FIFA publish their official world rankings. This month sees Croatia take ninth place from Argentina, who drop to tenth, while Norway remain above Sweden (in 23rd and 25th places respectively). Wales, in 90th, are indeed behind Jordan (85th), while Scotland, in 52nd, are eight places in arrears of Armenia.
But it is hardly worth football fans getting excited – or despondent – about where their team is placed by the boffins. The scornful reaction of the press in this country when FIFA suggested last month that England was the world’s fourth best international team was indicative of the low regard in which the rankings are held.
The whole charade should be treated as little more than a mildly entertaining opportunity to feel aggrieved at your nation’s position. It represents the chance to exclaim indignantly to uncaring friends and colleagues that: “I can’t believe Northern Ireland has slipped below Gabon” or, somewhat pretentiously, “Isn’t it fascinating that Nicaragua have overtaken Tajikistan?”
The FIFA rankings only matter in their use for seeding teams for international tournaments and their qualification stages, meaning that discrepancies even in the lower half of the rankings can have a negative impact on those nations – and further hinder their prospects of rising in time for future tournaments.
For the UEFA qualifiers for the 2014 World Cup, for example, pot 6 contained Wales, Liechtenstein, Iceland, Kazakhstan (dubiously European, but that’s a different matter), Luxembourg, Malta, Andorra and San Marino. Wales and Iceland had the most grounds to feel aggrieved – neither team would have felt that they were worse than Azerbaijan or the Faroe Islands. Indeed Wales were actually placed joint-112th with the Faroes, who pipped Wales into pot 5 on what – alphabetical order?
Of course, there has to be a system that enables qualifying, and tournaments themselves, to be carried out (relatively) fairly. The rankings are generally accurate, and there are none of the glaringly obvious discrepancies that used to be a common feature of the system – in the early 2000s, for example, the United States benefited from the footballing paucity of most neighbouring CONCACAF nations to rise to 4th place.
But perhaps this should be based on real results, in a more direct and transparent manner than appears to be the case with the FIFA rankings. This month England slipped from 4th to 8th, and while it is generally agreed that this is a more truthful appraisal of the team’s prowess, the fall came despite two wins out of two since the August table was published.
An alternative method of seeding would be to base it on nations’ standing in the previous qualifying campaign, something that would also give far more of an incentive to teams already out of the running to qualify this time around. I’m sure this proposal has its flaws; indeed, it would probably be laughed at. But then again I’m no expert. After all, I still think that Finland are better than Sierra Leone.
Sunday, 18 September 2011
Orton: Denver fans should lay off their solid quarterback
It seems as though I am in a rapidly diminishing minority of Denver fans, but I am still in favour of Kyle Orton carrying on at quarterback than have Tim Tebow take snaps.
Orton is an almost quintessentially unglamorous player. Generally solid, dependable, fairly consistent, Orton has qualities that are admirable, if hardly inspiring. In Peyton Manning’s injury absence, the Indianapolis Colts could do much worse than have Orton rather than Kerry Collins, who was disappointing in his new side’s blowout defeat to Houston last weekend.
Orton, in Denver’s home defeat to Oakland, looked rusty, particularly when put under pressure. Although he threw for over 300 yards and a touchdown, he only completed half of his pass attempts. ESPN analysis indicated that he went only 2-for-10 when he was put under pressure or hit before the pass was thrown.
Although head coach John Fox has pledged his support for his embattled quarterback, Orton could hardly rely on similar backing from the Mile High faithful. The match ended to a deafening chorus of orange-clad Coloradans chanting Tebow’s name tumbling from the stands, and Broncos message boards are full with calls for the second year out of Florida to take the starting role. One fan has even paid for a billboard to be adorned with a plea to Coach Fox to replace Orton with Tebow.
But Tebow is not ready to take the starting job – far from it. Yes, he was made starter at the end of last season by interim head coach Eric Studesville, who took over from the sacked Josh McDaniels, and led the team relatively successfully, including a one-point win over the Texans.
Throughout 2010, even when Orton was starting, Tebow would typically come in for goalline snaps in order to utilise his pace and brawn. He scored six rushing touchdowns over the course of the nine matches he participated in, including one at Wembley and a powerful, exhilarating 40-yard run against the Raiders. The ideal scenario for me would be to increase this type of opportunity for Tebow, in order for him to gain experience under the watch of Orton. It is unlikely that Orton would be willing to act as a mentor – he is only 28, and must have ambition of his own which is not conducive to acting simply as a trailblazer for his young teammate.
In any case, Tebow is thought not even to be second on the roster at Denver. Pre-season, observers noted that Brady Quinn, signed from the Cleveland Browns last year, appears to have been more successful in staking his claim for an opportunity for game time. And if the Broncos have a high draft pick in the 2012 draft, what is to say that John Elway won’t trade up (if they have to) for Stanford’s hugely rated quarterback Andrew Luck?
I would be a disappointed supporter if Denver ended the season with a record that would allow them to draft Luck next year, and I still see Tebow as being a long-term solution for my team. It is clear, however, that his enthusiasm, work ethic and charm are far from enough to bring immediate success to Mile High. He has to learn rather than be plunged straight into the NFL.
Denver still has Orton, and he is a conservative option who should be used in the short-term in order that Tebow can be the most successful quarterback for the franchise since Elway. Fox must stick to their guns, and while Tebow naturally appreciates his widescale support, Broncos fans should listen to their hero when he insists that the whole franchsie should unite behind their team – at the head of which is Kyle Orton.
Orton is an almost quintessentially unglamorous player. Generally solid, dependable, fairly consistent, Orton has qualities that are admirable, if hardly inspiring. In Peyton Manning’s injury absence, the Indianapolis Colts could do much worse than have Orton rather than Kerry Collins, who was disappointing in his new side’s blowout defeat to Houston last weekend.
Orton, in Denver’s home defeat to Oakland, looked rusty, particularly when put under pressure. Although he threw for over 300 yards and a touchdown, he only completed half of his pass attempts. ESPN analysis indicated that he went only 2-for-10 when he was put under pressure or hit before the pass was thrown.
Although head coach John Fox has pledged his support for his embattled quarterback, Orton could hardly rely on similar backing from the Mile High faithful. The match ended to a deafening chorus of orange-clad Coloradans chanting Tebow’s name tumbling from the stands, and Broncos message boards are full with calls for the second year out of Florida to take the starting role. One fan has even paid for a billboard to be adorned with a plea to Coach Fox to replace Orton with Tebow.
But Tebow is not ready to take the starting job – far from it. Yes, he was made starter at the end of last season by interim head coach Eric Studesville, who took over from the sacked Josh McDaniels, and led the team relatively successfully, including a one-point win over the Texans.
Throughout 2010, even when Orton was starting, Tebow would typically come in for goalline snaps in order to utilise his pace and brawn. He scored six rushing touchdowns over the course of the nine matches he participated in, including one at Wembley and a powerful, exhilarating 40-yard run against the Raiders. The ideal scenario for me would be to increase this type of opportunity for Tebow, in order for him to gain experience under the watch of Orton. It is unlikely that Orton would be willing to act as a mentor – he is only 28, and must have ambition of his own which is not conducive to acting simply as a trailblazer for his young teammate.
In any case, Tebow is thought not even to be second on the roster at Denver. Pre-season, observers noted that Brady Quinn, signed from the Cleveland Browns last year, appears to have been more successful in staking his claim for an opportunity for game time. And if the Broncos have a high draft pick in the 2012 draft, what is to say that John Elway won’t trade up (if they have to) for Stanford’s hugely rated quarterback Andrew Luck?
I would be a disappointed supporter if Denver ended the season with a record that would allow them to draft Luck next year, and I still see Tebow as being a long-term solution for my team. It is clear, however, that his enthusiasm, work ethic and charm are far from enough to bring immediate success to Mile High. He has to learn rather than be plunged straight into the NFL.
Denver still has Orton, and he is a conservative option who should be used in the short-term in order that Tebow can be the most successful quarterback for the franchise since Elway. Fox must stick to their guns, and while Tebow naturally appreciates his widescale support, Broncos fans should listen to their hero when he insists that the whole franchsie should unite behind their team – at the head of which is Kyle Orton.
New blow dealt to Obama as Republicans win key seat
The Democratic Party in the United States hardly needs reminding of the rough ride it suffered on election night last November. Although President Obama’s party retained control of the Senate, it lost 63 seats – and its majority – in the House of Representatives to the Republicans, earning John Boehner the speaker’s chair at the expense of Nancy Pelosi.
One seat the Democrats did comfortably retain control of, however, was New York’s 9th Congressional District. Comprising parts of New York City’s districts of Brooklyn and Queens, this appears to be fertile Democratic territory.
Democrat Anthony Weiner was elected to serve the district in the House of Representatives six times between 1998 and 2010. He was also returned unopposed in 2006, and challenged only by an independent conservative candidate two years later, indicating the GOP’s acceptance of the hopelessness of their situation.
Weiner’s 2010 success came with a majority of over 20 percentage points – nearly 24,000 votes over his Republican challenger, Bob Turner. But in May this year, Weiner was embroiled in a scandal, involving his sending sexually explicit images to one of his followers on Twitter. He initially denied sending the pictures, a stance that only exacerbated his predicament, and which eventually forced his resignation in June.
President Obama would certainly have cursed the timing of the special election held to replace Weiner, but surely would not have envisaged that his party was in danger of losing the seat. The last time the Republicans represented this district was in 1923, the year of the death of incumbent president Warren Harding. Five US presidents had not yet been born.
Opinion polls, however, began to suggest that Bob Turner – the defeated GOP candidate in 2008 – was running ahead of the Democrats’ David Weprin. And yesterday, Turner did indeed capture the district for his party, indicating that the Democrats may be in even more dire straits than ten months ago. Less than a week after Obama’s keynote appeal to a joint session of Congress – but of course aimed specifically at the GOP-controlled House of Representatives – he must now contend with an increased Republican majority in the lower chamber.
Predictably, the two parties have reacted very differently to Turner’s victory, adopting the stances political watchers have come to expect after such a result. Reince Priebus, Republican National Committee chairman, explained that the result was a direct repudiation of Obama and his policies, indicating that even traditionally liberal areas, such as New York City, were abandoning him. By contrast, Democratic spokespeople emphasised that local issues played a key role, and that the contest should not be extrapolated to the national scene.
Whatever one’s interpretation, it was certainly a stunning success for the GOP. Turner was the beneficiary of a fifteen-point swing, with Weprin losing nearly three in five of voters who had selected Weiner last autumn.
The ninth congressional district has a heavy proportion of orthodox Jews, and is thus hardly a representative segment of the United States as a whole. Observers, including the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which described Weprin’s defeat as a ‘Jewish thumping’, have suggested that the President’s relative indifference to Israel – particularly compared with some of his predecessors, notably George W. Bush – cost his party votes.
Even the former Democratic mayor of New York City, Ed Koch, criticised Obama for “throwing Israel under a bus”. Turner played on his support for the Jewish community and his party’s traditional pro-Israel stance. Turner, a Roman Catholic, might have been expected to have been at a disadvantage considering that Weprin is Jewish. To win in such circumstances would apparently underline the phenomenon of the victory.
But, despite Weprin’s religion, he was not necessarily seen as a Jew-friendly candidate. He has previously pledged his support for the controversial proposals to build an Islamic cultural centre near Ground Zero, a position that is deeply unpopular with many of the Jewish inhabitants of Brooklyn and Queens. In any case, Weprin was generally regarded as a weak candidate, particularly in comparison to the hard-working Turner, who also received high-profile endorsements from former NYC mayors Koch and Rudy Giuliani.
Even so, Turner himself barely half the number of votes received by Weiner in 2010, and just a quarter of Weiner’s 2008 total (albeit when the Democrat’s only opponent was a fringe candidate). Perhaps most damningly for the Republicans’ claims, Turner received fewer votes than he did less than a year ago in the district, and only secured the seat this time because of a complete collapse in the Democratic vote. This was no great endorsement of the Grand Old Party – although they do not necessarily require that to win in 2012, as long as there is a dramatic fall in enthusiasm for Obama.
The Massachusetts Senate special election in 2010 bears a resemblance to Turner’s success. In the Bay State vote, held following the death of long-serving Democratic stalwart Ted Kennedy, brother of the president, little-known Republican shook Washington by securing an eventually comfortable win. If Massachusetts, that liberal bastion, had turned red, commentators remarked, Obama was already in huge trouble. But, then too, Brown faced a lazy, lethargic campaign from the Democrats’ Martha Coakley, who seemed to take her election for granted. Brown, by complete contrast, campaigned tirelessly.
But Turner did not gain votes in the manner that Brown did – he only lost fewer than his opponent.
It is also somewhat disingenuous of the Republican Party to imply that New York is a homogenous, Democratic-voting liberal block – if any city is a melting-pot of cultures, peoples and political opinions, it is New York. The ninth district, indeed, is one of the most pro-GOP in the city. It backed President Obama by the relatively small margin of eleven percentage points in 2008; this is not the equivalent of the Bronx going Republican, or Utah choosing a Democratic president.
Even so, this will be of no comfort to President Obama, as he continues his nationwide tour to promote his jobs bill. Republicans will be somewhat boosted by the impression of fallibility that surround the president and his party, but they will be acutely aware that there is much work to be done if Obama is to be a one-term commander-in-chief. There was no good news for the White House from the ninth congressional district of the State of New York – but there was also less than might be expected winging its way to Rick Perry and Mitt Romney HQ.
One seat the Democrats did comfortably retain control of, however, was New York’s 9th Congressional District. Comprising parts of New York City’s districts of Brooklyn and Queens, this appears to be fertile Democratic territory.
Democrat Anthony Weiner was elected to serve the district in the House of Representatives six times between 1998 and 2010. He was also returned unopposed in 2006, and challenged only by an independent conservative candidate two years later, indicating the GOP’s acceptance of the hopelessness of their situation.
Weiner’s 2010 success came with a majority of over 20 percentage points – nearly 24,000 votes over his Republican challenger, Bob Turner. But in May this year, Weiner was embroiled in a scandal, involving his sending sexually explicit images to one of his followers on Twitter. He initially denied sending the pictures, a stance that only exacerbated his predicament, and which eventually forced his resignation in June.
President Obama would certainly have cursed the timing of the special election held to replace Weiner, but surely would not have envisaged that his party was in danger of losing the seat. The last time the Republicans represented this district was in 1923, the year of the death of incumbent president Warren Harding. Five US presidents had not yet been born.
Opinion polls, however, began to suggest that Bob Turner – the defeated GOP candidate in 2008 – was running ahead of the Democrats’ David Weprin. And yesterday, Turner did indeed capture the district for his party, indicating that the Democrats may be in even more dire straits than ten months ago. Less than a week after Obama’s keynote appeal to a joint session of Congress – but of course aimed specifically at the GOP-controlled House of Representatives – he must now contend with an increased Republican majority in the lower chamber.
Predictably, the two parties have reacted very differently to Turner’s victory, adopting the stances political watchers have come to expect after such a result. Reince Priebus, Republican National Committee chairman, explained that the result was a direct repudiation of Obama and his policies, indicating that even traditionally liberal areas, such as New York City, were abandoning him. By contrast, Democratic spokespeople emphasised that local issues played a key role, and that the contest should not be extrapolated to the national scene.
Whatever one’s interpretation, it was certainly a stunning success for the GOP. Turner was the beneficiary of a fifteen-point swing, with Weprin losing nearly three in five of voters who had selected Weiner last autumn.
The ninth congressional district has a heavy proportion of orthodox Jews, and is thus hardly a representative segment of the United States as a whole. Observers, including the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which described Weprin’s defeat as a ‘Jewish thumping’, have suggested that the President’s relative indifference to Israel – particularly compared with some of his predecessors, notably George W. Bush – cost his party votes.
Even the former Democratic mayor of New York City, Ed Koch, criticised Obama for “throwing Israel under a bus”. Turner played on his support for the Jewish community and his party’s traditional pro-Israel stance. Turner, a Roman Catholic, might have been expected to have been at a disadvantage considering that Weprin is Jewish. To win in such circumstances would apparently underline the phenomenon of the victory.
But, despite Weprin’s religion, he was not necessarily seen as a Jew-friendly candidate. He has previously pledged his support for the controversial proposals to build an Islamic cultural centre near Ground Zero, a position that is deeply unpopular with many of the Jewish inhabitants of Brooklyn and Queens. In any case, Weprin was generally regarded as a weak candidate, particularly in comparison to the hard-working Turner, who also received high-profile endorsements from former NYC mayors Koch and Rudy Giuliani.
Even so, Turner himself barely half the number of votes received by Weiner in 2010, and just a quarter of Weiner’s 2008 total (albeit when the Democrat’s only opponent was a fringe candidate). Perhaps most damningly for the Republicans’ claims, Turner received fewer votes than he did less than a year ago in the district, and only secured the seat this time because of a complete collapse in the Democratic vote. This was no great endorsement of the Grand Old Party – although they do not necessarily require that to win in 2012, as long as there is a dramatic fall in enthusiasm for Obama.
The Massachusetts Senate special election in 2010 bears a resemblance to Turner’s success. In the Bay State vote, held following the death of long-serving Democratic stalwart Ted Kennedy, brother of the president, little-known Republican shook Washington by securing an eventually comfortable win. If Massachusetts, that liberal bastion, had turned red, commentators remarked, Obama was already in huge trouble. But, then too, Brown faced a lazy, lethargic campaign from the Democrats’ Martha Coakley, who seemed to take her election for granted. Brown, by complete contrast, campaigned tirelessly.
But Turner did not gain votes in the manner that Brown did – he only lost fewer than his opponent.
It is also somewhat disingenuous of the Republican Party to imply that New York is a homogenous, Democratic-voting liberal block – if any city is a melting-pot of cultures, peoples and political opinions, it is New York. The ninth district, indeed, is one of the most pro-GOP in the city. It backed President Obama by the relatively small margin of eleven percentage points in 2008; this is not the equivalent of the Bronx going Republican, or Utah choosing a Democratic president.
Even so, this will be of no comfort to President Obama, as he continues his nationwide tour to promote his jobs bill. Republicans will be somewhat boosted by the impression of fallibility that surround the president and his party, but they will be acutely aware that there is much work to be done if Obama is to be a one-term commander-in-chief. There was no good news for the White House from the ninth congressional district of the State of New York – but there was also less than might be expected winging its way to Rick Perry and Mitt Romney HQ.
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
NFL: Week 1 review
Performance of the week (team):
Buffalo Bills: Numerous contenders stand out: Houston, Baltimore, Chicago. All three faced play-off sides from last year, all secured emphatic wins in week 1 of this. But performance of the week has to go to the unfashionable, unfancied (to say the least) Buffalo, facing a road trip to the hostility of Arrowhead stadium to face 2010’s best-of-the-west Chiefs. They emerged with a 34-point triumph, shutting down Jamaal Charles, allowing Dwayne Bowe only two receptions, and also clicking on offense. Excellent on both sides of the ball, the Bills provided food for thought for the many who had written them off.
Performances of the week (individual):
Cam Newton: In Week 1 of season 1 in the NFL career of the number 1 draft pick, Carolina’s quarterback, a number 1 adorned on his jersey, threw two touchdowns and a rookie record-equalling 422 yards in the Arizona desert. Admittedly, Panthers fell short of their first road win since December 2009, but Newton’s passer rating of 110.4 belied his lack of professional experience, and proved to remaining doubters that Carolina has a gem under center.
Tom Brady: Brady posted a career-high yardage - and when you have had a career like that of the Patriots' quarterback, that is nothing to be sniffed at. With 517 yards and 4 touchdowns, Brady once again led his team to a big road win at a divisional rival, though Pats fans also raved about Nate Solder’s showing, who effectively nullified the Cameron Wake effect.
Moments of the week:
Randall Cobb: Perhaps surpassing Newton in terms of impact from a rookie was Green Bay’s wide receiver. His 108-yard kickoff return TD tied a league record and came as commentators and fans were berating the new rule which see kickoffs on the 35, rather than 30-yard line. Already, Al Michaels told viewers, Lambeau had seen more touchbacks than in the whole of last season, but, displaying to-heck-with-that spirit, Cobb emerged from deep inside the endzone, his sensational run including an almost gravity-defying pirouette. Oh, and he also hauled in a receiving touchdown with his first reception.
Sebastian Janikowski: The tied-longest field goal in NFL history was enough to see Oakland win at Denver. The air is thinner at Mile High, but this is still some achievement from the Raiders' kicker, who once – ridiculously – attempted a 76 yarder.
Beasts of the week:
Baltimore Ravens: Seven turnovers, seven points allowed – and facing the Steelers. Ed Reed, Ray Lewis and co. were at their fearsome, disciplined best.
Chicago Bears: At Soldier Field, Matt Ryan’s offense was blunted and managed only two field goals (the Falcons’ TD was also a defensive score). The Bears, led by the irrepressible Julius Peppers, Henry Melton and, of course, Brian Urlacher, picked up one interception, forced two fumbles (one of which Urlacher returned for six), sacked Ryan five times and hit him 11.
Surprise of the week:
Ryan Fitzpatrick: Bills head coach Chan Gailey will claim that this was no surprise, that they had faith in their QB all along. Undoubtedly, Fitzpatrick repaid their trust by tossing four scores in his team’s stunning win at the Chiefs, for a rating of 133.0.
Disappointments of the week:
Chris Johnson: The contract dispute is behind him, but CJ still looks unsettled. He barely had an impact in the Titans’ defeat in Jacksonville, carrying the ball nine times for just 24 yards.
Donovan McNabb: The Vikings’ replacement for Brett Favre was embarrassingly unproductive. He completed only seven passes (of 15 attempted) for 39 yards, a touchdown and an interception – although did gain 32 yards with his feet. Former positional rival at Washington Rex Grossman, incidentally, put in a very assured performance in the Redskins’ 28-14 win over the New York Giants.
Inevitability of the week:
San Diego’s special teams were abysmal last year, in all probability costing Norv a play-off berth. And so, you could just tell what would happen as Nate Kaeding kicked off the season at Qualcomm Field. With Percy Harvin returning, the resulting kick return touchdown, in hindsight, had more than a whiff of predictability. Kaeding also had to leave the game with an injury sustained in trying to stop Harvin; you could almost hear southern California sighing a collective ‘here we go again’.
Improvisation of the week:
But that Chargers misfortune also saw them land this slightly more coveted award. Punter Mike Scifres could deal with PATs, though not with field goals; it must have been the first time in Philip Rivers’ career that he had had to stay on the field for a 4th-and-20, in the first half, just outside the red zone. The FG would have been 43 yards – too long for Scifres – while the punt was barely worth it. But, at the start of the fourth quarter, Scifres brought his side level with a 40-yarder, the pigskin barely sneaking through the posts – ugly, but effective, and Scifres notched his first career field goal.
Originally published at UKAmericanSportsFans.com
Buffalo Bills: Numerous contenders stand out: Houston, Baltimore, Chicago. All three faced play-off sides from last year, all secured emphatic wins in week 1 of this. But performance of the week has to go to the unfashionable, unfancied (to say the least) Buffalo, facing a road trip to the hostility of Arrowhead stadium to face 2010’s best-of-the-west Chiefs. They emerged with a 34-point triumph, shutting down Jamaal Charles, allowing Dwayne Bowe only two receptions, and also clicking on offense. Excellent on both sides of the ball, the Bills provided food for thought for the many who had written them off.
Performances of the week (individual):
Cam Newton: In Week 1 of season 1 in the NFL career of the number 1 draft pick, Carolina’s quarterback, a number 1 adorned on his jersey, threw two touchdowns and a rookie record-equalling 422 yards in the Arizona desert. Admittedly, Panthers fell short of their first road win since December 2009, but Newton’s passer rating of 110.4 belied his lack of professional experience, and proved to remaining doubters that Carolina has a gem under center.
Tom Brady: Brady posted a career-high yardage - and when you have had a career like that of the Patriots' quarterback, that is nothing to be sniffed at. With 517 yards and 4 touchdowns, Brady once again led his team to a big road win at a divisional rival, though Pats fans also raved about Nate Solder’s showing, who effectively nullified the Cameron Wake effect.
Moments of the week:
Randall Cobb: Perhaps surpassing Newton in terms of impact from a rookie was Green Bay’s wide receiver. His 108-yard kickoff return TD tied a league record and came as commentators and fans were berating the new rule which see kickoffs on the 35, rather than 30-yard line. Already, Al Michaels told viewers, Lambeau had seen more touchbacks than in the whole of last season, but, displaying to-heck-with-that spirit, Cobb emerged from deep inside the endzone, his sensational run including an almost gravity-defying pirouette. Oh, and he also hauled in a receiving touchdown with his first reception.
Sebastian Janikowski: The tied-longest field goal in NFL history was enough to see Oakland win at Denver. The air is thinner at Mile High, but this is still some achievement from the Raiders' kicker, who once – ridiculously – attempted a 76 yarder.
Beasts of the week:
Baltimore Ravens: Seven turnovers, seven points allowed – and facing the Steelers. Ed Reed, Ray Lewis and co. were at their fearsome, disciplined best.
Chicago Bears: At Soldier Field, Matt Ryan’s offense was blunted and managed only two field goals (the Falcons’ TD was also a defensive score). The Bears, led by the irrepressible Julius Peppers, Henry Melton and, of course, Brian Urlacher, picked up one interception, forced two fumbles (one of which Urlacher returned for six), sacked Ryan five times and hit him 11.
Surprise of the week:
Ryan Fitzpatrick: Bills head coach Chan Gailey will claim that this was no surprise, that they had faith in their QB all along. Undoubtedly, Fitzpatrick repaid their trust by tossing four scores in his team’s stunning win at the Chiefs, for a rating of 133.0.
Disappointments of the week:
Chris Johnson: The contract dispute is behind him, but CJ still looks unsettled. He barely had an impact in the Titans’ defeat in Jacksonville, carrying the ball nine times for just 24 yards.
Donovan McNabb: The Vikings’ replacement for Brett Favre was embarrassingly unproductive. He completed only seven passes (of 15 attempted) for 39 yards, a touchdown and an interception – although did gain 32 yards with his feet. Former positional rival at Washington Rex Grossman, incidentally, put in a very assured performance in the Redskins’ 28-14 win over the New York Giants.
Inevitability of the week:
San Diego’s special teams were abysmal last year, in all probability costing Norv a play-off berth. And so, you could just tell what would happen as Nate Kaeding kicked off the season at Qualcomm Field. With Percy Harvin returning, the resulting kick return touchdown, in hindsight, had more than a whiff of predictability. Kaeding also had to leave the game with an injury sustained in trying to stop Harvin; you could almost hear southern California sighing a collective ‘here we go again’.
Improvisation of the week:
But that Chargers misfortune also saw them land this slightly more coveted award. Punter Mike Scifres could deal with PATs, though not with field goals; it must have been the first time in Philip Rivers’ career that he had had to stay on the field for a 4th-and-20, in the first half, just outside the red zone. The FG would have been 43 yards – too long for Scifres – while the punt was barely worth it. But, at the start of the fourth quarter, Scifres brought his side level with a 40-yarder, the pigskin barely sneaking through the posts – ugly, but effective, and Scifres notched his first career field goal.
Originally published at UKAmericanSportsFans.com
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
Rugby has to seize the opportunity to go beyond its heartlands
The seventh edition of the Rugby World Cup – supposedly the world’s third most watched sporting event, after its footballing equivalent and the Olympic Games – kicks off in Auckland, New Zealand this Friday.
Russia is the only nation that is making its World Cup debut, and the fact that, out of twenty competing nations, this is the case illustrates rugby’s difficulty in demonstrating the kind of broad international appeal that football has.
The relative lack of spread of rugby across the world is something that the International Rugby Board (IRB) has attempted to address. The 2019 World Cup is to be hosted by Japan, a country that has qualified for every world cup but has never made it past the group stage.
That is one telling indicator of how little rugby has progressed internationally since the inaugural tournament, also hosted by New Zealand, in 1987. At that event, the hosts, along with Australia, England, France, Ireland, Scotland and Wales all qualified for the quarter-finals; Fiji completed the octet, benefiting from the sporting isolation of apartheid isolation.
At the next World Cup in 1991, two ‘lesser’ nations – Western Samoa and Canada – reached the last eight, the former thanks to a shock win over Wales in Cardiff in the group stage, the latter filling the vacuum left by the Springboks’ continued absence.
But between 1995 and 2007, in other words, since South Africa have competed, arguably only two teams have progressed to the knock-out stages against the odds – Argentina and Fiji in 2007. (The 1999 tournament, hosted by Wales, featured a quarterfinal play-off system, in which Argentina defeated Ireland.)
And, if the bookmakers are to be believed, 2011 will follow the established pattern; seven of the eight teams that comprise the Six Nations and Tri Nations tournaments are all heavily odds-on to qualify from the group stage. Only Scotland, vying with England and Argentina for a place in the last eight, is seen as having a true struggle on their hands.
Rugby needs to spread, and, as a part of that of that process, the World Cup needs some upsets. It is telling that the Sunday Times’ list of five ‘Days When The Underdogs Found Their Bark’ includes one match when the favourite won anyway (England 35-22 Samoa, 2003).
At the last World Cup, individual moments offered a glimpse of what might have been. Ireland stuttered to a 14-10 win over debutants Georgia, who will feel that they should have won after failing to capitalise on spending the last minutes of the match metres short of the Irish try line.
In the same group, the men in green also struggled against the true minnows of Namibia; whilst they eventually triumphed by fifteen points, the Africans scored a brilliant try that fired up neutrals.
Elsewhere, American winger Takudzwa Ngweya capped a brilliant team move by scorching past South African opposite number Bryan Habana, commonly regarded as the fastest player in world rugby. The South Africans also suffered a huge scare in trumping Tonga by just five points.
Even so, New Zealand’s 108-13 crushing of Portugal was indicative of the vast gulf in class between established and lesser rugby nations. Portuguese prop Rui Cordeiro’s face was a picture as he celebrated his try in that match, but that his team was so far in arrears at that stage demonstrates that, for minnows, international rugby is more of a experience than an exercise in seeking success.
Compared to football, rugby sees far more scoring opportunities. Between two well-matched teams, this can provide sometimes provide for a much more entertaining, free-flowing match than one might see in a football contest, again between two relatively equal sides. On the other hand, a gulf in class – between New Zealand and Scotland, between Scotland and Namibia, and embarrassingly so between the latter and All Blacks – is exposed brutally, far reducing the scope for an upset.
In football, a dominant team may not have the rub of the green and may fall to defeat thanks to a single goal that came against the run of play. In rugby, though, that team will have, in all likelihood, racked up enough points to withstand conceding such a surprise score.
For the sake of rugby, it would be ideal, as the Sunday Times columnist Stephen Jones notes, to have a number of upsets in the forthcoming tournament. Rugby Sevens is much more well-established throughout the non-traditional rugby world, a fact reflected by its inclusion in the Olympic Games from 2016.
The IRB was criticised for awarding this tournament to New Zealand, when most observers expected a victory for the Japanese bid, taking the World Cup to Asia for the first time. But if the event sees the breakthrough of a number of smaller countries, it can be seen as aptly marking the start of a decade in which rugby should significantly widen its appeal.
This post was originally published at the Vibe.
Russia is the only nation that is making its World Cup debut, and the fact that, out of twenty competing nations, this is the case illustrates rugby’s difficulty in demonstrating the kind of broad international appeal that football has.
The relative lack of spread of rugby across the world is something that the International Rugby Board (IRB) has attempted to address. The 2019 World Cup is to be hosted by Japan, a country that has qualified for every world cup but has never made it past the group stage.
That is one telling indicator of how little rugby has progressed internationally since the inaugural tournament, also hosted by New Zealand, in 1987. At that event, the hosts, along with Australia, England, France, Ireland, Scotland and Wales all qualified for the quarter-finals; Fiji completed the octet, benefiting from the sporting isolation of apartheid isolation.
At the next World Cup in 1991, two ‘lesser’ nations – Western Samoa and Canada – reached the last eight, the former thanks to a shock win over Wales in Cardiff in the group stage, the latter filling the vacuum left by the Springboks’ continued absence.
But between 1995 and 2007, in other words, since South Africa have competed, arguably only two teams have progressed to the knock-out stages against the odds – Argentina and Fiji in 2007. (The 1999 tournament, hosted by Wales, featured a quarterfinal play-off system, in which Argentina defeated Ireland.)
And, if the bookmakers are to be believed, 2011 will follow the established pattern; seven of the eight teams that comprise the Six Nations and Tri Nations tournaments are all heavily odds-on to qualify from the group stage. Only Scotland, vying with England and Argentina for a place in the last eight, is seen as having a true struggle on their hands.
Rugby needs to spread, and, as a part of that of that process, the World Cup needs some upsets. It is telling that the Sunday Times’ list of five ‘Days When The Underdogs Found Their Bark’ includes one match when the favourite won anyway (England 35-22 Samoa, 2003).
At the last World Cup, individual moments offered a glimpse of what might have been. Ireland stuttered to a 14-10 win over debutants Georgia, who will feel that they should have won after failing to capitalise on spending the last minutes of the match metres short of the Irish try line.
In the same group, the men in green also struggled against the true minnows of Namibia; whilst they eventually triumphed by fifteen points, the Africans scored a brilliant try that fired up neutrals.
Elsewhere, American winger Takudzwa Ngweya capped a brilliant team move by scorching past South African opposite number Bryan Habana, commonly regarded as the fastest player in world rugby. The South Africans also suffered a huge scare in trumping Tonga by just five points.
Even so, New Zealand’s 108-13 crushing of Portugal was indicative of the vast gulf in class between established and lesser rugby nations. Portuguese prop Rui Cordeiro’s face was a picture as he celebrated his try in that match, but that his team was so far in arrears at that stage demonstrates that, for minnows, international rugby is more of a experience than an exercise in seeking success.
Compared to football, rugby sees far more scoring opportunities. Between two well-matched teams, this can provide sometimes provide for a much more entertaining, free-flowing match than one might see in a football contest, again between two relatively equal sides. On the other hand, a gulf in class – between New Zealand and Scotland, between Scotland and Namibia, and embarrassingly so between the latter and All Blacks – is exposed brutally, far reducing the scope for an upset.
In football, a dominant team may not have the rub of the green and may fall to defeat thanks to a single goal that came against the run of play. In rugby, though, that team will have, in all likelihood, racked up enough points to withstand conceding such a surprise score.
For the sake of rugby, it would be ideal, as the Sunday Times columnist Stephen Jones notes, to have a number of upsets in the forthcoming tournament. Rugby Sevens is much more well-established throughout the non-traditional rugby world, a fact reflected by its inclusion in the Olympic Games from 2016.
The IRB was criticised for awarding this tournament to New Zealand, when most observers expected a victory for the Japanese bid, taking the World Cup to Asia for the first time. But if the event sees the breakthrough of a number of smaller countries, it can be seen as aptly marking the start of a decade in which rugby should significantly widen its appeal.
This post was originally published at the Vibe.
Sunday, 11 September 2011
No margin for error as Wales unfortunate to come up short
South Africa 17-16 Wales
In what was undoubtedly the most exciting of the first round of matches at this year’s Rugby World Cup, defending champions edged out a spirited Wales side by 17 points to 16 in typically blustery conditions in Wellington.
Pool D has been seen by many analysts as deserving of the ‘Pool of Death’ tag (though England, Scotland and Argentina, all of whom are grouped together, may beg to differ). Wales, wary of a repeat of the loss to Fiji which sent them crashing out of the last tournament, were excellent in nearly all aspects of play, which will install them as heavy favourites in their encounters with both the Fijians and Samoa.
As is probably to be expected in a contest where a solitary point separates the team, Wales will feel they certainly could, and perhaps should have won. Tiny margins have an amplified effect.
What if Shane Williams hadn’t strayed so far from his wing inside three minutes, allowing Francois Steyn to sneak over in the corner, touching down in close proximity to the corner flag?
What if James Hook’s first half penalty had crossed between the posts instead of over the right-hand one? (Did it actually go over? Referee Wayne Barnes was implored to check with the television match official.)
What if Hook hadn’t pushed wide a penalty attempt late on – or if Rhys Priestland hadn’t hooked his attempt at a drop goal from in front of the posts?
What if. Such is the nature and the appeal of sport. South Africa, with tries from Steyn and Francois Hougaard, clung on to a victory that the possession and territory stats suggested they barely deserved. Wales’ five-point score came from number eight Toby Faletau – but there was a hint of a forward pass in the build up to his crossing the line. Karma?
The Springboks would probably have felt aggrieved themselves had Wales eked out a win. Their defence was generally solid, despite wave after wave of red-shirted attack, led by the power of Jamie Roberts, Faletau, Jonathan Davies and Sam Warburton alongside the control of Priestland and Hook.
Just like an overpowered boxer, staying off the ropes (just) but desperate for the safety of the bell, South Africa were driven back by Welsh offensive periods for the majority of the second half – as well as much of the first – without the comfort of possession, of which Wales claimed two-thirds. But like true champions, they hung on, needing no more than they got, frustrating the enthusiasm of their challengers.
It was not exactly the equivalent of the second warm-up match between Wales and England in Cardiff, when the visitors pounded away at the Welsh line fruitlessly for most of the match before the hosts executed the perfect smash-and-grab victory.
But Wales were smooth, coordinated, brave, powerful and, even in a losing cause, have impressed their fans and their coaching staff, and will have made likely quarterfinal opponents Australia (or perhaps Ireland, unimpressive in a 22-10 triumph over the United States earlier today) take note.
Maybe it is patronising to say that Wales did well despite the loss. After all, they came here to win matches, not lose pluckily in a matter reminiscent of their footballing compatriots.
However, they have the chance to avenge the misery of today’s loss. Wales must, of course, remain focused – they have three games to win before they can concentrate on the knockout stages. But if they can cut out the tiny errors, with their big effects, there is little reason why they cannot progress to at least the semi-finals for the first time since 1987.
In what was undoubtedly the most exciting of the first round of matches at this year’s Rugby World Cup, defending champions edged out a spirited Wales side by 17 points to 16 in typically blustery conditions in Wellington.
Pool D has been seen by many analysts as deserving of the ‘Pool of Death’ tag (though England, Scotland and Argentina, all of whom are grouped together, may beg to differ). Wales, wary of a repeat of the loss to Fiji which sent them crashing out of the last tournament, were excellent in nearly all aspects of play, which will install them as heavy favourites in their encounters with both the Fijians and Samoa.
As is probably to be expected in a contest where a solitary point separates the team, Wales will feel they certainly could, and perhaps should have won. Tiny margins have an amplified effect.
What if Shane Williams hadn’t strayed so far from his wing inside three minutes, allowing Francois Steyn to sneak over in the corner, touching down in close proximity to the corner flag?
What if James Hook’s first half penalty had crossed between the posts instead of over the right-hand one? (Did it actually go over? Referee Wayne Barnes was implored to check with the television match official.)
What if Hook hadn’t pushed wide a penalty attempt late on – or if Rhys Priestland hadn’t hooked his attempt at a drop goal from in front of the posts?
What if. Such is the nature and the appeal of sport. South Africa, with tries from Steyn and Francois Hougaard, clung on to a victory that the possession and territory stats suggested they barely deserved. Wales’ five-point score came from number eight Toby Faletau – but there was a hint of a forward pass in the build up to his crossing the line. Karma?
The Springboks would probably have felt aggrieved themselves had Wales eked out a win. Their defence was generally solid, despite wave after wave of red-shirted attack, led by the power of Jamie Roberts, Faletau, Jonathan Davies and Sam Warburton alongside the control of Priestland and Hook.
Just like an overpowered boxer, staying off the ropes (just) but desperate for the safety of the bell, South Africa were driven back by Welsh offensive periods for the majority of the second half – as well as much of the first – without the comfort of possession, of which Wales claimed two-thirds. But like true champions, they hung on, needing no more than they got, frustrating the enthusiasm of their challengers.
It was not exactly the equivalent of the second warm-up match between Wales and England in Cardiff, when the visitors pounded away at the Welsh line fruitlessly for most of the match before the hosts executed the perfect smash-and-grab victory.
But Wales were smooth, coordinated, brave, powerful and, even in a losing cause, have impressed their fans and their coaching staff, and will have made likely quarterfinal opponents Australia (or perhaps Ireland, unimpressive in a 22-10 triumph over the United States earlier today) take note.
Maybe it is patronising to say that Wales did well despite the loss. After all, they came here to win matches, not lose pluckily in a matter reminiscent of their footballing compatriots.
However, they have the chance to avenge the misery of today’s loss. Wales must, of course, remain focused – they have three games to win before they can concentrate on the knockout stages. But if they can cut out the tiny errors, with their big effects, there is little reason why they cannot progress to at least the semi-finals for the first time since 1987.
Saturday, 10 September 2011
Four losses, but the underdogs show their worth
Five World Cup matches so far – and five wins for the overwhelming favourites. But all four of the underdogs in today’s matches provided terrific excitement for neutrals and proved that the results of most pool stage matches can not be taken granted.
First up was Romania, who pushed Scotland hard and, before a Paterson penalty and a brace of tries in the last minutes from winger Simon Danielli, threatened to cause a massive upset.
As it is, the Oaks will feel hugely disappointed that they failed to secure a losing bonus point. Coach Andy Robinson has a lot of work to do, but he will be relieved that, thanks to Danielli’s second touch down, they wrapped up a bonus point that, simultaneously, they denied Romania.
Also in Pool B, England edged out top seeds Argentina 13-9 in a dire encounter that saw an incredible eleven missed penalty kicks. Before kick-off, the South Americans were regarded as such a shadow of the side that ensured they were ranked fourth in the world rankings that England were installed as 1/8 favourites.
But the Pumas led for most of the match in the swanky new Otago Stadium before a late score from replacement scrum half Ben Youngs gave England the advantage for the first time in an encounter that was dominated by both sides’ ill-discipline.
Martin Hernandez, Felipe Contepomi and – most surprisingly – Jonny Wilkinson had an appalling time kicking at goal. Argentina’s persistence in attempting to utilise Hernandez’s boot from penalties just inside the English half should be questioned. Indeed, the fourth time this happened (and the fourth time Hernandez sent the ball wide) was enough for those watching to seriously question the merits of electing to kick at goal despite, clearly not having a sufficiently able kicker.
Wilkinson was uncharacteristically off-target, allowing Argentina to retain a 9-3 lead, despite their own problems from the tee, before Youngs crossed to calm the visibly enraged Martin Johnson.
France made hard work of defeating a dynamic Japanese side, who pegged les Bleus back to a 25-21 lead with ten minutes remaining, before three late tries took away from the Brave Blossoms much of the credit that their performance in the first seventy minutes merited.
James Arlidge, Japan’s New Zealand-born outside-half, scored all of his side’s points, including two tries, and the Japanese, under coach John Kirwan, were very disciplined, rucked impressively and have a real livewire in left winger Hirotoki Onozawa. France looked on the rocks for periods in the second half, but had enough class in the end to wrap up the bonus-point win.
Today’s other match saw Fiji run in six tries – four from Vereniki Godeva – in a 49-25 success over Namibia, whose outside-half Theuns Kotze dropped three goals. The Africans scored two tries, including a magnificent one for second row Heinze Koll Fiji were impressive, but Namibia, the lowest ranked side in the tournament, will take pride in their plucky showing.
World rugby, too, will be heartened by today in which all four underdogs impressed, albeit in losing causes.
First up was Romania, who pushed Scotland hard and, before a Paterson penalty and a brace of tries in the last minutes from winger Simon Danielli, threatened to cause a massive upset.
As it is, the Oaks will feel hugely disappointed that they failed to secure a losing bonus point. Coach Andy Robinson has a lot of work to do, but he will be relieved that, thanks to Danielli’s second touch down, they wrapped up a bonus point that, simultaneously, they denied Romania.
Also in Pool B, England edged out top seeds Argentina 13-9 in a dire encounter that saw an incredible eleven missed penalty kicks. Before kick-off, the South Americans were regarded as such a shadow of the side that ensured they were ranked fourth in the world rankings that England were installed as 1/8 favourites.
But the Pumas led for most of the match in the swanky new Otago Stadium before a late score from replacement scrum half Ben Youngs gave England the advantage for the first time in an encounter that was dominated by both sides’ ill-discipline.
Martin Hernandez, Felipe Contepomi and – most surprisingly – Jonny Wilkinson had an appalling time kicking at goal. Argentina’s persistence in attempting to utilise Hernandez’s boot from penalties just inside the English half should be questioned. Indeed, the fourth time this happened (and the fourth time Hernandez sent the ball wide) was enough for those watching to seriously question the merits of electing to kick at goal despite, clearly not having a sufficiently able kicker.
Wilkinson was uncharacteristically off-target, allowing Argentina to retain a 9-3 lead, despite their own problems from the tee, before Youngs crossed to calm the visibly enraged Martin Johnson.
France made hard work of defeating a dynamic Japanese side, who pegged les Bleus back to a 25-21 lead with ten minutes remaining, before three late tries took away from the Brave Blossoms much of the credit that their performance in the first seventy minutes merited.
James Arlidge, Japan’s New Zealand-born outside-half, scored all of his side’s points, including two tries, and the Japanese, under coach John Kirwan, were very disciplined, rucked impressively and have a real livewire in left winger Hirotoki Onozawa. France looked on the rocks for periods in the second half, but had enough class in the end to wrap up the bonus-point win.
Today’s other match saw Fiji run in six tries – four from Vereniki Godeva – in a 49-25 success over Namibia, whose outside-half Theuns Kotze dropped three goals. The Africans scored two tries, including a magnificent one for second row Heinze Koll Fiji were impressive, but Namibia, the lowest ranked side in the tournament, will take pride in their plucky showing.
World rugby, too, will be heartened by today in which all four underdogs impressed, albeit in losing causes.
Friday, 9 September 2011
Welcome to Estonia's Concrete Jungle
Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, is one of the European Union’s success stories. Popular with tourists for the charming, colourful architecture and cobbled streets of its old town, it is also something of a booming financial centre; earlier this year Estonia became the first former eastern bloc state to adopt the single European currency.
Tallinn’s medieval centre (left) is surrounded by a modern business district, with no shortage of shiny new shopping centres, office blocks and plush hotels. Undeniably, there are nods to Soviet architecture, as wide boulevards adorned with images of the worker run alongside more recent developments.
But for a flavour of communist Estonia, visitors should take the three-hour bus trip across the width of the nation to the city of Narva, perched right on the Russian border.
Arrival, on the city’s southern side, hardly gives a flattering first impression of this EU outpost. The symmetrical pattern of the housing blocks that surround the bus terminal (such as it is) are shabby-looking, peeling structures that could be taken straight from a communist builder’s instruction manual.
Even the (slightly) more luxurious houses, as opposed to blocks of flats, are ringed by crumbling pavements and bright, sagging and overgrown weeds.
Walking towards the city centre offers a few more signs of prosperity, but even the grandest hotel is reminiscent of properties in a failed seaside resort. Shops, while undoubtedly well-stocked and so accompanied by the air of prosperity that that brings, are grey and hardly enticing from the exterior.
Staring forlornly at the Russian Federation from the other side of its eponymous river, Narva, particularly when compared to its capital, gives the impression that it would rather it was governed by Moscow.
Closer, both in outlook as well distance, to St Petersburg, than to Tallinn, this impression is confirmed by the nature of its inhabitants, who number around 70,000 – a figure that has been declining since the collapse of the Soviet Union thanks to poor job prospects and the promise of greater prosperity elsewhere.
95 per cent of Narva’s populace speak Russian as their first language; four in five are ethnically Russian, and fewer than half are even Estonian citizens. The city’s Orthodox Cathedral is a relatively busy hub of activity, a stark contrast to the somewhat-forgotten, if newly renovated Lutheran version, the strand of Christianity adhered to by most in the Baltic States. Signs in shop windows, bus timetables and advertisements are in Russian as well as Estonian.
As such, both the physical make-up as well as the attitude of Narva indicate its apparent desire to face east. Adjacent to one of the main junctions in the centre of town – again, a communist-esque roundabout that lies among sweeping, arrow-straight streets, is the residential block (left) that typifies, almost stereotypically, the bland and depressingly mundane Stalinist architecture.
It really does seem like you are taking a step back in time when you walk through this paradise for adherents of concrete. The one significant tourist attraction, unsurprisingly the sole remnant of bustling medieval Narva, is its castle, which engages in a permanent face-off with an equivalent fortress on the Russian side of the river in Ivangorod (above).
This castle, though, is hardly enough to tempt the majority of tourists. Unless you are travelling to or from Russia, Narva might barely be seem worthy of a stopover. Even so, it is a fascinating example of the old Eastern Europe; accessible yet authentic.
Tallinn’s medieval centre (left) is surrounded by a modern business district, with no shortage of shiny new shopping centres, office blocks and plush hotels. Undeniably, there are nods to Soviet architecture, as wide boulevards adorned with images of the worker run alongside more recent developments.
But for a flavour of communist Estonia, visitors should take the three-hour bus trip across the width of the nation to the city of Narva, perched right on the Russian border.
Arrival, on the city’s southern side, hardly gives a flattering first impression of this EU outpost. The symmetrical pattern of the housing blocks that surround the bus terminal (such as it is) are shabby-looking, peeling structures that could be taken straight from a communist builder’s instruction manual.
Even the (slightly) more luxurious houses, as opposed to blocks of flats, are ringed by crumbling pavements and bright, sagging and overgrown weeds.
Walking towards the city centre offers a few more signs of prosperity, but even the grandest hotel is reminiscent of properties in a failed seaside resort. Shops, while undoubtedly well-stocked and so accompanied by the air of prosperity that that brings, are grey and hardly enticing from the exterior.
Staring forlornly at the Russian Federation from the other side of its eponymous river, Narva, particularly when compared to its capital, gives the impression that it would rather it was governed by Moscow.
Closer, both in outlook as well distance, to St Petersburg, than to Tallinn, this impression is confirmed by the nature of its inhabitants, who number around 70,000 – a figure that has been declining since the collapse of the Soviet Union thanks to poor job prospects and the promise of greater prosperity elsewhere.
95 per cent of Narva’s populace speak Russian as their first language; four in five are ethnically Russian, and fewer than half are even Estonian citizens. The city’s Orthodox Cathedral is a relatively busy hub of activity, a stark contrast to the somewhat-forgotten, if newly renovated Lutheran version, the strand of Christianity adhered to by most in the Baltic States. Signs in shop windows, bus timetables and advertisements are in Russian as well as Estonian.
As such, both the physical make-up as well as the attitude of Narva indicate its apparent desire to face east. Adjacent to one of the main junctions in the centre of town – again, a communist-esque roundabout that lies among sweeping, arrow-straight streets, is the residential block (left) that typifies, almost stereotypically, the bland and depressingly mundane Stalinist architecture.
It really does seem like you are taking a step back in time when you walk through this paradise for adherents of concrete. The one significant tourist attraction, unsurprisingly the sole remnant of bustling medieval Narva, is its castle, which engages in a permanent face-off with an equivalent fortress on the Russian side of the river in Ivangorod (above).
This castle, though, is hardly enough to tempt the majority of tourists. Unless you are travelling to or from Russia, Narva might barely be seem worthy of a stopover. Even so, it is a fascinating example of the old Eastern Europe; accessible yet authentic.
It’s all gone Pete Tonga
New Zealand 41-10 Tonga
At first glance, it may seem as though this match was sadly predictable: hosts (and 66-point favourites according to Ladbrokes) New Zealand ease to a comfortable win over plucky but outclassed Tonga.
After twenty minutes, it threatened to be even worse for both the men in red and, surely, all neutrals. Israel Dagg and Richard Kahui had both strolled for well-worked tries, but ones that were heavily reliant on Tongan naivety (in their defensive set-up and positional awareness) as well as, of course, the more obvious faults of weak tackling.
The All Blacks headed into the interval at Eden Park 29-3 ahead – Tonga kicked a penalty with the last play of the first half after Dagg and Kahui had grabbed a second try apiece – and there was a feeling that an early score in the second period, coupled with what was likely to be the inevitability of the hosts’ physical advantage becoming more and more clear cut, would open the floodgates.
But, finally, Tonga decided that they had had enough of the script.
New Zealand as a whole, and coach Graham Henry in particular, sought a comfortable opening-day victory to calm the nerves of the team and quell the rising pressure of a desperate, expectant public.
But while the All Blacks were certainly not on top form in the second forty minutes, Tonga were much improved from their first-half showing. It took until the hour mark before they next conceded, Kahui collecting his own beautifully weighted chip and flipping the ball inside for flanker Jerome Kaino to gallop over.
But the wonderful Tongan defence that preceded that score was far more impressive. A break from Ma’a Nonu looked for all the world as if it would produce a try, but aggressive, passionate last-ditch tackles flew in, and somehow the All Blacks were repelled. When Sonny Bill Williams was held up in the corner, and the ball recovered by Tonga, you could imagine the cheers emanating from every neutral’s throat.
Even a 34-3 lead – Dan Carter missing what was, for him, a regulation conversion – was unsatisfactory for New Zealand, but Tonga then marched down the field and closed that margin.
Phase after phase of possession for Tonga, which saw them camped inside the All Blacks’ 22 metre line for ten minutes, eventually resulted in a typical forwards try for replacement prop Taumalolo.
New Zealand were penalised twice at five-metre scrums, and although they fended off the prospect of conceding the tournament’s first penalty try, Tonga kept their discipline in the face of an imperious black-shirted defence, eventually breaching it through Sona Taumalolo for a deserved score.
The All Blacks restored some pride, and took some of the gloss off the Tongans’ heroics with a very well-worked late try for Nonu, who combined well with Williams and replacement halfbacks Piri Weepu and Colin Slade in midfield to completely outfox the Tongan defence.
Even so, the match will worry New Zealand, who – although they admittedly did not have their full team out – must improve significantly if they are to get their hands on the William Webb Ellis trophy at this stadium on 23rd October. Australia et al will hardly be quaking in their boots – but, such is the pressure the All Blacks are under that a big win would probably be criticised in itself for being a sign of peaking too early.
From New Zealand’s perspective, don’t read too much into this result except as providing (another) wake-up call for the hosts.
But this encounter was also a demonstration that the minnows are not only here to make up the numbers; they can play a bit as well. Others will hopefully follow the lead of the Tongans, and in slightly more evenly matched fixtures we may even see an upset or two.
At first glance, it may seem as though this match was sadly predictable: hosts (and 66-point favourites according to Ladbrokes) New Zealand ease to a comfortable win over plucky but outclassed Tonga.
After twenty minutes, it threatened to be even worse for both the men in red and, surely, all neutrals. Israel Dagg and Richard Kahui had both strolled for well-worked tries, but ones that were heavily reliant on Tongan naivety (in their defensive set-up and positional awareness) as well as, of course, the more obvious faults of weak tackling.
The All Blacks headed into the interval at Eden Park 29-3 ahead – Tonga kicked a penalty with the last play of the first half after Dagg and Kahui had grabbed a second try apiece – and there was a feeling that an early score in the second period, coupled with what was likely to be the inevitability of the hosts’ physical advantage becoming more and more clear cut, would open the floodgates.
But, finally, Tonga decided that they had had enough of the script.
New Zealand as a whole, and coach Graham Henry in particular, sought a comfortable opening-day victory to calm the nerves of the team and quell the rising pressure of a desperate, expectant public.
But while the All Blacks were certainly not on top form in the second forty minutes, Tonga were much improved from their first-half showing. It took until the hour mark before they next conceded, Kahui collecting his own beautifully weighted chip and flipping the ball inside for flanker Jerome Kaino to gallop over.
But the wonderful Tongan defence that preceded that score was far more impressive. A break from Ma’a Nonu looked for all the world as if it would produce a try, but aggressive, passionate last-ditch tackles flew in, and somehow the All Blacks were repelled. When Sonny Bill Williams was held up in the corner, and the ball recovered by Tonga, you could imagine the cheers emanating from every neutral’s throat.
Even a 34-3 lead – Dan Carter missing what was, for him, a regulation conversion – was unsatisfactory for New Zealand, but Tonga then marched down the field and closed that margin.
Phase after phase of possession for Tonga, which saw them camped inside the All Blacks’ 22 metre line for ten minutes, eventually resulted in a typical forwards try for replacement prop Taumalolo.
New Zealand were penalised twice at five-metre scrums, and although they fended off the prospect of conceding the tournament’s first penalty try, Tonga kept their discipline in the face of an imperious black-shirted defence, eventually breaching it through Sona Taumalolo for a deserved score.
The All Blacks restored some pride, and took some of the gloss off the Tongans’ heroics with a very well-worked late try for Nonu, who combined well with Williams and replacement halfbacks Piri Weepu and Colin Slade in midfield to completely outfox the Tongan defence.
Even so, the match will worry New Zealand, who – although they admittedly did not have their full team out – must improve significantly if they are to get their hands on the William Webb Ellis trophy at this stadium on 23rd October. Australia et al will hardly be quaking in their boots – but, such is the pressure the All Blacks are under that a big win would probably be criticised in itself for being a sign of peaking too early.
From New Zealand’s perspective, don’t read too much into this result except as providing (another) wake-up call for the hosts.
But this encounter was also a demonstration that the minnows are not only here to make up the numbers; they can play a bit as well. Others will hopefully follow the lead of the Tongans, and in slightly more evenly matched fixtures we may even see an upset or two.
Rugby World Cup: Pool D preview
Reigning World Champions they might be, but South Africa don’t enter this tournament in brilliant form. The Springboks finished bottom of the Tri Nations, and whilst they did not always field their strongest team, results such as the 14-9 home defeat to Australia caused much disquiet amongst supporters.
The team is littered with star quality, from prop Tendai ‘the Beast’ Mtawarira to combative fullback Frans Steyn. In JP Pietersen and Bryan Habana, they have probably the fastest wingers in the world, even if they are not quite on the same level as they were two or three years ago. It is hard to see any real weaknesses in the South African team, although perhaps a certain staleness will count against them. They struggled against Tonga in the group stage in 2007, but will easily qualify from this group which features the other two Pacific island nations.
Wales, however, will be quietly confident that they can upset the odds and triumph over the Springboks in both sides’ opening encounter in Wellington. Winning two of their three warm-up games will have done the Welsh a world of good. The Shaun Edwards-led defence was particularly impressive in the second of the two games against England, a 19-9 win in Cardiff in which, incredibly, Wales made 150 tackles and denied England a try despite their opponents making ten visits to Wales’ 22.
Wales pose a particular threat out wide, but they will know better than anyone that attacking flair is not necessarily a recipe for success, as was proved by their thrilling 38-34 defeat to Fiji in the group stage in 2007. The Welsh also have a poor record against Samoa in World Cups, losing in both 1991 and 1999 – and both of those matches took place in Cardiff.
Samoa, however, are weaker than they have been in the past, and are unlikely to pose the same kind of threat that they did to Wales in the 1990s as well as England in the 2003 tournament, when they ran the eventual champions uncomfortably close. They will be particularly reliant on Alesana Tuilagi, but will probably end up losing out to Fiji in the battle to finish third and qualify automatically for the 2015 World Cup.
Fiji will relish taking on Wales again; as well as the 2007 victory, the south-sea island nation upset the odds in the two sides’ last meeting at the Millennium Stadium ten months ago when they snatched a 16-16 draw. That was, admittedly, a much poorer Welsh team than the one they will face Down Under, but it was a demonstration that Pool D is certainly the so-called ‘Group of Death’, and Fiji will fancy their chances of grabbing second place – although you would expect Wales to have learnt their lesson. Fiji will bring the traditional fireworks that stand their sevens team in such good stead, but will find the quarterfinals a step too far this time around.
Namibia are the real whipping boys of Pool D. Their campaign in 2003 was marked by suffering the biggest defeat (in terms of margin of victory) in tournament history against hosts Australia in Perth – by 142 points to nil. They suffered four convincing losses last time around, too, but did put up slightly more of a fight against Ireland. Coach Johan Diergaardt has vowed that this is a much better Namibian side, and in Saracens flanker Jacques Burger they have a player of undoubted star quality. Even so, four heavy defeats surely beckon.
Predictions:
Fiji 49-17 Namibia
South Africa 27-19 Wales
Samoa 55-6 Namibia
South Africa 38-13 Fiji
Wales 29-16 Samoa
South Africa 76-3 Namibia
Wales 36-14 Namibia
South Africa 41-11 Samoa
Wales 32-20 Fiji
The team is littered with star quality, from prop Tendai ‘the Beast’ Mtawarira to combative fullback Frans Steyn. In JP Pietersen and Bryan Habana, they have probably the fastest wingers in the world, even if they are not quite on the same level as they were two or three years ago. It is hard to see any real weaknesses in the South African team, although perhaps a certain staleness will count against them. They struggled against Tonga in the group stage in 2007, but will easily qualify from this group which features the other two Pacific island nations.
Wales, however, will be quietly confident that they can upset the odds and triumph over the Springboks in both sides’ opening encounter in Wellington. Winning two of their three warm-up games will have done the Welsh a world of good. The Shaun Edwards-led defence was particularly impressive in the second of the two games against England, a 19-9 win in Cardiff in which, incredibly, Wales made 150 tackles and denied England a try despite their opponents making ten visits to Wales’ 22.
Wales pose a particular threat out wide, but they will know better than anyone that attacking flair is not necessarily a recipe for success, as was proved by their thrilling 38-34 defeat to Fiji in the group stage in 2007. The Welsh also have a poor record against Samoa in World Cups, losing in both 1991 and 1999 – and both of those matches took place in Cardiff.
Samoa, however, are weaker than they have been in the past, and are unlikely to pose the same kind of threat that they did to Wales in the 1990s as well as England in the 2003 tournament, when they ran the eventual champions uncomfortably close. They will be particularly reliant on Alesana Tuilagi, but will probably end up losing out to Fiji in the battle to finish third and qualify automatically for the 2015 World Cup.
Fiji will relish taking on Wales again; as well as the 2007 victory, the south-sea island nation upset the odds in the two sides’ last meeting at the Millennium Stadium ten months ago when they snatched a 16-16 draw. That was, admittedly, a much poorer Welsh team than the one they will face Down Under, but it was a demonstration that Pool D is certainly the so-called ‘Group of Death’, and Fiji will fancy their chances of grabbing second place – although you would expect Wales to have learnt their lesson. Fiji will bring the traditional fireworks that stand their sevens team in such good stead, but will find the quarterfinals a step too far this time around.
Namibia are the real whipping boys of Pool D. Their campaign in 2003 was marked by suffering the biggest defeat (in terms of margin of victory) in tournament history against hosts Australia in Perth – by 142 points to nil. They suffered four convincing losses last time around, too, but did put up slightly more of a fight against Ireland. Coach Johan Diergaardt has vowed that this is a much better Namibian side, and in Saracens flanker Jacques Burger they have a player of undoubted star quality. Even so, four heavy defeats surely beckon.
Predictions:
Fiji 49-17 Namibia
South Africa 27-19 Wales
Samoa 55-6 Namibia
South Africa 38-13 Fiji
Wales 29-16 Samoa
South Africa 76-3 Namibia
Wales 36-14 Namibia
South Africa 41-11 Samoa
Wales 32-20 Fiji
Thursday, 8 September 2011
Rugby World Cup: Pool C preview
If current form is an accurate guide, Australia should have no trouble in qualifying from this group, most likely as winners. The Wallabies were impressive in the Tri Nations finale, upsetting the odds to defeat New Zealand 25-20 in Brisbane. They are widely seen as most likely to stop the All Blacks triumphing at the World Cup, and I have come to see them as outright favourites.
In Quade Cooper, James O’Connor (whose place in the starting XV is in doubt after a disciplinary issue), Digby Ioane and Kurtley Beale they may stake a claim to having the strongest back line in world rugby, although the highly skilled Cooper is nevertheless weak defensively and has a tendency to get rattled. It is not inconceivable that his attempts to be too clever could backfire and cost his team dear. Scrum half Will Genia, too, is arguably the best in the world in his position at present.
The Australian forwards are themselves hardly an Achilles heel. Captain James Horwill and Radike Samo are imposing presences; that said, the Wallabies will seek to exploit their advantage out wide. Their principal challenge in the group stage will be Ireland, whose team, by contrast, is aging.
This will almost certainly be the final chance for players such as Paul O’Connell, Brian O’Driscoll and Gordon D’Arcy to make an impact on the international stage, although there are plenty of young – yet experienced – backs in the Irish stage, including Jonathan Sexton and Tommy Bowe. Ireland were disappointing in their warm-up matches, losing all four. They performed badly at the last World Cup, too, and will be desperate to make amends, but although it would be a surprise if they failed to qualify from the pool, it is difficult to see them getting further than the quarterfinals.
Italy have a poor record in World Cups, never having qualified for the knockout phases. Flashes of quality in the Six Nations have been all too rare, although a first win over France in the tournament earlier in 2011 gave cause for much celebration amongst supporters of the Azzurri. Number Eight Sergio Parisse is one of the world’s elite players, but along with other stars such as fellow forwards Andrea Lo Cicero and Martin Castrogiovanni, he cannot, of course, carry the rest of the team. Even so, the perennial third seeds will see Ireland as a target, and will pull out all the stops finally to reach the quarterfinals – and on their day, they are certainly capable of doing so.
The United States and Russia met in the Bowl Final of this summer’s Churchill Cup, where they played out a thrilling (if relatively defensively inept) encounter in which the American Eagles triumphed 32-25. There was plenty of attacking rugby – and US winger Takudzwa Ngwenya is still remembered fondly in the rugby world for burning South Africa’s Bryan Habana in the 2007 World Cup to score a famous try. That score had been set up by another key man for the Eagles, wild-haired flanker and captain Todd Clever.
Russia will be keen to make amends for that defeat in this, their first World Cup tournament. Coached by former Welsh captain Kingsley Jones, the Bears will be forced to perform the traditional minnows’ role of retaining respectability against the bigger sides. Being a physical side should help them in this regard, and neither Ireland nor Italy are likely to be able to run riot against them. This tournament, though, will be little more than a learning process for them.
Predictions:
Australia 56-18 Italy
Ireland 32-13 USA
Russia 20-33 USA
Australia 27-16 Ireland
Italy 45-10 Russia
Australia 61-9 USA
Ireland 34-6 Russia
Italy 32-19 USA
Australia 59-3 Russia
Ireland 24-28 Italy
In Quade Cooper, James O’Connor (whose place in the starting XV is in doubt after a disciplinary issue), Digby Ioane and Kurtley Beale they may stake a claim to having the strongest back line in world rugby, although the highly skilled Cooper is nevertheless weak defensively and has a tendency to get rattled. It is not inconceivable that his attempts to be too clever could backfire and cost his team dear. Scrum half Will Genia, too, is arguably the best in the world in his position at present.
The Australian forwards are themselves hardly an Achilles heel. Captain James Horwill and Radike Samo are imposing presences; that said, the Wallabies will seek to exploit their advantage out wide. Their principal challenge in the group stage will be Ireland, whose team, by contrast, is aging.
This will almost certainly be the final chance for players such as Paul O’Connell, Brian O’Driscoll and Gordon D’Arcy to make an impact on the international stage, although there are plenty of young – yet experienced – backs in the Irish stage, including Jonathan Sexton and Tommy Bowe. Ireland were disappointing in their warm-up matches, losing all four. They performed badly at the last World Cup, too, and will be desperate to make amends, but although it would be a surprise if they failed to qualify from the pool, it is difficult to see them getting further than the quarterfinals.
Italy have a poor record in World Cups, never having qualified for the knockout phases. Flashes of quality in the Six Nations have been all too rare, although a first win over France in the tournament earlier in 2011 gave cause for much celebration amongst supporters of the Azzurri. Number Eight Sergio Parisse is one of the world’s elite players, but along with other stars such as fellow forwards Andrea Lo Cicero and Martin Castrogiovanni, he cannot, of course, carry the rest of the team. Even so, the perennial third seeds will see Ireland as a target, and will pull out all the stops finally to reach the quarterfinals – and on their day, they are certainly capable of doing so.
The United States and Russia met in the Bowl Final of this summer’s Churchill Cup, where they played out a thrilling (if relatively defensively inept) encounter in which the American Eagles triumphed 32-25. There was plenty of attacking rugby – and US winger Takudzwa Ngwenya is still remembered fondly in the rugby world for burning South Africa’s Bryan Habana in the 2007 World Cup to score a famous try. That score had been set up by another key man for the Eagles, wild-haired flanker and captain Todd Clever.
Russia will be keen to make amends for that defeat in this, their first World Cup tournament. Coached by former Welsh captain Kingsley Jones, the Bears will be forced to perform the traditional minnows’ role of retaining respectability against the bigger sides. Being a physical side should help them in this regard, and neither Ireland nor Italy are likely to be able to run riot against them. This tournament, though, will be little more than a learning process for them.
Predictions:
Australia 56-18 Italy
Ireland 32-13 USA
Russia 20-33 USA
Australia 27-16 Ireland
Italy 45-10 Russia
Australia 61-9 USA
Ireland 34-6 Russia
Italy 32-19 USA
Australia 59-3 Russia
Ireland 24-28 Italy
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Rugby World Cup: Pool B preview
In many ways Pool B is the most intriguing of the group stage. England and Scotland will count themselves fortunate to have drawn Argentina, top Pool B seeds thanks to their ranking as the world’s fourth best team when the World Cup draw was made two years ago.
The intervening period has seen the Pumas slip below both the principal opposition nations in this group to ninth (with England fifth and Scotland seventh). The rankings reflect the fact that Argentina, who will join the Tri Nations next season, are a shadow of their 2007 team, which defeated hosts France twice to claim an impressive third-place finish.
Even so, the South Americans will be hopeful of progressing to the quarterfinals, most likely at the expense of Scotland – but a victory over England instead or as well is far from inconceivable. The recent warm-up matches showcased two very different England teams; against Wales (in Cardiff, and the second half at Twickenham), they looked poor. Nevertheless, flashes of excellence in the London encounter with the Welsh, as well as a satisfying avenging of their Six Nations loss in Dublin, indicated that an English side that can click will remain a distinct threat.
Manu Tuilagi, who bagged two tries in those warm-ups, is an exciting option that could solve Martin Johnson’s headache in the centre, although opponents will seek to exploit his distinct lack of international experience. Johnson will have been pleased with Jonny Wilkinson performances in those fixtures, but with the perennial threats of Chris Ashton and Ben Foden, he will be less reliant on Wilkinson’s left boot than when he lifted the Webb Ellis trophy himself in 2003.
Scotland have undergone a mini-resurgence themselves in recent years, although they are far from being a team that will automatically strike fear into the hearts of other top tier sides. Their warm-up matches consisted of a narrow win over Ireland in a dire contest watched by a more than half-empty Murrayfield. Considered as the second-worst team in the Six Nations for much of the previous decade, Scotland impressed in 2010, when they felt that they could have secured the Triple Crown. They followed this with a victory over World Champions South Africa at Murrayfield, but apparently let slip any gain in their disappointing Six Nations campaign earlier this year. Their forwards, particularly Kelly Brown, John Barclay and captain Alastair Kellock, remain formidable, but for too long their backs – with the exception of the pace of Max Evans – have remained relatively impotent.
The other two sides in the Pool, Romania and Georgia are, or course, very much weaker. Romania were a force in the early 1990s, a time which even featured a win in France against the national team. They have qualified for every World Cup, and will be looking to continue their record of winning one match at each tournament since 1995; however, they might find it tough against the Georgians, and the Oaks are certainly not helped by the withdrawal of winger Catalin Fercu, who refused to travel to New Zealand on account of his fear of flying.
Georgian rugby has been rising steadily in recent years. World Cup debutants in 2007, they came extremely close to providing what might have been the biggest shock in international rugby history when they were pipped 14-10 by Ireland; the so-called minnows failed to capitalise on late pressure in the encounter (and had a ‘try’ disallowed by the television match official), which they were leading after 55 minutes. England, Scotland and Argentina will be aware of Georgia’s potential, and should see them off, but the Lelos are sure to put up a tough, physical battle and will make life difficult for the more established nations, and I would expect Georgia to triumph over Romania.
Predictions:
Scotland 35-10 Romania
Argentina 18-27 England
Scotland 31-14 Georgia
Argentina 33-6 Romania
England 44-18 Georgia
England 67-11 Romania
Argentina 18-20 Scotland
Georgia 27-19 Romania
England 28-17 Scotland
Argentina 22-13 Georgia
The intervening period has seen the Pumas slip below both the principal opposition nations in this group to ninth (with England fifth and Scotland seventh). The rankings reflect the fact that Argentina, who will join the Tri Nations next season, are a shadow of their 2007 team, which defeated hosts France twice to claim an impressive third-place finish.
Even so, the South Americans will be hopeful of progressing to the quarterfinals, most likely at the expense of Scotland – but a victory over England instead or as well is far from inconceivable. The recent warm-up matches showcased two very different England teams; against Wales (in Cardiff, and the second half at Twickenham), they looked poor. Nevertheless, flashes of excellence in the London encounter with the Welsh, as well as a satisfying avenging of their Six Nations loss in Dublin, indicated that an English side that can click will remain a distinct threat.
Manu Tuilagi, who bagged two tries in those warm-ups, is an exciting option that could solve Martin Johnson’s headache in the centre, although opponents will seek to exploit his distinct lack of international experience. Johnson will have been pleased with Jonny Wilkinson performances in those fixtures, but with the perennial threats of Chris Ashton and Ben Foden, he will be less reliant on Wilkinson’s left boot than when he lifted the Webb Ellis trophy himself in 2003.
Scotland have undergone a mini-resurgence themselves in recent years, although they are far from being a team that will automatically strike fear into the hearts of other top tier sides. Their warm-up matches consisted of a narrow win over Ireland in a dire contest watched by a more than half-empty Murrayfield. Considered as the second-worst team in the Six Nations for much of the previous decade, Scotland impressed in 2010, when they felt that they could have secured the Triple Crown. They followed this with a victory over World Champions South Africa at Murrayfield, but apparently let slip any gain in their disappointing Six Nations campaign earlier this year. Their forwards, particularly Kelly Brown, John Barclay and captain Alastair Kellock, remain formidable, but for too long their backs – with the exception of the pace of Max Evans – have remained relatively impotent.
The other two sides in the Pool, Romania and Georgia are, or course, very much weaker. Romania were a force in the early 1990s, a time which even featured a win in France against the national team. They have qualified for every World Cup, and will be looking to continue their record of winning one match at each tournament since 1995; however, they might find it tough against the Georgians, and the Oaks are certainly not helped by the withdrawal of winger Catalin Fercu, who refused to travel to New Zealand on account of his fear of flying.
Georgian rugby has been rising steadily in recent years. World Cup debutants in 2007, they came extremely close to providing what might have been the biggest shock in international rugby history when they were pipped 14-10 by Ireland; the so-called minnows failed to capitalise on late pressure in the encounter (and had a ‘try’ disallowed by the television match official), which they were leading after 55 minutes. England, Scotland and Argentina will be aware of Georgia’s potential, and should see them off, but the Lelos are sure to put up a tough, physical battle and will make life difficult for the more established nations, and I would expect Georgia to triumph over Romania.
Predictions:
Scotland 35-10 Romania
Argentina 18-27 England
Scotland 31-14 Georgia
Argentina 33-6 Romania
England 44-18 Georgia
England 67-11 Romania
Argentina 18-20 Scotland
Georgia 27-19 Romania
England 28-17 Scotland
Argentina 22-13 Georgia
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
Rugby World Cup: Pool A preview
Favourites at nearly every World Cup since they won the inaugural tournament in 1987, also on home soil, New Zealand will be desperate to rid themselves of their ‘chokers’ tag, and there is no better opportunity than now. The All Blacks approached the tournament in a rich vein of form, thrashing South Africa and comfortably seeing off Australia in the opening encounters of this season’s Tri Nations competition. However, a defeat to the Springboks in Port Elizabeth – albeit in a match in which New Zealand fielded a reserve line-up – allowed Australia the chance, which they duly took, to avenge their earlier defeat against the All Blacks.
That defeat to the Wallabies has made the New Zealand public even more nervous than they already were, and, despite the obvious denials, is likely to have a similar effect on the team. Group rivals France are something of a bogey team for the hosts, having knocked them out of the 1999 and 2007 tournaments in two of the most famous matches in World Cup history. This group, more than any other, has two teams of a far higher quality than the other three, Tonga, Japan and Canada.
Both the All Blacks and the French would be extremely upset not to beat each of those teams by at least twenty points, and there is very little scope for an upset. New Zealand should defeat France at Auckland’s Eden Park, although France will be hopeful that they can take advantage of the pressure that the hosts are under. To do so they must close down the All Blacks’ backs, primarily Zac Guildford, Cory Jane and . New Zealand will also seek to dominate up front, but the French forwards are no pushovers themselves, and Marc Lievremont’s men must retain their discipline in order to cause an upset. That, though, is by no means out of the question; with both teams having a reputation for free-flowing rugby, the fixture, on 24 September, is likely to be one of the highlights of the group stage.
Japan were disappointed not to be chosen as hosts of this tournament – although they have since been awarded the 2019 event – and they will want to make a strong showing in order to build-up their support over the course of the next eight years. They will be acutely aware that sixteen years ago, the last time they shared a group with New Zealand they conceded the most points in a World Cup match ever, losing to the All Blacks by 145 points to seventeen. They will avoid a similar scoreline this year, but they will focus their attention on attempting to defeat Canada and Tonga. The Cherry Blossoms, under coach John Kirwan, will be filled with confidence after having won the Pacific Nations Cup earlier this year, beating Tonga and Fiji.
Canada, fresh from their own second place finish at this year’s Churchill Cup, in which they beat Italy A (who went on to defeat Tonga in the Plate final) and Russia, were also in Japan’s group in 2007. That meeting resulted in a 12-12 draw, in a thrilling contest that was nevertheless short of high-class rugby. The three fixtures between the lesser teams in Pool A will be worthy contests, and each team will approach them with the hope, or even expectation, of winning.
Predictions:
New Zealand 71-8 Tonga
France 62-13 Japan
Tonga 25-22 Canada
New Zealand 78-10 Japan
France 48-9 Canada
Tonga 24-16 Japan
New Zealand 29-19 France
Canada 23-29 Japan
France 55-6 Tonga
New Zealand 61-16 Canada
That defeat to the Wallabies has made the New Zealand public even more nervous than they already were, and, despite the obvious denials, is likely to have a similar effect on the team. Group rivals France are something of a bogey team for the hosts, having knocked them out of the 1999 and 2007 tournaments in two of the most famous matches in World Cup history. This group, more than any other, has two teams of a far higher quality than the other three, Tonga, Japan and Canada.
Both the All Blacks and the French would be extremely upset not to beat each of those teams by at least twenty points, and there is very little scope for an upset. New Zealand should defeat France at Auckland’s Eden Park, although France will be hopeful that they can take advantage of the pressure that the hosts are under. To do so they must close down the All Blacks’ backs, primarily Zac Guildford, Cory Jane and . New Zealand will also seek to dominate up front, but the French forwards are no pushovers themselves, and Marc Lievremont’s men must retain their discipline in order to cause an upset. That, though, is by no means out of the question; with both teams having a reputation for free-flowing rugby, the fixture, on 24 September, is likely to be one of the highlights of the group stage.
Japan were disappointed not to be chosen as hosts of this tournament – although they have since been awarded the 2019 event – and they will want to make a strong showing in order to build-up their support over the course of the next eight years. They will be acutely aware that sixteen years ago, the last time they shared a group with New Zealand they conceded the most points in a World Cup match ever, losing to the All Blacks by 145 points to seventeen. They will avoid a similar scoreline this year, but they will focus their attention on attempting to defeat Canada and Tonga. The Cherry Blossoms, under coach John Kirwan, will be filled with confidence after having won the Pacific Nations Cup earlier this year, beating Tonga and Fiji.
Canada, fresh from their own second place finish at this year’s Churchill Cup, in which they beat Italy A (who went on to defeat Tonga in the Plate final) and Russia, were also in Japan’s group in 2007. That meeting resulted in a 12-12 draw, in a thrilling contest that was nevertheless short of high-class rugby. The three fixtures between the lesser teams in Pool A will be worthy contests, and each team will approach them with the hope, or even expectation, of winning.
Predictions:
New Zealand 71-8 Tonga
France 62-13 Japan
Tonga 25-22 Canada
New Zealand 78-10 Japan
France 48-9 Canada
Tonga 24-16 Japan
New Zealand 29-19 France
Canada 23-29 Japan
France 55-6 Tonga
New Zealand 61-16 Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)