Saturday 16th April, all kick-offs 3pm
Blackpool v Wigan, Bloomfield Road
By all accounts, Blackpool have been entertaining this season, and games involving the Tangerines have featured the highest average number of goals in the Premier League. Ian Holloway was unhappy with the referee’s performance in their last outing against Arsenal in a game that once again demonstrated that Blackpool have what it takes to survive. Wigan look in more dire straits, although a win here would put them above their hosts. I cannot see that happening, though, and despite something of an uptick in fortunes recently, the Latics have not won away in the league since Boxing Day. Prediction: Blackpool by 1
Everton v Blackburn, Goodison Park
A difficult start to the season for Everton has been put firmly behind them, and they have an outside chance of finishing ahead of their Merseyside rivals Liverpool. They put in a clinical first-half performance last time out at Wolves, and they should beat a Blackburn side that is still not safe. Rovers look as gritty as ever, and will push Everton hard, but the hosts will have too much class. Prediction: Everton by 2
West Brom v Chelsea, The Hawthorns
Roy Hodgson appears to have settled down at the Albion after his torrid spell at Liverpool. The Baggies are certainly better off for having him; they have not lost under his management, securing impressive points against Arsenal and at Stoke, and beating Hodgson’s previous club and, last weekend, Sunderland away. They are all but safe. Chelsea had any realistic chance of a trophy this season shattered by their Champions League defeat to Manchester United this week, and morale is bound to be low at Stamford Bridge, particularly with rumours emerging about Carlo Ancelotti’s future at the club. An interesting aside to whenever Chelsea play is whether Fernando Torres will finally break his duck and score for the Blues – see: http://www.hasfernandotorresscoredforchelsea.com/. Prediction: Score draw
West Ham v Aston Villa, Upton Park
The battle of the claret-and-blues might well be the (Premier League) game of the day. West Ham have had fluctuating fortunes over the course of the season. For the first half, they struggled at the foot of the league, with perhaps only their two good cup runs saving Avram Grant’s job. They have not won since a 3-0 triumph over Stoke on 5th March. Villa scored a priceless win on Sunday against Newcastle, although were not overly impressive, and fans are far from 100 per cent behind manager Gerard Houllier. They have talent in every department, but Upton Park is not an easy place to pick up maximum points. Prediction: Score draw
Birmingham v Sunderland, St Andrews
Birmingham are yet another club looking nervously over their shoulders in the closest relegation battle in years. St Andrews is another relative fortress at the wrong end of the table, and Sunderland are almost the ideal team to come up against for the Blues, with the Black Cats themselves in a dreadful run of form. Since the beginning of February, Steve Bruce’s men have scored seven goals and picked up just one point – at the Emirates – out of a possible 24. They probably have enough points to avoid being sucked into a relegation fight, but this fixture should give the hosts a vital three points. Prediction: Birmingham by 1
Friday, 15 April 2011
Christchurch disaster puts a dampener on World Cup legacy
It was with sadness a couple of weeks ago that I read that Christchurch’s 44,000-seater AMI Stadium (or ‘Stadium Christchurch’ as it is blandly known for Rugby World Cup sponsorship reasons) will not be able to host any of this autumn’s (southern spring’s) tournament.
I realise, of course, that there were far greater tragedies that resulted from the earthquake that struck the city in February. I have friends who live in Christchurch, and while they were thankfully unharmed, the scenes of devastation were made all the more real. There was almost an unprecedented loss of life for New Zealand.
Considering all that, it may seem trivial to comment on World Cup stadia. However, it would have been a great demonstration that Christchurch was back on its feet and reopen for business had the stadium (right) been made ready for the tournament. As it is, the city will now largely miss out on the expected national windfall of US$545 million. But I am no structural engineer; I of course submit to their assessments.
Stadiums in Dunedin and Auckland will take some of Christchurch’s games; both are decent arenas, although Auckland is now lined up to host two quarter-finals, both semi-finals, the third-place play-off and the final itself. It puts complaints about using Wembley for the FA Cup semis into some perspective.
The other grounds hosting relocated games are no great shakes. They were all due to host games anyway, but more minor ones than they will now bear witness to. Rugby Park, Invercargill (below), with a capacity of just 17,000, will now play host to the Scotland-Georgia fixture, which has been pushed out of Dunedin to make way for an England game (the Scots cannot be too impressed by that). Trafalgar Park in Nelson, another tiny ground by international standards with room for just 16,000 spectators, will take a greater role, as will North Harbour Stadium in Albany, Greater Auckland. Albany’s stadium, which holds 25,000, has one fantastic stand; unfortunately, that is pretty much its only stand.
These three grounds will be more than happy to step into the vacuum caused by the Christchurch disaster, and it is a great opportunity both for the development of the regional economies and to be put beamed into living rooms and bars across the world. Unfortunately, the boost received by Invercargill, Nelson and North Harbour is predicated on the rather depressing sight of a great stadium, which I was lucky enough to watch a Super 14 match at in 2008, lying empty. It is another blow to Christchurch and its people. Hopefully the All Blacks can give them something to cheer.
I realise, of course, that there were far greater tragedies that resulted from the earthquake that struck the city in February. I have friends who live in Christchurch, and while they were thankfully unharmed, the scenes of devastation were made all the more real. There was almost an unprecedented loss of life for New Zealand.
Considering all that, it may seem trivial to comment on World Cup stadia. However, it would have been a great demonstration that Christchurch was back on its feet and reopen for business had the stadium (right) been made ready for the tournament. As it is, the city will now largely miss out on the expected national windfall of US$545 million. But I am no structural engineer; I of course submit to their assessments.
Stadiums in Dunedin and Auckland will take some of Christchurch’s games; both are decent arenas, although Auckland is now lined up to host two quarter-finals, both semi-finals, the third-place play-off and the final itself. It puts complaints about using Wembley for the FA Cup semis into some perspective.
The other grounds hosting relocated games are no great shakes. They were all due to host games anyway, but more minor ones than they will now bear witness to. Rugby Park, Invercargill (below), with a capacity of just 17,000, will now play host to the Scotland-Georgia fixture, which has been pushed out of Dunedin to make way for an England game (the Scots cannot be too impressed by that). Trafalgar Park in Nelson, another tiny ground by international standards with room for just 16,000 spectators, will take a greater role, as will North Harbour Stadium in Albany, Greater Auckland. Albany’s stadium, which holds 25,000, has one fantastic stand; unfortunately, that is pretty much its only stand.
These three grounds will be more than happy to step into the vacuum caused by the Christchurch disaster, and it is a great opportunity both for the development of the regional economies and to be put beamed into living rooms and bars across the world. Unfortunately, the boost received by Invercargill, Nelson and North Harbour is predicated on the rather depressing sight of a great stadium, which I was lucky enough to watch a Super 14 match at in 2008, lying empty. It is another blow to Christchurch and its people. Hopefully the All Blacks can give them something to cheer.
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Canadian General Election, 2 May 2011
On 2 May, Canada will have yet another general election, its fourth in just seven years. Conservative leader Stephen Harper has been Prime Minister since 2006, but has always fallen short of winning a majority, something that has led to the relative instability of politics in Ottawa.
Part of the problem is the existence of one of the strongest regionalist parties in the world – the Bloc Québécois, which desires independence for Quebec. That the party perennially wins around two thirds of the province’s ridings, or approximately fifty seats (in a Parliament of 308) makes it extremely difficult for the national parties – the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats (NDP) – to secure a majority. With 154 seats required for an overall majority, that hurdle is raised that much higher by the BQ’s consistent success. The national parties, in other words, have to win around 60 per cent of the seats not captured by the BQ.
In 2008, Harper’s Tories nevertheless did come relatively close to securing that elusive majority, winning 143 seats. This time, they may finally achieve it. Polls show them leading the Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals by eight percentage points, but the Liberals appear to be closing the gap.
This seems an election to watch, albeit with the most likely result at this stage being yet another minority government for Harper. Nevertheless, I will update the blog as the election campaign develops.
2008 results:
VOTE SHARE:
Conservative 38%
Liberal 26%
Bloc Québécois 10%
New Democrats 18%
Others 8%
SEATS:
Conservative 143
Liberal 77
Bloc Québécois 49
New Democrats 37
Others 2
Part of the problem is the existence of one of the strongest regionalist parties in the world – the Bloc Québécois, which desires independence for Quebec. That the party perennially wins around two thirds of the province’s ridings, or approximately fifty seats (in a Parliament of 308) makes it extremely difficult for the national parties – the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats (NDP) – to secure a majority. With 154 seats required for an overall majority, that hurdle is raised that much higher by the BQ’s consistent success. The national parties, in other words, have to win around 60 per cent of the seats not captured by the BQ.
In 2008, Harper’s Tories nevertheless did come relatively close to securing that elusive majority, winning 143 seats. This time, they may finally achieve it. Polls show them leading the Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals by eight percentage points, but the Liberals appear to be closing the gap.
This seems an election to watch, albeit with the most likely result at this stage being yet another minority government for Harper. Nevertheless, I will update the blog as the election campaign develops.
2008 results:
VOTE SHARE:
Conservative 38%
Liberal 26%
Bloc Québécois 10%
New Democrats 18%
Others 8%
SEATS:
Conservative 143
Liberal 77
Bloc Québécois 49
New Democrats 37
Others 2
AV broadcasts – which will resonate?
Political election broadcasts are usually dry affairs. This is perhaps no great surprise; parties have to attempt to condense into a few minutes the highlights of their manifesto as well as compelling reasons why the other lot should not be rewarded with your vote. It was, therefore, a refreshing change – purely from a point of view which values good television entertainment – to have finally caught up with the two Alternative Vote referendum broadcasts (link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13047896).
The NO to AV broadcast was shown first, last Monday evening. Attempting to illustrate what the campaign sees as the main drawbacks of AV, it featured three separate skits. Firstly, viewers saw the return of the fictional MP Alan B’Stard (apparently having abandoned the Conservative Party, which he was portrayed as a member of in the BBC political sitcom of 1980s and 1990s). Promising a raft of populist but unaffordable measures, B’Stard reveals that AV, which the film suggests leads to perennial and inevitable coalition governments, has given him a supposedly valid excuse for abandoning his promises.
The NO campaign has used Nick Clegg’s unpopularity as a key campaign theme, and the attacks on the Liberal Democrat leader are thinly-veiled in this broadcast. B’Stard emphasises his pledge to abolish all tuition fees, echoing a similar promise in the Lib Dem manifesto. Viewers will surely have made the link that NO wanted them to: Clegg broke his promise because parliamentary arithmetic forced him into a coalition. AV would lead to perennial coalition government, and increasingly hollow manifesto commitments.
B’Stard’s cameo role is followed by a horse race, in which the third place horse, ‘Lib Dem’, is awarded the winner’s trophy. Leaving aside the veracity of the argument (and the analogy is a false one), the sketch is effective at portraying what it claims is the inherent unfairness of an electoral system in which most (initial) votes do not necessarily a winner make.
Finally, perhaps the most compelling section of the broadcast. A teacher attempts to explain AV to a class of pupils, who are flummoxed by her explanation despite her reading from a chunky ‘AV manual’. Again, the teacher’s description of the workings of the Alternative Vote are not wholly accurate, but the concept of second- and third- (etc) preference votes being used surely confuses many voters. This is perhaps the most inherent weakness of AV, and although it is not, in fact, as complex as it is purported to be in the broadcast, there is a successful emphasis placed on the perceived complexity of the system.
By contrast to the relatively professional production of the NO broadcast, the broadcast, on Tuesday, by the ‘YES! to fairer votes’ campaign was a turgid affair. It featured a number of shouty constituents cornering their MPs, putting them on the spot by implying that AV encourages them to work harder.
Certainly, there are some merits to this argument. Candidates, under AV, would have to appeal to a broader range of voters than just their core support. Perhaps, too, there would be fewer MPs who felt they could take the risk of cheating on their expenses. Many members of Parliament, however, resent the insinuation that they do not work hard enough, and have said as much in response to the broadcast.
However, such a response perhaps plays into the hands of the YES campaign, allowing them to play their strongest card – that the current system of First Past the Post is a politicians’ wheeze. Again, this is not necessarily a credible argument, especially considering that most parties actually support a YES vote. However, the prevailing anti-politician mood remains strong, and if the YES campaign can be successfully portrayed as tapping this mood, it may tip the balance in favour of change.
Purely as television features, NO was clearly a superior production. Its demonstration of AV’s supposed complexity will resonate with voters, but perhaps only those who have begun to consider the referendum question, which, I daresay, is not a high proportion of the electorate. If YES can associate a NO vote with an implicit blind eye to political misdemeanours, however, it may trump any advantage that the NO transmission accrued. It is rather difficult to assess the potential impact of two overtly negative broadcasts.
The NO to AV broadcast was shown first, last Monday evening. Attempting to illustrate what the campaign sees as the main drawbacks of AV, it featured three separate skits. Firstly, viewers saw the return of the fictional MP Alan B’Stard (apparently having abandoned the Conservative Party, which he was portrayed as a member of in the BBC political sitcom of 1980s and 1990s). Promising a raft of populist but unaffordable measures, B’Stard reveals that AV, which the film suggests leads to perennial and inevitable coalition governments, has given him a supposedly valid excuse for abandoning his promises.
The NO campaign has used Nick Clegg’s unpopularity as a key campaign theme, and the attacks on the Liberal Democrat leader are thinly-veiled in this broadcast. B’Stard emphasises his pledge to abolish all tuition fees, echoing a similar promise in the Lib Dem manifesto. Viewers will surely have made the link that NO wanted them to: Clegg broke his promise because parliamentary arithmetic forced him into a coalition. AV would lead to perennial coalition government, and increasingly hollow manifesto commitments.
B’Stard’s cameo role is followed by a horse race, in which the third place horse, ‘Lib Dem’, is awarded the winner’s trophy. Leaving aside the veracity of the argument (and the analogy is a false one), the sketch is effective at portraying what it claims is the inherent unfairness of an electoral system in which most (initial) votes do not necessarily a winner make.
Finally, perhaps the most compelling section of the broadcast. A teacher attempts to explain AV to a class of pupils, who are flummoxed by her explanation despite her reading from a chunky ‘AV manual’. Again, the teacher’s description of the workings of the Alternative Vote are not wholly accurate, but the concept of second- and third- (etc) preference votes being used surely confuses many voters. This is perhaps the most inherent weakness of AV, and although it is not, in fact, as complex as it is purported to be in the broadcast, there is a successful emphasis placed on the perceived complexity of the system.
By contrast to the relatively professional production of the NO broadcast, the broadcast, on Tuesday, by the ‘YES! to fairer votes’ campaign was a turgid affair. It featured a number of shouty constituents cornering their MPs, putting them on the spot by implying that AV encourages them to work harder.
Certainly, there are some merits to this argument. Candidates, under AV, would have to appeal to a broader range of voters than just their core support. Perhaps, too, there would be fewer MPs who felt they could take the risk of cheating on their expenses. Many members of Parliament, however, resent the insinuation that they do not work hard enough, and have said as much in response to the broadcast.
However, such a response perhaps plays into the hands of the YES campaign, allowing them to play their strongest card – that the current system of First Past the Post is a politicians’ wheeze. Again, this is not necessarily a credible argument, especially considering that most parties actually support a YES vote. However, the prevailing anti-politician mood remains strong, and if the YES campaign can be successfully portrayed as tapping this mood, it may tip the balance in favour of change.
Purely as television features, NO was clearly a superior production. Its demonstration of AV’s supposed complexity will resonate with voters, but perhaps only those who have begun to consider the referendum question, which, I daresay, is not a high proportion of the electorate. If YES can associate a NO vote with an implicit blind eye to political misdemeanours, however, it may trump any advantage that the NO transmission accrued. It is rather difficult to assess the potential impact of two overtly negative broadcasts.
Hyper-injunctions threaten the liberty we should hold dear
At the risk of appearing to display a naive and fundamental misunderstanding of what drives the tabloid press, my initial reaction to the story leading most of today’s red-tops was simply “why print a story missing crucial information?”
I am aware, of course, that the incident in question contains perhaps the perfect ingredients for these publications. “World famous actor in sex romps with Rooney’s vice girl” splashes the Daily Express; “Roo hooker’s romps with a married actor” reveals the Daily Mirror; the Sun, meanwhile, leads with the relatively restrained “Rooney hooker bedded married actor”.
The headlines are intriguing, and naturally invite the reader to further investigate the story. Buy this newspaper, the front page implores, and your insatiable thirst for celebrity gossip will be at least temporarily quenched.
Except, of course, that the headlines tell as much of the story as anyone is allowed to know. The actor involved in this case is protected by an injunction that prevents the press from revealing his identity, in turn denying readers the juicy details of the “scandal”.
Not being particularly interested in such celebrity gossip (although rather perversely perhaps, I did eagerly await last season’s encounter between Manchester City and Chelsea, where the former’s Wayne Bridge came up against John Terry, who had been revealed as having “bedded” Bridge’s ex-partner), I cannot get too wound up the injunction. Indeed, I was more drawn to the adjacent front-page story in the Express, another hyperbolic rant about the European Union.
The increased frequency of such injunctions has become ever more evident. More disturbingly still, however, were the recent revelations of far more powerful court gagging orders. Known as hyper-injunctions, they are so far-reaching that they may even prevent members of the public from speaking to their MPs about the issues to which they refer.
Fortunately for our democracy, parliamentary privilege, which prevents MPs speaking in the House of Commons from being taken to court for what they say there, has been invoked to get around these scandalous measures.
Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming should thus be commended for bringing one such issue into the public domain. The High Court passed an order five years ago, Hemming revealed, in which the full weight of legal power was used to close down every route that a constituent could potentially take in order to broadcast his claims.
And what is this issue, one that apparently justifies unelected judges from deciding that its very existence should not be revealed? It concerns the paint used on ships, which, it is alleged, reacts with sea water to produce toxic by-products.
Does this really justify the full weight of the English legal system being enacted to deny an individual a platform upon which to detail his accusation? Is it morally acceptable for him or her not even to be able to discuss the matter with “members of Parliament, journalists and lawyers”, as the High Court order makes plain?
Of course not. Hyper-injunctions represent a new threat to the values of liberty that we should hold dear as a nation. We cannot, surely, tolerate a society in which a citizen is denied the right even to speak to his or her elected representative. It is almost laughable that in this case the individual was even handed a two-week suspended jail sentence merely for consulting a lawyer about whether or not to bring the case to court.
Perhaps the most dangerous facet of this affair is the fact that the judge’s orders prevent any chance of appealing the verdict. There is literally no authority to which the recipient of the injunction can legally turn, and only the constitutional quirk of parliamentary privilege has allowed the sorry episode to become a matter of public knowledge.
It is a good thing that it has. This is a matter that puts no less than a basic right – that of free speech – at risk, and represents, too, a threat to the elected democratic system in which we place our trust. A worrying precedent has been set, one that is overwhelmingly more disquieting than not being able to identify the latest cheating celebrity.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
A Letter from Durham
This appeared in my school alumni's magazine, The Breconian.
Durham, with its rolling hills and the meandering River Wear, is quite a sight to behold at any time of the year, but is particularly attractive in autumn. Carpets of brown and orange line the cobbled streets while Oxbridge-style colleges are beacons of warmth for students wrapped up against the cold in their Jack Wills blazers, contrasting uneasily with local residents.
The relationship between Durham’s students and the city’s year-round citizens has long been awkward. Neither could happily live without the other, but neither is readily willing to admit this. The university has one of the largest proportions of students educated at public schools out of any higher education institution in the United Kingdom; meanwhile the North East lags in nearly all indicators of prosperity in comparison with the rest of the country.
Generally, though, the two groups stay well apart, for better or for worse. Students reside in distinctly separate areas of town, or in colleges. There are fourteen colleges in Durham (plus another two on a separate campus, in Stockton-on-Tees), which act rather like glorified boarding houses. College rivalries are fierce yet good-natured – one college has a football 9th XI, so it is hard to take all competition too seriously. The obvious drawback to this system is that, typically, there is little social interaction between members of different colleges. Apart from lectures, the vast majority of university activity is undertaken within the college system.
One of the most popular college-initiated activities is the increasingly-infamous Newcastle night. That this has become so popular betrays a distinct lack of variety of entertainment in Durham itself. (Indeed, one satirical student publication listed Durham’s main attraction as its close proximity to the Toon.) With a population of less than 30,000 (around one fifth the size of Cambridge and Oxford, and one tenth of that of Cardiff), this can hardly come as much of a surprise. Indeed, rather more excitement is generated than can be justified at the prospect of a trip to Big Tesco; on the other hand, the recent closure of the ten pin bowling centre has left a definite vacuum in the skimpy list of Durham amusements.
Yet despite its shortcomings, autumn and winter in Durham is almost unbeatable. Certainly there is a need for a copious amount of fleece-lined clothing, and car headlights have to be illuminated seventeen hours a day. But it is a stunning, historical city (the Cathedral, labelled by the university’s outgoing Chancellor, Bill Bryson, as the ‘greatest on Planet Earth’, was completed in 1133) that impresses everyone who is new to it, despite its diminutive size.
Being six hours from Brecon, it is hardly a surprise that OBs have failed to swarm to Durham in the same way as southern universities. It is no less of a shame, though, that this city, tiny but beautiful, flawed yet wonderful, has not been considered by more Breconians. So long as you leave your Jack Wills blazers at home, Durham will welcome you warmly.
Durham, with its rolling hills and the meandering River Wear, is quite a sight to behold at any time of the year, but is particularly attractive in autumn. Carpets of brown and orange line the cobbled streets while Oxbridge-style colleges are beacons of warmth for students wrapped up against the cold in their Jack Wills blazers, contrasting uneasily with local residents.
The relationship between Durham’s students and the city’s year-round citizens has long been awkward. Neither could happily live without the other, but neither is readily willing to admit this. The university has one of the largest proportions of students educated at public schools out of any higher education institution in the United Kingdom; meanwhile the North East lags in nearly all indicators of prosperity in comparison with the rest of the country.
Generally, though, the two groups stay well apart, for better or for worse. Students reside in distinctly separate areas of town, or in colleges. There are fourteen colleges in Durham (plus another two on a separate campus, in Stockton-on-Tees), which act rather like glorified boarding houses. College rivalries are fierce yet good-natured – one college has a football 9th XI, so it is hard to take all competition too seriously. The obvious drawback to this system is that, typically, there is little social interaction between members of different colleges. Apart from lectures, the vast majority of university activity is undertaken within the college system.
One of the most popular college-initiated activities is the increasingly-infamous Newcastle night. That this has become so popular betrays a distinct lack of variety of entertainment in Durham itself. (Indeed, one satirical student publication listed Durham’s main attraction as its close proximity to the Toon.) With a population of less than 30,000 (around one fifth the size of Cambridge and Oxford, and one tenth of that of Cardiff), this can hardly come as much of a surprise. Indeed, rather more excitement is generated than can be justified at the prospect of a trip to Big Tesco; on the other hand, the recent closure of the ten pin bowling centre has left a definite vacuum in the skimpy list of Durham amusements.
Yet despite its shortcomings, autumn and winter in Durham is almost unbeatable. Certainly there is a need for a copious amount of fleece-lined clothing, and car headlights have to be illuminated seventeen hours a day. But it is a stunning, historical city (the Cathedral, labelled by the university’s outgoing Chancellor, Bill Bryson, as the ‘greatest on Planet Earth’, was completed in 1133) that impresses everyone who is new to it, despite its diminutive size.
Being six hours from Brecon, it is hardly a surprise that OBs have failed to swarm to Durham in the same way as southern universities. It is no less of a shame, though, that this city, tiny but beautiful, flawed yet wonderful, has not been considered by more Breconians. So long as you leave your Jack Wills blazers at home, Durham will welcome you warmly.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Green Bay Pack a Mighty Punch
Green Bay Packers 31-25 Pittsburgh Steelers
The Green Bay Packers took the Vince Lombardi trophy back to Wisconsin after triumphing over the Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XLV.
The Packers won their first championship for fourteen years after a hard-fought battle at Cowboys Stadium, Texas.
Two first half passing touchdowns for Green Bay’s Aaron Rodgers, complemented by a defensive score, had given them a comfortable halftime lead, and they withheld a second-half rally to secure their fourth NFL championship.
Pittsburgh at one stage trailed by eighteen points, and despite their second-half recovery, they had left themselves too great a margin to overcome.
The game began relatively slowly, and, after the teams traded early punts, the Packers got on the board first when Rodgers connected with wide receiver Jordy Nelson, who clung on to fall into the end zone for a 29-yard score.
The lead doubled moments later when a wayward throw from Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was returned 37 yards for a touchdown by safety Nick Collins, who could barely believe his luck as the throw fell into his hands.
Pittsburgh cut the deficit to eleven points at the beginning of the second quarter with a short Shane Suisham field goal, but the offence once again cost the team as, on their next possession, Roethlisberger threw his second interception of the half. Green Bay’s Jared Bush, under intense pressure from Pittsburgh wide receiver Mike Wallace, expertly held on to Roethlisberger’s attempted pass.
The resulting field position led to a 21-yard touchdown pass from Rodgers to his veteran receiver Greg Jennings. Pittsburgh, sensing the importance of reducing the deficit before the Black Eyed Peas-led half time show, drove quickly downfield. Roethlisberger tossed a short touchdown pass to Hines Ward with 39 seconds before the interval, but the task facing the six-time champions – an eleven-point deficit – remained great.
It was, however, a rejuvenated Pittsburgh that emerged from the locker room for the second half. Green Bay were held by some determined Steelers defence on the opening possession of the period and – assisted by a dubious facemask penalty on the Packers – Pittsburgh was able to drive downfield. Running back Rashard Mendenhall capped the drive by powering over for an eight-yard score, reducing the Packers’ lead to four points.
The pattern continued on the following Green Bay drives, with Rodgers unable to find a way past Pittsburgh’s intimidating secondary. Forced to punt on all four of their third-quarter drives, the Steelers appeared to be very much in the ascendancy. The very first play of the fourth quarter apparently shifted the momentum right back to the NFC champions, however.
The powerful Mendenhall, who had an excellent game otherwise, fumbled following a crunching hit by the Packers’ inspirational Clay Matthews. For the third time in the game Pittsburgh paid the penalty for a turnover by giving up a touchdown following the takeaway, with the Packers marching downfield and Jennings’ second score restoring his team’s double-digit lead.
Still, though, the Steelers refused to give in. Roethlisberger threw a touchdown to Wallace before Antwaan Randle El scampered in for the two-point conversion, and with less than eight minutes to go, Pittsburgh was just three points in arrears. But the Packers padded out their win with a short Mason Crosby field goal, and they repelled one final Pittsburgh drive to crown a glorious night for Mike McCarthy’s men.
The Green Bay Packers took the Vince Lombardi trophy back to Wisconsin after triumphing over the Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XLV.
The Packers won their first championship for fourteen years after a hard-fought battle at Cowboys Stadium, Texas.
Two first half passing touchdowns for Green Bay’s Aaron Rodgers, complemented by a defensive score, had given them a comfortable halftime lead, and they withheld a second-half rally to secure their fourth NFL championship.
Pittsburgh at one stage trailed by eighteen points, and despite their second-half recovery, they had left themselves too great a margin to overcome.
The game began relatively slowly, and, after the teams traded early punts, the Packers got on the board first when Rodgers connected with wide receiver Jordy Nelson, who clung on to fall into the end zone for a 29-yard score.
The lead doubled moments later when a wayward throw from Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was returned 37 yards for a touchdown by safety Nick Collins, who could barely believe his luck as the throw fell into his hands.
Pittsburgh cut the deficit to eleven points at the beginning of the second quarter with a short Shane Suisham field goal, but the offence once again cost the team as, on their next possession, Roethlisberger threw his second interception of the half. Green Bay’s Jared Bush, under intense pressure from Pittsburgh wide receiver Mike Wallace, expertly held on to Roethlisberger’s attempted pass.
The resulting field position led to a 21-yard touchdown pass from Rodgers to his veteran receiver Greg Jennings. Pittsburgh, sensing the importance of reducing the deficit before the Black Eyed Peas-led half time show, drove quickly downfield. Roethlisberger tossed a short touchdown pass to Hines Ward with 39 seconds before the interval, but the task facing the six-time champions – an eleven-point deficit – remained great.
It was, however, a rejuvenated Pittsburgh that emerged from the locker room for the second half. Green Bay were held by some determined Steelers defence on the opening possession of the period and – assisted by a dubious facemask penalty on the Packers – Pittsburgh was able to drive downfield. Running back Rashard Mendenhall capped the drive by powering over for an eight-yard score, reducing the Packers’ lead to four points.
The pattern continued on the following Green Bay drives, with Rodgers unable to find a way past Pittsburgh’s intimidating secondary. Forced to punt on all four of their third-quarter drives, the Steelers appeared to be very much in the ascendancy. The very first play of the fourth quarter apparently shifted the momentum right back to the NFC champions, however.
The powerful Mendenhall, who had an excellent game otherwise, fumbled following a crunching hit by the Packers’ inspirational Clay Matthews. For the third time in the game Pittsburgh paid the penalty for a turnover by giving up a touchdown following the takeaway, with the Packers marching downfield and Jennings’ second score restoring his team’s double-digit lead.
Still, though, the Steelers refused to give in. Roethlisberger threw a touchdown to Wallace before Antwaan Randle El scampered in for the two-point conversion, and with less than eight minutes to go, Pittsburgh was just three points in arrears. But the Packers padded out their win with a short Mason Crosby field goal, and they repelled one final Pittsburgh drive to crown a glorious night for Mike McCarthy’s men.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)