Sports After Dark

As the southern summer heats up and players from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and the West Indies prepare to don the coloured uniforms for their respecive ODI series, perhaps it’s time for cricket to adopt a tiebreaker in these games.

There is nothing more exciting than a game being decided by the last swing of the bat in a One Dayer, but occasionally that one swing can’t propel either team to victory. While ties are unusual in One Day cricket, happening in around one out of 200 matches, they do feel like a let down for both sets of supporters.

One Day cricket was born as a television spectacle with an emphasis on entertainment and recent innovations, such as the power plays, have been brought in to enhance the entertainment factor. The most recent change to the game sees one of the power plays in the control of the batting team, the intention of this change is so that teams can take a power play late in the innings and score runs with some big hitting. Again, all about entertainment.

In the short short form of the game, Twenty20, there have been just three international games which have finished in a tie. Two of these ties were broken by a “bowl-off” while the most recent one, between New Zealand and the West Indies, was decided by a “one over eliminator”.

For mine, the bowl off always felt somewhat ill-conceived as five bowlers from each team had two attempts at hitting unguarded stumps. Cricket is primarily about a contest between the batsman and the bowler, and if you take the batsman away from the contest it ceases to be cricket.

Now the one over eliminator seems to be an almost perfect way to decide ties. Both teams nominate three batsman and one bowler, then attempt to score as many runs as possible. Chris Gayle’s huge hitting provided wonderful drama at Eden Park, while New Zealand’s Jacob Oram and Jesse Ryder both smashed balls over the boundaries, they then both got out handing the West Indies the win.

The only thing not to like about the one over eliminator is the name. For some reason the name “eliminator” conjures up memories of American Gladiators in my head, perhaps “Single Over Shootout” might be a better name. In fact, I think I might have to copyright that myself.

Many other sports have tie breakers in their laws, specifically to increase the tension and drama of a close match. Football has the penalty shootout, perhaps the most pressure in all of sports, while rugby league and NFL have sudden death extra time, when every pass, run and kick has the potential to end the game. Why shouldn’t cricket follow suit and give the fans the most exciting finish possible, even in the event of a tie.

After watching the two tests between New Zealand and the West Indies, the second series to use the experimental referral system, it seems that adding more technology to combat contentious umpiring decisions could be detrimental to the game, attacking one of the fundamental principles of the game: the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman.

The first test of the year, between Australia and India in Sydney, ignited a firestorm of controversy over a number of contentious umpiring decisions and how both teams reacted to them. The Indians felt that they had been on the receiving end of incompetant umpiring, while the Aussies came under fire for the way they conducted themselves when decisions went against them.

During this time Sportingo was flooded with articles examining all viewpoints and opinions, and some, myself included, called for the adoption of more technology, pointing out that the viewers at home were being presented with more information that the umpires on the field.

The ICC’s trial of a referral system is well designed and well intentioned. Both teams can refer an umpires decision to the third umpire for further examination and can do so unsuccessfully three times per innings, if the referral is successful it does not count against the team.

Daniel Flynn became the first batsman in New Zealand to fall victim to the referral system, initially given not out lbw off the bowling of West Indian captain Chris Gayle, but given out by the third umpire. Flynn was given not out as the ball appeared to strike him outside the line of off stump, but in super slow motion and with the assistance of hawkeye the ball did strike him in line, barely.

While Flynn’s dismissal was the first, it was the dismissal of Denesh Ramdin which highlighted the flaws in the current system. Firstly, the decision took around five minutes to come down from third umpire Rudy Koertzen which left the crowd, players and viewers bored and confused.

But the bigger issue was the method of dismissal, LBW to a ball which appeared to be missing leg stump. For years there seems to have been some shrinking of the size of the stumps in the minds of umpires, frequently giving not out decisions to ball which may have been hitting leg stump, in fact some umpires seem to take leg stump completely out of the LBW equation all together. But with the ability to freeze frame and mark exactly where the ball stuck the batsman, plus enough time to example all 24 camera angles, suddenly the benefit of the doubt goes out the window.

Former New Zealand wicketkeeper Ian Smith, after seeing this decision, said he would like to have been a bowler had decisions like that been given in his day, while former bowler Simon Doull jokingly announced he would be coming out of retirement.

Perhaps referrals are the way to go in the future, they certainly would have done a lot to defuse the controversy in Sydney at the beginning of the year, but the current system needs some tweaks. A time limit would be a good start, but there still needs to be an option for the third umpire to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, this is the golden rule of umpiring and no amount of technology should replace that.

While watching the England vs New Zealand test match at the weekend, I was once again struck by a gap in the laws of rugby and how referees often find themselves trapped by this hole and how perhaps the game needs to adapt to fill it.

What was the incident that sparked this train of thought was the high tackle by Toby Flood on Jimmy Cowan. As high tackles go, this one was, to my mind, somewhere in the middle of the scale. In Flood’s favour was that he didn’t hit Cowan with a stiff arm, nor did he cause any injury at all, but counting against him is the fact that he aimed high, and was the last defender who could have stopped Cowan, although a speedy winger may have caught him in a 60m foot race to the line.

But was it really deserving of a yellow card? The case can be made either way, but it seems to me that a yellow card is too harsh, and a talking to by the referee too soft, and this is the gap I’m referring to.

What rugby needs is the equivalent of football’s yellow card, a caution that allows the player to stay on the field, but lets him know that further offences will see him leave. For the sake of continuity, let’s colour this card green.

And much like the other cards found in rugby, where two yellows is a red, two greens is a yellow. This would allow referees to dish out sanctions to players for incidents such as Flood’s tackle, without unduly penalising the team by leaving them a man short for 10 minutes.

While the green card shouldn’t replace general warnings, like the ones given to England for infringing at the tackle, it would allow referees the flexibilty to deal with one off incidents.

In the same vein, rugby could ammend the current ass of a law regarding penalty tries due to foul play. A couple of weeks back we saw Irish winger Tommy Bowe sin binned after deliberately batting the ball away from Richie McCaw preventing a probable try.

Referee Mark Lawrence correctly ruled this as a penalty try, with a little help from the TMO, but then found himself shackled by a law which requires him to dish out a yellow or red card to the player whose foul play prevented the try from being scored. Something of a double whammy when it comes to being penalised, seven points against and then facing the next 10 minutes with one less player. If a green card were available to Lawrence as well, perhaps Bowe could have remained on the field.

The experimental laws are certainly a step in the right direction, but perhaps it’s time rugby tried something a bit further outside the box, and personally I think the green card would be a step in the right direction.

Just two days after their shock loss to New Zealand in the Rugby League World Cup final, the Australian coaches and players are showing their true colours with some bizarre outburst about the game.

There were a couple of controversial incidents in the game, and both decisions did go the Kiwis way. First Jerome Ropati scored a try after Benji Marshall appeared to knock on, then the Kiwis were awarded a penalty try after Lance Hohaia was taken out by Joel Monaghan.

Australian coach Ricky Stuart made the bizzare claim that his team had been “stitched up” by tournament organisers, saying that a victory by anyone other than Australia would dampen the claims that this tournament had been a one horse race. Stuart apparently had a verbal altercation with ARL chief Geoff Carr immediately after the match.

Prop Brent Kite was also critical of the decision to award New Zealand a penalty try when Hohaia was taken out by Monaghan chasing a grubber kick into the in goal. When asked if fullback Billy Slater would have got to the ball ahead of Hohaia had he not been taken out Kite replied “Of course he would have, I think anyone could have seen that.”

Unfortunately for Australia, unaccumstomed to losing in rugby league, the penalty try decision was probably a good one. Hohaia was a metre from the ball when he was taken out, and probably would have taken the ball before it next bounced and scored at Slater’s feet.

Even the laws of the game seem to be against the Australian conspiracy theory. Law 6.3 (d) the Referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team.

Front rower Anthony Laffranchi also criticised the decision to award Ropati’s try after Marshall appear to knock on and a number of Kangaroos stopped playing, despite there being no whistle. “It was terrible, to be honest,” said Laffranchi.

But the way these incidents have been refereed has not changed in a number of year, as Laffranchie attempted to rake the ball from Marshall’s grasp in the tackle, negating any knock on. Channel 9’s Peter Stirling, himself a rugby league legend, put it best when he said, “If Laffranchie doesn’t play at that football, Marshall doesn’t lose it.”

While the controversial decisions did not help the Australians, the reason for their loss were best summed up by Fairfax league writers Jacquelin Magnay and Glenn Jackson who said: “While Stuart might have been upset with a few decisions, it was the errors of his team, coupled with a lacklustre forward pack, that cost them the game. Captain Darren Lockyer failed to ground a try, Billy Slater threw a ball direct to try-scoring Kiwi Benji Marshall and Joel Monaghan handed the Kiwis a penalty try after a deliberate and high tackle on Lance Hohaia.”

Ahead of their clash with Ireland, the All Blacks have been met by a venomous column by Irish Independent writer Vincent Hogan, who among other things calls the All Blacks “bullies” and relishes their World Cup losses. Here’s a few choice quotes:

When they look at us they see lifelong losers

How many World Cups has Ireland won exactly?

The bullying gene in their rugby DNA practically froths and bubbles at the threat of losing to opposition of our calibre.

Bullying gene? Or it could be that they are in a no win situation, beat the Irish and it’s what was expect of them, lose to the Irish and, as Hogan puts it, go home in ankle chains.

They have a view of themselves that is routinely validated in competition.

To quote Kid Rock: “It ain’t cocky motherfucker if you back it up.”

Yet, once every four years, they go into spectacular meltdown. And when that happens, rugby has a grin on its face.

Nobody finds the All Blacks inability to win the World Cup more frustrating than New Zealanders, but I suppose when you support a team who has wins over the mighty Scots, Italians and Canadians this year, you need to find pleasure in other’s misery.

Outside of their own, few people love the All Blacks.

So Munster recruited Christian Cullen and Doug Howlett because they hate them?

Take golfer Michael Campbell out of the equation and exactly what else do they bring to mainstream sport on the global stage?

I don’t even know where to begin with this one. Our three gold medals in Beijing to Ireland’s none, Blackburn Rover’s captain Ryan Nelson, or Steve Williams, caddy to a guy you might have heard of: Tiger Woods.

The Haka is, essentially, a leery war dance.

Now he’s grasping at straws, taking shots at a tradition that is over 100 years old.

When the mood takes them, the Blacks embellish it with a gesture that, to the naked eye, looks uncannily like a promise to slit the opponent’s throat.

Ah yes, the controversial ending to the All Blacks’ alternate Haka, Kapa O Pango. This throat slitting gesture hasn’t been used in over a year because of the stir it caused among our own fans, and besides, before going into battle, what’s wrong with a little intimidation?

(Clive Woodward) also sent O’Driscoll to meet some Maori elders for advice on how to meet the Haka ‘challenge’ (and we all know how that ended).

Are there some people out there who still think that was some kind of retribution for O’Driscoll’s “disrespect”? Whether or not it was intentional on the part of the All Blacks, it had nothing to do with O’Driscoll’s gesture after the Haka, but I think we’ve uncovered the root of Hogan’s bitterness here.

In his fine autobiography, Ronan O’Gara refers to the mauling he took in the New Zealand media after the Lions opening tour game of ‘05. O’Gara missed a few tackles in the victory against Bay of Plenty and the locals didn’t spare him.

“Ronan Keating would be a better tackler,” wrote one chap in the New Zealand Herald.

And now he turns his sights on the media. I’m a big fan of O’Gara, he’s a fantastic player who can control the game with his running, passing or kicking but in that particular game he was crap. The Bay of Plenty loose forward kept running at him and his attempts at tackling looked like something you’d see from a 10 year old. Comparing him to Irish pop star Ronan Keating is pretty funny in my book.

Face it, Dan Carter could run around in circles waving daisies for an hour next Saturday and he wouldn’t face that kind of guff from our own noble hackery.

I’m sure your fellow hack Steven Jones would delight in it actually.

Maybe that’s the thing about the Blacks. We pay them too much respect when, essentially, they pay us none.

Perhaps because of the four home nations, Ireland and Scotland have never beaten the All Blacks, Wales last beat them over 50 years ago and only England have consistently provided a challenge. The All Blacks deserve that respect, and on the paddock only England have earned it.

The All Black players themselves have shown themselves off the field to be humble and full of respect for their opponents. But on the field is where it counts, and no amount of bleating from an Irish journalist is going to change that.

After easily accounting for Scotland with a mixture of first and second choice players, are any of the home nations capable of preventing the All Blacks from achieving their second Grand Slam in three years?

Up next for the All Blacks are Ireland who have not been having the best year in internationall rugby. Picking up wins against Scotland and Italy in the Six Nations and beating Canada last weekend are the only successes the men in green have had this year.

Their tour down under in June was something of a disaster for the team, losing to New Zealand and Australia in consecutive weeks, neither time really challenging their southern rivals. No, Ireland will not be the team who denies the All Blacks a Grand Slam.

After a midweek fixture against Munster, the next opponent will be Wales and this is where things get interesting for New Zealand. Wales, coached by kiwi Warren Gatland, have been something of a Jekel and Hyde team this year, going unbeaten in the Six Nations, then losing three in a row to South Africa including a 20-15 loss last weekend.

It is well documented that coach Gatland wanted his team together earlier than he got them, so it could be difficult to read much into their loss to the Boks. In fact, after another hit out against Canada, it will be the match with the All Blacks that the Welsh will be targetting for their November test schedule.

Wales have the kind of creative back line that could trouble the All Blacks, particularly with James Hook back at the helm, but it will up front where Wales will need to dominate if they are to deny New Zealand a Grand Slam.

If the All Blacks can over come Wales, the only thing between them and a Grand Slam will be England. At Twickenham England are at their best, able to stifle opponents attack, grind them down with relentless forward pay and beat them with precision goal kicking.

The England side which toured New Zealand back in June will bear little resemblance to the side which will take the field on November 30. Coach Martin Johnson is now firmly in charge, taking over from caretaker Rob Andrew, leading his inexperienced side to a good win over the Pacific Islanders.

Danny Cipriani, filling in for the once again injured Johnny Wilkinson, played especially well, slotting 14 points and directing the backline well.

England will also be match hardened, much like Wales, playing the other two Tri-Nations countries ahead of New Zealand so will be well adapted to the southern style of play, however the tough clashes could backfire as the team need to get themselves ready physically and mentally for three games in three weeks against the three top ranked sides in the world.

The All Blacks will most likely complete their Grand Slam tour unbeaten for their second Slam in three years, but Wales and particularly England will be no push overs. Expect to see full strength line ups take the field in the final two tests as coach Graham Henry looks to end the year on a high note.

The U17 Women’s World Cup may be over for hosts New Zealand, but this team of schoolgirls showed such heart and passion that they’ve done the country proud - and won a few fans in the process.

No New Zealand team has ever won a game at a Fifa World Cup, either at international or age group level, male or female, until the Young Football Ferns defeated Columbia 3-1 in their final outing of the tournament. Neither team had much to play for, both already eliminated, but New Zealand took the bull by the horns and sewed up the win they so richly deserved.

Opening the tournament against Canada, New Zealand put in a fantastic account of themselves in a 1-0 loss, providing some tense moments towards the end of the game as they battled for the equaliser. In front of 13,000 fans, a record for any female New Zealand team, the young girls did themselves proud even if they did feel the sting of defeat.

A win against Denmark could have kept them alive and looked to be on the cards when the team took the lead through Annalie Longo but it was not meant to be. Longo could have made it two, which may have sealed victory, but her shot hit the post and bounced to the keeper who started a move which gave Denmark the equaliser. Denmark went on to win 2-1.

Up against Columbia, New Zealand could have folded and just played it safe, instead they went all out in cold and wet conditions and came away with the win. Rosie White was the clear star of the game, netting all three goals for the home side in a performance which saw her leap up to fourth on the goal scorers’ list, although she fell back to sixth after the round robin finished.

While White and Longo were the only ones to get their names on the score sheet, there were plenty of other notable performances. Captain Bri Fisher anchored the team’s defense and provided wonderful leadership, Hannah Wall’s blistering pace down the wings troubled most defences, Caitlin Campbell provided a rugged and uncompromising defence and Victoria Esson filled in magnificently in goal after first choice keeper Charlotte Wood was injured in training.

A staggering eight member of this team now head to Chile to contest the U20 Women’s World Cup, but to the entire Young Football Ferns squad I say congratulations, you’ve done your country proud!

After two rounds of the group phase, the Fifa Under 17 Women’s World Cup is proving to be a major success in New Zealand, drawing record crowds in a country notoriously dismissive of football, and showing that football in its purist form provides a wonderful spectacle.

Talk to the average Kiwi about football and the likely responce will be that they dislike the theatrics often seen at the top level, the diving and swarming around the referee, as well as the negative defensive play as teams try to sit on a 1-0 lead or attempt to play for the draw.

But has any of this been seen at the Under 17 World Cup? No, although one Brazilian committed an outrageous dive, had a free kick awarded against her and was just about laughed out of the stadium. Perhaps an isolated incident in an otherwise sparkling display of all that is good about football.

The skills on show, the emotions and the passion almost make you forget that you’re watching a group of schoolgirls playing the beautiful game with stunning strikes, amazing saves and tough tackling coming from all teams.

The hosts may be out of the tournament, with a dead rubber to play against Columbia, but they have also provided some of the most entertaining moments as well. They lost both their outings by a single goal to Canada and Denmark, but in both games laid siege to their opponent’s goal in the final 10 minutes and were unlucky not to pick up an equaliser.

The contenders in this tournament have also shown themselves to be a joy to watch, the Japan vs France game clearly the match of the tournament so far. Japan played absolutely magnificently, showing flair and class in abundance as they hammered the French 7-1, showing skills well beyond their years.

Germany have also sounded a warning to the rest of the tournament, with striker Dzenifer Marozsan leading the way as the tournament’s leading scorer. Marozsan’s play, combined with some outstanding play from midfielder Isabelle Linden, has propelled Germany into the knockout phase and shown them to be a real contender.

The other team showing they have what it takes to win this inaugural tournament is England, who are the only team assured of going through from Group D after beating Brazil and Nigeria so far. The play of striker Danielle Carter, who has been compared to her All Black namesake, against Brazil was breathtaking as she netted two goals and set up the third.

Finally, this tournament could be signalling a shift in the balance of power in women’s football as all three teams from Asia, Japan, North Korea and South Korea, have played outstanding football and are all capable of making the knockout phase. Japan’s drubbing of traditional powers France was nothing short of astounding.

Perhaps New Zealand will never be a football nation and rugby will alway be king here, but the standard of play in this tournament and the passion shown by the player will win over a lot of fans. And on a side note, the New Zealand team broke down in tears after their second heart breaking loss at the weekend, why did the Silver Ferns not do the same thing after their loss to Australia?

I was going to write something about how the experiement of playing Steven Donald and Dan Carter as dual play makers was a failure, but Grant Fox over at Rugby Heaven beat me to it.

Sometimes you have to be brave enough to make big decisions. Graham Henry did that last night in Hong Kong when he hooked Steven Donald from the field in the fourth Bledisloe Cup clash.

It was the right decision. Donald will come again. But last night, the experiment of playing him in the No 10 jersey with Dan Carter in No 12 simply didn’t work.

Quite why you’d play the best first five in world rugby at second five is beyond me, but why not play Donald at second five?

Donald’s kicking game in the first half was not up to international standard.  His presence in the No 10 jersey was also tending to keep Carter out of the game.

Nor was his distribution and running. Carter doesn’t run often, but when he does he is able to freeze defensive lines, Donald just didn’t do this.

Combined with the urgency, superior cohesion and physical presence at the breakdown of a well-prepared Wallaby team, the All Blacks were looking vulnerable at the halftime break.

Actually, I think they were wondering just what the hell was going on out there, weren’t the Wallabies meant to be rusty?

With superior possession and territory stats, the All Blacks needed their key playmaker to command the ruck area - and that just wasn’t happening with Donald. So Henry’s hook came out.

Suddenly Carter was in the game more and the end result was a commendable win, giving us a 3-1 record over Australia this year.

Of course it helped that the Australia forwards started to tire and the All Blacks’ loosies got stuck into their work.

But you can’t deny the fact that Donald was found wanting in the pivot role in this game, perhaps a trial of Carter and Donald with their roles switched against Scotland would be in order. Donald is a damn good player and has all the qualities one looks for in an international first five, but he still needs some development to fully make the transition.