It's hope, that's all...

King Kenny. Hope. What's the difference? When Rafa Benitez left Liverpool last week by mutual consent, it began. Nobody likes change at the best of times, but usually a managerial change at a football club is a result of things not going too well. In that respect change is easier to accept as it offers hope. And hope is where we all fall down!


To my memory Benitez and his £6million settlement is probably the most expensive scape goat in town. I'd happily do it for half! That Liverpool finished seventh in the league, dropped out of the Champions League early and failed to reach the final of the Europa League are footballing key performance indicators and commonly used to judge the success of a football club. When they come up short as happened this season, the person accountable for the footballing side of the club is the person with whom the failure is laid. That doesn't really tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


That being the unstable ownership of the club, no clear strategy or direction, debt previously unknown and a changing climate in which the economics of football are played out. A club can not aimlessly pay millions of pounds in transfer fees each season regardless of other non-footballing key performance indicators and rightly so. Liverpool it was reported in the Guardian recently suffered from not heeding that principle even under David Moores and Rick Parry so it is not a new practice that should lay accusingly at the feet of the current owners. Spending within your means is valid on a personal level right through to large corporate organisations to governments and countries. That lesson can be seen wherever you turn today. 


One of the many issues that contributed to poor on-field results was that of money. How much and how to spend it. Gareth Barry's protracted non-transfer, Rick Parry's departure and Rafa's new contract are all examples of that. One of the clearest mantras a manager in any business can have is 'no surprises'. Ability means you can manage with what you have, so long as you know what you have in a timely manner. That Benitez was perceived to have spent poorly in the transfer market was not a measure of his ability but more an outcome of the lack of timeliness in agreeing what funds were available. A fact that seems lost amongst poor results and a slide down the league table. 


So how does all that relate to hope? As a manager sets out the philosophy, identity, values and beliefs of a team he or she managers, then new manages bring about revolutionary change. And if, as is often the case, the old manager left because things were bad, then revolutionary change by default is good, yes?


That leads to hope that things will be better in the future. Sometimes it is, often it isn't. Hope is currently what is fuelling media speculation and more generous journalism. Reality hasn't yet had it's chance. And when it does...?


The reality for Liverpool tempers hope. Same owners, same debt. Same players since no money is available to reshape the team. Less money as there will be no Champions League revenue. So who'd want the job? Speculation in this area is endless but misses the point. Look more closely at Benitez's departure and the clues are there.


Who sacked him (mutually of course!)? Martin Broughton, the new Chariman. And why is Broughton at the club? At the behest of the owners to sell the club. So why is someone who is trying to sell the club sacking the current manager? It would appear there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest in parting with Benitez he was going about his business of selling the club.


If new owners wanted Benitez gone it could have cost £16m. New ownership and new money and Benitez probably would have not taken the £6m compromise. Benitez was also hugely powerfull: first team manager, overseer of the reserves and the academy and solely in charge of transfers. All of which have been shaped in his image. A change of owners and a change of approach and that is a large, well paid obstacle in the way!


So maybe Broughton let Benitez go to satisfy potential buyers waiting in the wings. Or maybe just to get his house in order before attracting investment. Either way it seems it was done for a purpose. Which brings us once again to the issue of hope.


If the above theory is correct, why would Liverpool appoint a manager before selling the club? Unless prospective owners have identified the person they wish to take over? A more sensible tactic would be to appoint someone in the interim. Someone to carry on the work of Benitez without the investment required in huge personnel changes. In my opinion this would be where Sammy Lee would step forward. The media are focusing on King Kenny but I am fairly confident Sammy would be the chosen one, probably mentored or supported in an executive capacity by Dalglish. Keeps things neat, tidy and cheap, and the seat warm for someone else in the future. 


Reality versus hope. Who wins? You decide!

BBC Test Match Special Widget

Introducing the new Test Match Special Widget to my blog. You can find it within this post or it's more permenant position at the bottom of the sidebar. If you use it, let me know your thoughts.

YouTube and the IPL: Error Message!

I'm not all that bothered about the IPL or indeed T20. I watched a few internationals and a couple of the tournaments on TV but I still find there is something undignified about it. In short, too many 'non cricket shots' for a purist such as myself.


I was however, mildly interested to see how YouTube's handling of the IPL would work out. Streaming competitions on the internet, free to all, is undoubtedly the future and I'm sure for YouTube and some as yet undiscovered start ups there will be a huge amount of commercial success in such a venture. I'm just not convinced the IPL would be the platform I'd choose to launch it. 


I've found when trying to catch the odd IPL game over the past couple of years that I simply don't know enough about it for the game in front of me to be engaging. I barely recognise the team names, let alone 80% of the players. That makes it very hard to grasp at a hook with which to become interested. Exposure through YouTube and ITV4's coverage will help in that regard, but it's difficult to watch a game of cricket on TV as a neutral.


Like it's first day coverage (see picture) YouTube's broadcast venture with the IPL may have gotten off to a sticky start, but I'm sure the business model and technical challenges will be established and overcome through the IPL experience. 


In a few years when we're signing in to watch the latest stream from the Olympics, the IPL experience will seem insightful. 

One year and counting...

Despite this post existing and the novelty candle I've chosen as 'suitable' decor, I'm not really into self indulgence and celebration. However it has been almost a year since my first post and against better judgement I've decided to mark the occasion. My aforementioned concerns duly noted, I'd like to reflect on the past 12 months from a perspective of technological change and how the original purpose of a blog has faired, changed and evolved in that time. 


It is with a fair amount of shame that I look back at the screen shots of my first attempt at web development. Even with the caveat of wanting to learn basic HTML it's a poor, poor site! One of the many reasons I decided it had to go was the realisation that it was the experience of creating the site as opposed to the actual use of the site that I valued more (interestingly that's true in part for this blog too). I was happy to take it down and eager to replace it with something more respectable. 


From this point onwards desire and outcome started to differ. The stated aim was to develop a content-managed site through Joomla! that would house a more sophisticated website and incorporate a cared-for blog (my previous blog was an aspiration that remained as such). I was undecided as to the content of the website, having no established use case and perhaps hoped rather than anticipated that I'd find uses. I'm still searching today for appropriate uses and this, along with advances in blogger.com since my 2007 attempt at a blog pretty much stopped the Joomla! experiment in it's tracks. 


I've mentioned before a couple of sites that I based the structure of this blog around: www.jemimakiss.com is one, Scott Bramley's Blog another and the excellent www.newmusicstrategies.com the third. These sites show that you could include more content than just blog posts to a blog site and as such usurp Joomla! and other such platforms altogether. It's not an approach I'd recommend for corporate websites but on a smaller scale it works well. I was able to include links to other blogs I found enjoyable, my social networking accounts and other links of note under one umbrella. The layout is configured using user-friendly wizards and for a novice there's little chance of causing serious damage.


The end result was a web presence I wasn't ashamed of! That was a good first step. However I very much doubted my ability to write what I would consider acceptable posts that people would actually enjoy reading. To this end and true even as I type, I don't publicise my blog. In fact the only link to it remains in the Bio section of Twitter. The reasons for including it on Twitter I'm not entirely convinced by, except that I can acknowledge that I started using Twitter comfortable with knowing that it wasn't a trend I was following that had been laid out by friends, colleagues or other peer pressures. It was something I was happy to embark upon solo and this perhaps explains why I feel more comfortable linking to the blog there. A stated aim I had (if not publically stated) was to develop new skills that were a move away from my current occupation, skill set and interests. I guess part of that was finding an environment where I could do that semi incognito.  


On reflection I think I've achieved what I set out to almost a year ago. If not as all-singing and dancing and in truth probably useless as Joomla! could have provided, but a presence that was easy to create, maintain and develop and in hindsight has allowed me to concentrate on the actual writing elements of the blog (the writing is the main reason I started out). I wanted a place to document my thoughts and 'insights' (probably a definition others will need to vouch for) and develop writing experience and above all a style that at some point in the future, someone might want to pay for (the content editing rather than journalistic side of things). I was happy for these aspirations to be achieved slowly and will be the first to acknowledge that I'm still very much working towards them. 


One area that I think has helped me with the writing side of things has been structure. I decided at the start to concentrate my posts to clearly defined subjects. The plural nature was needed to recognise that I had a wider range of interests on which I wanted to write about but also that I didn't feel confident in writing within the confines of a single subject. A jack of all trades approach to a certain extent. I also decided to use labels to categorise these themes and hopefully enable anyone reading my blog to quickly find what the think may be relevant postings. 


Eventually I settled on three subjects: Technology, Music and Sport. These cover fairly concisely my interests and the areas I would probably enjoy writing about. Music was included almost as an aspirational target as unlike technology the subject is still very much approached from a historical perspective. I felt that meant that more people were likely to have already covered the subjects I wanted to cover and that added a weight of expectation and benchmarking that didn't necessarily come with Technology and Sport. Over the past year it's certainly been the subject that I've struggle the most to write about. 


The second part of the brief for writing was to provide an alternative perspective to the subject being discussed. I like to introduce context and perspective to current topics that often get overlooked in mainstream media reporting and where appropriate relate precedents to situations that have gone unnoticed. I'd like to think my posts regarding Football being a business and how Google's development can be seen to mirror Microsoft's are example in achieving these aims. With Technology in particular I wanted to move away from the descriptive nature of many blog reviews and focus on themes such as impact, effectiveness, world order and in a lot of cases commercial sustainability. Reading a lot of material that documents new technologies it always frustrates me that their impact isn't really explored past the 'with it be a hit or a miss' debate. 


I'm happy with the way my blog has progressed to date and have every intension of continuing in a similar vein in the immediate future. I do understand however that technology changes and hope to be able to incorporate some of those changes in due course. In particular I'm looking forward to using Google Wave for future blog postings. However I am also aware that there are issues I need to address in order to progress from what I believe has been a solid start. 


The issue I think I'll struggle most to overcome is audience. I'm perfectly aware and content with the fact that my audience is practically non-existent. A friend now and again will read and comment and I've had the occasional conversation about my blog with people through Twitter. Despite knowing that I have no audience I find I can write with one in mind. However I don't know how long that mindset will last and it doesn't really challenge me to improve much. Equally though I don't see any benefit in a blog that has nondescript comments from supportive friends if I increase my circulation and promotion. I'm not sure that the purpose of blogs (and certainly mine) is in essence a popularity contest to see how much reaction you can generate. Even with mainstream blogs from media outlets and more niche offerings from the tech world I see little value in the structure of comments and discussions that follow posts. It is difficult to follow a thread or discussion and rarely adds to the experience of reading a particular post. To that extent I'm still wary of mass publicisation and will for the time being maintain status quo and evaluate some more!


As Confucius' musings on a journey's beginning can be related to many a situation, so to will I endeavour to make a start: any feedback, suggestions, comments, objections, opinions, conjecture or abuse is ready to be received!
   

A Test Team of the Decade

I've just read the Wisden's various Test Teams of the Decade, and agree with none of them! So I thought I'd put down mine and my reasons for each player. 


Hayden, Jayasuriya, Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Gilchrist (wk), Warne (c), Pollock, McGrath, Khan


Having gone through the process I can now see why I agree with none of the teams offered by Wisden! As you might expect there is a lot of convincing arguments for many players in each position and so it does very much come down to personal opinion. 


To quickly rattle through what might be considered as the 'obvious' selections (interestingly all Australian): Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath, I'd consider them automatic choices not only because of how good they were during the past 10 years but also because of the success, individually and collectively, that they achieved. I believe these to be beyond reproach in their current positions in any team (with the exception of No.3 where other candidates can bat lower in the order, that is). 


My criteria for selection is based on the following: 

1. Personal success during the past 10 years
2. Contribution to team success during the same period
3. Success in that particular position
4. Impact made during a significant part of the past 10 years, if not continually throughout that period

My controversial selections begin I suppose with Jayasuriya. When you consider him alongside Justin Langer, Marcus Trescothick, Virender Sehwag or even Stephen Fleming then stronger arguments can be made for most of the other players on that list. However it is the personal contribution that is the principle reason I've included him. The age at which he continued to play at such a high level is remarkable. His leadership throughout the beginning of the century enabled Sri Lanka to progress from a developing team to a strong contender in every series they took part in and his ethic and influence on the team is showing itself in their current success. His One Day career should not influence a test team but it is an impressive footnote. 


Tendulkar and Lara in the middle order I don't think could be surpassed as a combination, no matter what the criteria for selection is. My knowledge of cricketing history does not stretch back beyond the early nineties based on first hand experience, but I'd be hard pressed to think of any others for these positions. I have been privileged to see first hand Tendulkar bat, not so Lara. Ponting at No.3 and Dravid as the extra batsmen at No.6 complement these two perfectly (although Dravid could do with batting higher up the list we it not for Ponting). I remember the England v India series in 2003 when both he and Michael Vaughan were outstanding and Dravid at No.3 really personified his 'The Wall' nickname. 


The start of both Tendulkar and Lara's careers came before this century but that should not be held against them. Gilchrist is I think undisputed at No.7 for the runs he makes, the offensive role he plays in that position and his 'keeping ability. Had it not been for him Alec Stewart had success during this period and would be a close call too. He also inspired a generation of aggressive wicket-keeper/batsmen and that as much as his cricket will be his legacy.


Shaun Pollock and Zaheer Khan are probably the debatable bowling options. Pollock became a good all round option at numbers 8 and 9 for South Africa and his bowling record is worthly of inclusion on its own. Captaincy is another notable asset of his and were it not for McGrath then I believe his reputation would be greater than it is today. 



Zaheer Khan is perhaps my indulgent choice and is primarily due to his series against England in 2003. His left arm conventional and reverse swing from around the wicket to England's left handers is some of the best bowling I have seen. His temperament and focal point of an Indian team full of batting super-stars made him seem even more exceptional.

Notable by their absence are any English players. Vaughan, Trescothick and Flintoff I would consider to be the best of the past decade (Graham Thorpe mentioned in dispatches). Of these all have their merits and I'm a big fan of Michael Vaughan so he was under consideration, especially for his early decade form and captaincy. All three had their purple patches but also their problems. Maybe I am slightly harder on English players as I tend to be too familiar with them, weaknesses and all?


A final note about the Captain. I've gone for Warne in line with the common belief that he was the best captain Australia never had. I think he would have offered something very different in that capacity. He always appeared to be forward thinking, inventive and not afraid to take risks as a player and captain for Hampshire and I think he'd have been one of the bolder captains of international cricket. I also don't believe there is a natural captain in my team. 

As a nod to the next 10, I expect Pakistan's Mohammad Aamer, South Africa's Morne Morkel and England's very own Adil Rashid to feature prominently.

   

Sky Sports on the iPhone. Heaven! (Part 1)

It's nothing short of miraculous. Sport, on a phone. The holy grail of a geek in denial!

Last month Sky Sports and o2 got together to offer this excellent innovation in broadcasting, offering an initial 3 month free trial as the carrot to the £6/month stick to view Sky Sports and ESPN through an iPhone! My first impression was somewhere along the lines of 'that looks cool and it's free, I'll give it a go'. However I had my suspicions regarding watch TV and live sport, on a phone. Following the success of TVCatchup.com, I perhaps shouldn't have been!

Somewhat masked by a live shot of cricket, the photo doesn't do the quality of picture justice. It would also have helped with my 'real time' plug had there actually been any live cricket, but the match today against South Africa was rained off (still we won).

So far about 3 weeks into my trial I've watched a few cricket games and a couple of football games. The only stipulation o2 have made is that it needs a WiFi connection to stream, which I can understand, even if TVCatchup.com doesn't. As long as there's a good signal the streaming it perfect.

There is one further test I'd like to do before passing final judgement. I'm trying to get hold of an Apple Composite TV cable to see what it's like streaming the iPhone feed onto a TV. If that's successful I might be tempted to pay the £6 charge (more than 66% cheaper than the cost for Sky Sports on the TV).

I'll post again after testing... 

Welcome to Stanley Park, home of Leverton!

Is it the truth that dare not speak it's name? The facetious merging of Liverpool and Everton Football Clubs aside, is a Stanley Park ground-share not just the obvious solution to the cities stadia problems, but the only solution? I believe it is...


Traditional views, stereotypes and negative thinking often hampers change; especially volatile and dynamic change that challenges the way the world is today. This is particularly evident when discussing the taboo that is a shared ground in Stanley Park for both Liverpool's football clubs. The reason for the taboo: the fans don't like it. I can probably be rightly accused of having a bit of an issue with football fans and their positioning within a football club, my post outlining essentially why football fans aren't important would be a good indication. It's not that a hate football fans (I consider myself as one), more the outdated way in which they are perceived and the influence they have upon how a football club is run. 


Looking at the ground share concept, that fans do not want to share a stadium with their city rivals is a reasonable concern. In an ideal world they would not need to. However the utopian Liverpool as depicted by so many of the football fans of the city is about to held up to scrutiny. 


A consultation period has been afforded and the views expressed but that should not stop the concept being explored further. In particularly I'd like to see the city, the football clubs and the fans look into the consequences of a ground share. Doom and gloom will inevitably be the predication but objective analysis and rational thinking may well prevail. For example, a common argument is that 'I could not sit in the Liverpool home end during an Everton match where the away fans didn't take up their allocation of tickets'. Why? Would it really be that bad? The colour of the seats is also a common concern - paint them all black then!


The identity of both clubs isn't primarily associated with their grounds anymore. Both have new and modern training facilities that act as a strong-hold for the club. An oasis and somewhere they can call home on a day-by-day basis. The clubs train there, eat there, relax there and only use the stadium to play matches. Having a stadium as an identity is nice but both clubs are beyond nice in their searches for improved facilities. Facilities is also a key word in the debate: a football stadium alone is no longer sufficient for the 21st century. Additional, complementary facilities are required as well: community centre, conferencing, hospitality, retail...the list goes on!


Tackling each issue such as the example above will only help gain a consensus on whether a ground share really would be feasible. Would the fans boycott? Perhaps for the first game or two, but forever? And even if they did, would there be other fans waiting to take their seats? Arguably yes there would.


Again in reference to early postings of mine, the fans aren't the most important stakeholders of a modern premiership club a the mission, objective and strategies of these clubs are more wide ranging that just football (if you think that sounds like business-speak, there's a reason for that!). Sponsors, TV companies and other sources of commercial revenue are what makes the business of a football club run. These stakeholders do not come with the same amount of sentimental baggage as a football fan. That isn't a criticism of fans but a fact. 


Radical change is sometimes needed to achieve the progress and change that is desired. Incremental change has it's place and is effective in lots of situations. I'd like the catalyst for change to determine the method used to achieve change and for that to be driving force of change. 


Share a ground, realise the benefits and act accordingly. The fans will follow suit... 


    


  

A defence of Thierry Henry

I'm fairly certain that this is going to be a controversial posting. Not least because a defence of cheating isn't really going to be water tight. On which note I have a couple of caveats! Firstly the YouTube clip will probably disappear from the site as soon as TFL get round to complaining so apologies if the link is broken at some point in the future. Secondly, yes it's in French (all the English ones have already gone!). A full transcript is proving hard to come by, but The Globe and Mail have some quotes here:

“I will be honest, it was a handball. But I’m not the ref,” Henry said. “I played it. The ref allowed it. That’s a question you should ask him"

"We suffered for two years, we have been having some problems with our press, our fans, with other people,” Henry said. “It would have been better to do it in another way, but as I said, I’m not the ref...If they had got through it wouldn’t have been robbery (lucky)."

"We have a lot of respect for this team,” Henry said. “We knew they play long and like a physical battle. You saw tonight that they are a very good team. I played eight years in England and I can tell you they are.”

Cheating in sport is always an emotive subject and divides opinion. It is generally unwelcome yet common place, a juxtaposition that often leads to subjective and wide ranging guidelines on what is acceptable to form. A quick search in Google for 'examples of cheating in sport' returns examples of more famous acts of cheating, with The 7 Ballsiest Sports Cheats Ever and Cheater, cheater...The worst cases of sports cheating being the most prominent search results. However these 'famous' examples mask the regular examples of cheating that occur in sport, and football in particular, every week. 

Robbie Savage was interviewed on several media outlets a couple of weeks ago insisting he would do 'whatever was necessary' to help his side (no quotes available on the internet unfortunately) in what was an uncommon admission that the people who play sport don't always play within the rules. I won't name them hear but there are at least two English International players who have a reputation for diving during games. Michael Owen 'went down easily' I think is the euphemism in order to win a penalty against Argentina at the 2002 World Cup and Sven Goran Eriksson was widely quoted by his players as having encouraged them to seek free kicks within David Beckham's range for free kicks. Neither example sending the nation into outrage. 

Much effort has gone into addressing the issue of cheating in sport. The World Anti Doping Agency is probably the most prominent and professional organisation that exists to reduce cheating in sport, but regulation is increasingly being used in an attempt to combat cheating during play. The problems encountered through using regulation is that in order to apply it, the referee or official administering the laws is in effect calling the player a cheat. The concept that a professional sports person does not cheat therefore calls into question that players professionalism and ethical standing. All on the strength of someone else's subjective interpretation of their behaviour. 

This is a particularly complex issue for an official to navigate through when players employ tactics to hide their cheating. A footballer who 'falls' over an opponents leg yet leaves their own leg trailing in order to make contact with their opponent is a particularly difficult person to discipline. At high speed and with only human judgement to aide, is it possible to decide in a split second whether the incident be a genuine foul or an act of 'simulation'? [introducing a euphemism for cheating isn't in my view making a clear statement that deception is cheating]. There isn't a retrospective science that can be applied to cheating within football that WADA benefits from in Athletics. Technology can provide more information on which a decision can be made, yet that decision is still a subjective one, even when it isn't (when is there ever a consensus on what 'obvious' is?).    

So to Thierry Henry and his self-confessed act of cheating...

I can not and do not condone cheating and my defence of Henry here will not amount to such. My defence of the player is aligned to the media hysteria that has been generated and then venum that has been directed towards him as a result. It is also a defence against the disproportional view of his action that has been taken by a large amount of stakeholders for the sport. 

There are several factors that need to be taken into consideration when viewing the incident yesterday (during the France v Ireland second leg play-off for the 2010 World Cup Final). Circumstance, timing, impact and consequence are factors that are used (rightly or wrongly) in the judgement of a person's cheating within sport. When W.G Grace was bowled first ball in an exhibition match and retorted the bowling elation with 'Young Lad, they've come to see me ball not you bowl' before retaking his place at the crease, hysteria was not forthcoming (yes a different age a different media, but...). Hysteria was not appropriate because it was an exhibition match, it was the first ball he'd received, it would have caused a major disappointment for the people who had paid to watch him bat and there was little in the way of consequence (unless you were the bowler or his team mates!).

The reaction in England to Michael Owen's penalty against Argentina? Nothing compared to the reaction given to Diego Simeone who fell to the ground after David Beckham had kicked him four year's earlier. The reasons for such a difference in feeling relate to the factors identified above. 

When a player handles the ball on his own half way line when 3v0 down, what happens? A free kick. Same player, same incident in the opposition penalty area? A free kick with perhaps a few acknowledging voices from the opposition defends, glad the dangerous play has ended. So to the same incident in that player's own penalty area? Mayhem? Hysteria? Arm-waving? Gesticulation? Suddenly the circumstance, the impact and consequences have changed. A theoretical example it may be, but one a lot of people will be able to relate to. 

Intention is another factor that has to be considered. The general view is that positive intent coupled with cheating is the worst form of cheating. I would not counter that. I would, however, refer back to the subjective nature of determining intent as an issue to consider before passing judgement. 

Thierry Henry handled the ball twice, in the opposition penalty area, in the last minute of extra time to create the goal that knocked out Ireland and sent France through. The only factor missing is intent. The most subjective factor and the most difficult to prove. General consensus deems the second handball to be deliberate. Again, so difficult to prove but even if it was a conscious act it was almost certainly not premeditated. The reaction time between Henry seeing the ball, it hitting his hand the first time to him handling the ball the second is factions of a second. How much time does it take to make a conscious decision? Is it understood what effect the first handball has upon players who then handle the ball a second time? In such a short period of time do they feel justification? Just scraping the surface of the issues that surround those two acts bring doubt. 

The second part to examine is reaction: the reaction of the player, the officials, media and fans. What should Henry have done after the goal was scored? How should he have reacted? There are no rules, no guidelines and little precedent of action other than that of which he took. To deem his actions as wrong is to apply your own personal rules and guidelines and then judge accordingly. No-one would want that to happen to them in other areas of their lives. 

The only stakeholder in that situation that does have rules that govern how they react are the officials. The officials reacted to the best of their ability and the rest, as they say...

I understand the arguments that surround cheating, that you should not do it and that no matter what mitigating arguments I put forward here, it was still cheating and as such is wrong. My defence of Thierry Henry is based around the fact that cheating is an accepted part of sport, if it wasn't it would not happen and that a player should not be vilified because his cheating came at a prominent part of an important game. 

Only if it is ever proven that it is feasible to remove cheating from sport will there ever be any real attempt to remove it. Until such time, please lay off Henry because you feel aggrieved. After all, he was dignified enough to admit it.     

Stick Cricket: Great game, successful strategy

I've been meaning to post about my favourite ever Internet game for a while now. Stick Cricket's history is quite an interesting read, a rise from a student learning how to develop in flash to one of the best Internet games out there.

I first became aware of this game a few years ago now and it is the only Internet game that has held my attention for longer than a week! I can't quite put my finger on what makes the game so appealing for me, but there are a few factors that probably help. Firstly, the ability to score fours and sixes on a regular basis (the entire point of the game) brings that feel good factor when playing. Secondly, the view you get (a batsman's view) of the ball careering to the boundary is very, very satisfying. It also looks like a proper cricket shot. Sometimes on other games the actual game play isn't very realistic. Finally I think the concept is something that fits the medium it has been developed on. Although originally using stick men, the game has developed but kept to the same ethos.

Apart from the game play elements addressed above I think another reason I really like the game is the way in which Stick Sports has been developed and allowed to evolve. Slowly but surely they've enhanced the Stick Cricket game. New features, new competitions, more variety in how you play have always enticed me back to the game. They tackled the most obvious shortcoming of their game (not being able to bowl) with a challenging online multi player game. It didn't last very long but it was good!

More impressively than the actual innovations that were borne seems to be the strategy they have adopted for development. Stick Sports had a core product and they spent time and money developing it; enhancing the game play and ensuring it maintained its popular appeal and market position. Only after this phase of its strategy had proved successful did it branch out to develop other games to complement the cricket game and produce a range of sports games under the stick sports banner. (The best of these games in my opinion is Stick Tennis)

Although with success has come less discrete advertising and more 'obvious' placement of adverts, this doesn't interfere with the experience of using the sites. They have developed a community feel to the site that although I don't personally see as advantageous, I know a lot of other users do). The site is not in the same league as Cric Info and other cricket media in terms of a cricketing knowledge base, but this seems to be the next phase in the strategy. Blogs and forums are prevalent on the site and there is also 'Live Score' features (although I must confess to not having used these enough to pass comment).

Basically I've been impressed with Stick Cricket since the beginning, and if it is possible to end with an awful pun, believe that from tiny acorns, cricket bats really can grown! [I'm sorry]

It's not the referees that lack consistency...

I've decided to get in early this year. Listening to an interview with Ricky Ponting where he wanted to bemoan umpiring decisions during the 2nd Ashes Test at Lord's but didn't, it occurred to me that football seems to have adopted the wrong mindset when it comes to the perception of referees.

There is a perception that referees 'need to be consistent', presumably with regards to decision making in order to create an expectation that can be attained on a regular basis. This view it would seem is supported not just by fans, commentators and managers, but by referees themselves. I happen to have a few issues with this theory though!

First up it's probably important to define what is currently accepted as a definition of a referee. As usual Wikipedia has it's own view:

A referee presides over a game of association football. The referee has "full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match to which he has been appointed" (Law 5), and the referee's decisions regarding facts connected with play are final, so far as the result of the game is concerned.

This I think covers the 'text book' definition and I would suspect is contested by few. There is probably another angle to explore, that being the common perception of what a referee is. Although there isn't really anything to cite to backup my theory, I suspect a referee is perceived by many as being a person to ensure fair play is achieved. Whilst not a ridiculous suggestion, I think most people connected to Football expect the success rate of this to be 100%. This is where I believe the problem lies!

The expectation of a referee is probably the same as a quiz host or a mortgage broker. In these instances you feed facts into a system and the host or broker delivers a verdict. The interpretation of these facts is automated so there is no subjective judgement to be passed by a human. In reality however, they should probably be closer to a Doctor or a Judge in terms of expectation: recognised to get most decisions correct but accepted that they can not achieve 100% as they are human!

To explore this point further, taking a scientific look at referees can explain the concept. When looking at even the basic of scientific experiments, the focus is on identifying variables from a group of constants in order to evaluate performance. The same can be found in problem solving. In order to diagnose what is wrong, we often find out what has changed first and then work from there. For example when a car breaks down because of a puncture, the puncture is the only variable that changed from when the car was working fine. With a referee, often the only constant when evaluating their job, decisions, performance etc. is the referee himself. Everything else is a variable.

Using a simple example to compare two 'similar' decisions, firstly look for the variables: if we look at two decisions over two games then these will include the date, time, location, probably both teams, maybe a different competition. These are just some of the more obvious variables. Then there are more obscure ones that a based on human behaviour: history between two teams, between teams and referee, previous incidents in press/media, recent criticisms of other referees etc. All of these will have a bearing on how the referee feels, thinks and ultimately acts. A late clip by the full back on the winger early in the game may go unpunished in the first game, receiving just a cautionary word from the referee, yet may be punished with a yellow card in the next game. Why? Unfortunately a variety of reasons! The referee may have been criticised for his decision in the previous game, he may be trying to assert his authority early on in the second game, the referee may perceive the full back deliberately clipped the winger in the second game but not the first.

There are two points that are important from the example above: referees are human and as such can not guarantee that subjective thinking will not come into their decision making and secondly, that only the referee has all the information available to him when making a decision. Commentators and managers can disagree but the only person who has all the information to make a decision is the referee.

So based on the theory and examples above, is it right to lay such expectations on referees? Would the same be made in other professions? There are a few similarities between referees and professions such as judges. Both make decisions that include an element of subjective thought. Both have a recognised appeal process to accommodate human error and mistakes being made, yet judges in general are not a vilified breed.

As an argument against referees, there will undoubtedly be incidents that referees should be expected to make correct decisions on. Black and White issues that take little subjective interpretation. In these instances it is probably fair to ask for a level of consistency and by their own admission, a lot of referees do acknowledge obvious mistakes. But if we are not to expect them to be able to interpret every situation correctly and make the appropriate decision, then what expectation should we have for referees?

Consistency should be found with our approach to how we view referees. More account should be given to the fact that a referee can not always produce consistent decision making due to the wide range of variables involved from one decision to the next. If this primary notion was accepted across the sport it would make a huge difference in the way referees are treated and accounted for. To cite Ricky Ponting, it is acceptable for players/managers and fans to disagree with the decisions taken by referees but they must be accepted as part of the game. Accepted in the same way that a player being injured during the match or sent off for an incident on which all agree was warranted are accepted by all parties as justified in altering the course of the game.

In addition to this there is also merit in the old adage that the decisions even themselves out across a season. Although I do not have any statistics to prove the theory, my hypothesis would be that contested decisions for and against a team even out during the course of the season.

Again to Ricky Ponting and rather than find excuses from questionable umpiring he chose to acknowledge the weaknesses of his side's play as reasons for their failure to win the match. Similarities could also be found in football. How many times has a manager blamed a referee for not awarding a penalty as justification for his side's inability to win the game, yet neglected to acknowledge the abundance of chances his strikers missed in open play? If a player is sent off then again the referee is blamed. Who questions why the player got themselves into that situation in the first place?

To summarise, consistency ought to be sort in the way everyone associated with football approaches the role of a referee in football. They should not be expected to find a level of consistency that exceeds the subjective capacity of their decision making. They should be expected to deliver the best decisions they can, and that erroneous decisions will even themselves out over the longer duration.

A referee is an easy scape goat for those who do not have the ability to question themselves when it comes to failure. A change in mind set to accept the limitations of a referee when evaluating the outcome of a game will go along way to improving the perception of referees and the quality of the decisions they give.

WT20's place at the top table?

I always find it useful when discussing Twenty20 to find out exactly what camp someone sits in before they start! It's not to pre-judge their opinions based upon my view of these camps, more to understand why they make the points they do. To clarify, I think there are three main camps: Traditionalist, Modernist, InBetweenist! OK, so I need a new name for the third but that'll do for now.

To work within my own guidelines, I confess I'm the third, as yet poorly defined, category. Traditionalists and Modernist are fairly easy to understand; one prefers Test Matches and views anything other as 'not quite cricket'. The other [modernist] aligns their wants of cricket to more contemporary sports such as football and rugby, where pace, entertainment and gladiatorial power are more sort after commodities than grace, tactical acumen and polite sportsmanship. Neither I believe to be right or wrong, which I guess explains why I find myself in the middle of the two!

I've always liked Test Match cricket. When people ask why I like Cricket in general, I've always referred to sitting outside on a sunny summer's day, watching sport and drinking beer! I like the pace of the game and the gentleness of its appearance. Like most cricket forms I also enjoy the fact that the most drama or mediocre of matches all unfold the same way: bowler runs up and delivers. From there anything can and often does happen. Listening to Cricket commentary it so often appears that the bowler is in charge. They set the field, dictate the line and length of the ball and can make the ball leave the hand with subtle, yet effective variations. However this does not keep a good batsman down for long! The battle between batsman and bowler is the most fascinating part of cricket and at its most prevalent during test match cricket.

I will also admit that I viewed Twenty20 cricket with an element of disdain. Not because I'm incapable of being a modernist, or accepting of change in the game, because I don't think I'm guilty on either count. My main objection was that the introduction of 'ugly' cricket shots as the norm in this particular format of the game. I felt it was unnecessary to promote elements of batting that required little skill. I've since climbed down on that particular remark as I do appreciate the hand/eye co-ordination and sheer power required to slog the ball to the boundary! Improvisation (for example, Dilshan's Scoop) I'm all for, but the slogging element does still erk me. My other negative thoughts towards Twenty20 mainly come from sitting with 10,000 Lancashire supporters in the rain watching Yorkshire get thumped a couple of years back!

With the World Twenty20 just about to get underway, I was however looking forward to the tournament. When this summer's schedule was announced it was just something that filled a calendar month before the Ashes and I had no immediate plans to watch it, but as it grew closer I did find myself more intrigued. I held little hope for an English success from the Men's team, but wanted to study the format in closer detail. I was impressed with the tournament for a few reasons:

The first thing that stuck me was that improvisation was no longer the right of the batsmen. I'd watched Saj Mahmood of Lancashire bowling slow-ball bouncers in the domestic competition and was impressed at the success it had in controlling an over. On the international stage it was also used to good effect. When Harbhajan Singh refused to bowler once Kevin Peterson adopted the Switch-Hit stance, that was another scalp in the rights of bowlers during this tournament! It was spin bowling however, that seemed to see the greatest resurgence during the tournament.

The second most notable outcome of the World T20 however was the role of the established test player. Kallis for South Africa, Dilshan for Sri Lanka in particular but Gayle, Vetorri, Harbhajan, Chanderpaul all showed that a truly class cricketer can prosper in all forms of the game.

My final observation was mainly a personal one. Although the 'ugly' shots were still on show, much of the big hitting was a) from established players and b) clean hitting (for want of a better phrase!). I also found myself enjoying the flying sixes in matches, particularly when the power plays were being exploited by the batsmen. I came to the conclusion that maybe you can forgive the odd slog!

However my overall view on WT20 is slightly more calculated. I noted a few times on Test Match Special and Sky commentaries that our experts often said that in T20 teams who lose early wickets simply don't have the time to rebuild an innings. I don't necessarily agree with that and Sri Lanka can cite a good case in point when looking at the final game. They didn't post the biggest total after losing early wickets but they adopted a strategy and it almost worked for them.

This first observation also seems to lead to the second, in which it was often felt that T20 cricket would replace 50 over cricket in the future because it eliminated the lull in the middle overs of 50 over cricket. I would again argue otherwise! A lot of matches I watched involved the same format. Big start to the innings, then take the singles at 6 per over for the next nine or 10 overs, hoping for a boundary ball every over or so to top up the total before letting lose at the end. It's not too far fetched from the 50 over game plan. I'm not an expert but I'd guess this is probably due to the age-old one-day philosophy of keeping wickets in hand for the end of the innings. I'm not sure T20 has overcome that mindset quite yet.

So to WT20's place at the top table? I'm not convinced it should replace 50 over cricket, although that's not to say I don't see that happening. T20's main advantages lie logistically. As seen in this tournament, more than one match can take place per day and back-to-back matches are realistic. I'd much prefer this approach introduced into the international format, maybe at the expense of lots on 50 over cricket and the Champions Trophy. After a test series why can't three of more countries contest a couple of 50 over games and then a quick T20 tournament over a long weekend or holiday period? You shouldn't have to search the globe with teams to make up the numbers either. In Europe we have Ireland, Scotland and Holland who would benefit from the exposure of playing more established teams. There are plenty of other smaller national around the world who could do the same.

Whatever is decided, the mantra should be Quality over Quantity. It will take resourcefulness and innovation to make that commercially feasible but it's not impossible. In short, more tournament T20 I think is the future, where it can share it's place alongside 50 over cricket and test matches.