I don't like Widnes.
I'm a St.Helens fan so I'm not supposed to. Along with that smelly mob from over Billinge Lump and the newly rich Warrington Wolves, Widnes' locality makes them traditionally one of Saints' biggest rivals.
That rivalry is about to be renewed in 2012 after the Vikings were awarded a Super League license today. They beat off competition from Halifax and Barrow for the right to play in next season's competition. But it isn't the fact that they are a local rival which grinds my gears about Widnes' return to the top flight. It's the fact that these matters are now no longer decided on the field of play, but instead by a group of men in suits.
In 2008 Super League decided, in it's infinite wisdom, to move away from the traditional promotion and relegation systems which serve other sports perfectly well, and push towards a licensing or 'franchising' system. All of which meant that any club wishing to compete in the following season's competition (including those already in it regardless of how well they had fared) had to submit an application to the Rugby Football League. Applications now needed to meet a set of criteria, very few of which had anything to do with the strength of the team on the field.
This is how we arrived at the sorry position of housing a South Welsh club in Super League. Interest for rugby league in South Wales is about as high as it is for Lily Allen in my house. Sure enough after just one season in union country, the Crusaders were moved north to Wrexham. They currently sit bottom of Super League having won only one of their first seven games and having four points deducted for going into administration. Yes, solvency is on the RFL's all-important list of criteria for deciding how to dish out licenses. But it's not as important as geography. If you are based in an area not normally associated with rugby league, you're as good as in. A very special welcome to Harlequins of London and the French-based Catalan Dragons, then. Leigh? Fuck off.
I've just finished watching the reaction to today's decision on Sky. Eddie Hemmings did his best to convince, but for any rugby league fan worth his salt words like 'application', 'audit' and 'process' would have had the evening meal swirling uncomfortably around the stomach. This vomit-inducing nonsense will do nothing but turn Super League into a complete replica of one of the team sports competitions in America or Australia. If it isn't already. What you will be left with is effectively a closed shop in which each 'franchise' basically takes turns to win championships until they have enough 'rings' to have the bloody trophy named after them.
Sky have a very clear agenda and, to be fair, they have done more than most to turn rugby league into the entertaining spectacle that it is today. They have helped shake off many of the flat-cap and whippet stereotpyes so favoured by Tottenham fans living in Kent, but they have done so entirely for their own ends. Franchising makes sport less predictable, they argue, which will do for them if it means that more fans will tune in thinking that their team has a genuine chance to be successful from time to time.
Either way they hold all the power, which is why we have to suffer their decision to give air-time to the men who meet to make the boardroom decisions which now seem to over-ride fair competition. The fact that RFL Whatever-He-Is Ralph Rimmer's beard is multi-coloured is a side-issue here. It's all just so very, very wrong. And is it just me who cringes every time that failed tennis player and accomplished half-wit, RFL Chief Executive Richard Lewis, makes an appearance on screen? He's genuinely creepy. He speaks without opening his mouth, and I'm convinced he's not going to stop until he has ruined rugby league for everyone, particularly those unfortunate enough to support a team which hasn't attracted a crowd of over 10,000 recently.
Widnes' good fortune makes them unique, because the silliness hasn't stopped just yet. Now all 14 current Super League clubs plus Halifax (presumably based on some kind of best loser wild card rule) will go forward to have their applications (blurgh) analysed ahead of an announcement on July 26. Which means that Widnes, a club currently flattering to deceive in the Championship, are the only club who today can claim to be guaranteed a slot in next season's Super League competition. Sky showed footage of their fans celebrating Lewis' much trumpeted announcement and I couldn't help but feel sad. Such outbreaks of joy should be reserved for the terraces, for running on to the turf and persuading Ellery Hanley to let you hold the Lancashire Cup even though you hate Wigan, or jumping on Sonny Nickle's back! The celebration of the opening of an envelope is deeply tragic and utterly anti-sport.
Nevertheless, Widnes' inclusion means that one of the current 14 will have to make way, with the smart money on Wakefield following their Crusader-like financial problems and their abject failure to be Welsh. Halifax could yet oust a second, although previous suggestions that Castleford could be in jeopardy have been slightly quietened by the Tigers' appearance in the top three of the competition this season.
Kicking them out would just be embarrassing, but so long as licensing, franchising and men in suits hold sway, they have plenty to worry about.
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
Kyle
Lots of rugby league players have made the switch to rugby union. Each and every time it has irked me considerably, but none more so than Kyle Eastmond's decision to leave St.Helens for Bath at the end of the current Super League season.
It's not that he is the best player to ever cross codes. Jason Robinson was a key member of the 2003 World Cup winning side and is undoubtedly the best of those to have crossed the divide. Henry Paul, Andy Farrell, Lesley Vainikolo and Shontayne Hape have all played union for England following successful rugby league careers, while Chris Ashton had one successful season at Wigan and can now be found bewildering clueless union defenders.
Yet Eastmond is the first high profile (well, relatively, more on which later) St.Helens player to make the move. All of which stings a bit given my natural bias and my long-time hatred of union. It's an appalling excuse for a sport which seems to serve no purpose other than to give doctors and dentists something to shout about when Chelsea aren't playing. And yet it continues to attract the cream of young rugby league talent thanks to the financial power it has acquired since following league into professionalism.
Like Ashton, Eastmond turns to the dark side at a time when he has achieved very little in rugby league. He has (or had) undoubted potential but at just 21 years of age he had yet to establish himself as a worthy successor to Sean Long in the scrum-half position. When Saints let Long leave for Hull they put a lot of faith in Eastmond's potential, a move which has now spectacularly backfired. It leaves them hanging on to a player who clearly has his mind elsewhere as they use the remainder of this season to try to find a replacement.
Though it may not suit the suits at Bath, it would be far better for Saints if Eastmond were to go now. He was booed by a section of the support during the disappointing 25-18 defeat to Warrington at the weekend, a situation which prompted him to head straight for the tunnel at the final whistle rather than stay on the field to thank the support. Coach Royce Simmons was unimpressed by this, launching a thinly veiled attack on Eastmond with meanderings about sticking together as a team and grumbles about the unsatisfactory nature of carrying a player with what was then an uncertain future. It's clear that Simmons would rather move on from Eastmond, though it looks as though he will be forced to stick by him until the end of 2011.
Eastmond has immediately made noises about promising to give his very best for the remainder of the season. This might be considered a small mercy given that there is no obvious candidate to replace him in the number seven jersey at present, but I for one would rather have a rudderless ship than persevere with a player who clearly has no desire not only to play for St.Helens (a heinous crime in itself) but to even play the sport of rugby league! No player is bigger than the club, let alone the sport, and in drawing out this ridiculous transfer saga Eastmond has shown little respect for the club he recently alleged that he 'loved', nor the game itself. No doubt the player's agent, a certain Mr Offiah, has been more than instrumental in securing a deal with the rah-rahs. And we all know how much he loves St.Helens, not to mention his penchant for a wedge of cash. Ten percent, anyone?
Cathartic as it is, Eastmond-bashing will not stop similarly talented players from making the same choice in the future. Notwithstanding the money available in union, that game somehow enjoys a greater public profile and can make superstars of it's top performers almost overnight. Ashton's tedious try celebration has received more press coverage over the last two months than anything achieved by a rugby league player at the start of the new season. In addition, you can barely switch on your television these days without seeing Gavin Henson, Austin Healey of Matt Fecking Dawson engaging in some inane brand of 'reality entertainment'.
I'm not sure I want to see James Graham on 'Hole In The Wall' or 'Strictly', but I do think that he and his contempories deserve a little higher profile than they are currently afforded. Yet until rugby league develops a credible international structure the fact that these are among the fittest and best athletes in sport is likely to remain lost on most of the population. Currently only three nations (Australia, New Zealand and England......just) play rugby league to a high level internationally, a situation perpetuated by the governing body's weakness in allowing players to switch international allegiances almost willy and indeed nilly. You can't continue to allow the Fijis and the Tongas of this world to be used as stepping stones to the Australian national side and expect to have a truly global game at the end of it.
And doesn't Kyle Eastmond know it......?
It's not that he is the best player to ever cross codes. Jason Robinson was a key member of the 2003 World Cup winning side and is undoubtedly the best of those to have crossed the divide. Henry Paul, Andy Farrell, Lesley Vainikolo and Shontayne Hape have all played union for England following successful rugby league careers, while Chris Ashton had one successful season at Wigan and can now be found bewildering clueless union defenders.
Yet Eastmond is the first high profile (well, relatively, more on which later) St.Helens player to make the move. All of which stings a bit given my natural bias and my long-time hatred of union. It's an appalling excuse for a sport which seems to serve no purpose other than to give doctors and dentists something to shout about when Chelsea aren't playing. And yet it continues to attract the cream of young rugby league talent thanks to the financial power it has acquired since following league into professionalism.
Like Ashton, Eastmond turns to the dark side at a time when he has achieved very little in rugby league. He has (or had) undoubted potential but at just 21 years of age he had yet to establish himself as a worthy successor to Sean Long in the scrum-half position. When Saints let Long leave for Hull they put a lot of faith in Eastmond's potential, a move which has now spectacularly backfired. It leaves them hanging on to a player who clearly has his mind elsewhere as they use the remainder of this season to try to find a replacement.
Though it may not suit the suits at Bath, it would be far better for Saints if Eastmond were to go now. He was booed by a section of the support during the disappointing 25-18 defeat to Warrington at the weekend, a situation which prompted him to head straight for the tunnel at the final whistle rather than stay on the field to thank the support. Coach Royce Simmons was unimpressed by this, launching a thinly veiled attack on Eastmond with meanderings about sticking together as a team and grumbles about the unsatisfactory nature of carrying a player with what was then an uncertain future. It's clear that Simmons would rather move on from Eastmond, though it looks as though he will be forced to stick by him until the end of 2011.
Eastmond has immediately made noises about promising to give his very best for the remainder of the season. This might be considered a small mercy given that there is no obvious candidate to replace him in the number seven jersey at present, but I for one would rather have a rudderless ship than persevere with a player who clearly has no desire not only to play for St.Helens (a heinous crime in itself) but to even play the sport of rugby league! No player is bigger than the club, let alone the sport, and in drawing out this ridiculous transfer saga Eastmond has shown little respect for the club he recently alleged that he 'loved', nor the game itself. No doubt the player's agent, a certain Mr Offiah, has been more than instrumental in securing a deal with the rah-rahs. And we all know how much he loves St.Helens, not to mention his penchant for a wedge of cash. Ten percent, anyone?
Cathartic as it is, Eastmond-bashing will not stop similarly talented players from making the same choice in the future. Notwithstanding the money available in union, that game somehow enjoys a greater public profile and can make superstars of it's top performers almost overnight. Ashton's tedious try celebration has received more press coverage over the last two months than anything achieved by a rugby league player at the start of the new season. In addition, you can barely switch on your television these days without seeing Gavin Henson, Austin Healey of Matt Fecking Dawson engaging in some inane brand of 'reality entertainment'.
I'm not sure I want to see James Graham on 'Hole In The Wall' or 'Strictly', but I do think that he and his contempories deserve a little higher profile than they are currently afforded. Yet until rugby league develops a credible international structure the fact that these are among the fittest and best athletes in sport is likely to remain lost on most of the population. Currently only three nations (Australia, New Zealand and England......just) play rugby league to a high level internationally, a situation perpetuated by the governing body's weakness in allowing players to switch international allegiances almost willy and indeed nilly. You can't continue to allow the Fijis and the Tongas of this world to be used as stepping stones to the Australian national side and expect to have a truly global game at the end of it.
And doesn't Kyle Eastmond know it......?
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Cricket World Cup - Preview
Despite widespread forecasting of it's demise, 50-over cricket re-enters the spotlight as the 10th ICC World Cup gets underway in Asia this weekend.
Three countries - India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, will jointly host the event which sees 14 nations competing for a title won on the last three occasions by Australia. The teams will be split into two groups of seven, with the top four from each group all qualifying for the quarter-final stage. It is hoped that this format for the second phase, replacing the complex and seemingly endless 'Super Eight' group stage used in past tournaments will give the competition some much-need unpredictability and excitement.
Yet a quick look at the structure of the groups is all the cynic needs to label the outcome of the first phase predictable. In group A it is hard to look past Australia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand while over in Group B you might expect England to emerge alongside India, South Africa and the West Indies.
One possible exception to that might be Bangladesh, who as joint hosts for the first time have had their chances talked up more than in any previous tournament. The cricket-mad Bangladesh public is gripped by the event, raising expectations even higher for a team who, it must be remembered, have consistently failed to establish themselves as a genuine force in any form of the international game. Joining them in Group B will be Ireland and the Netherlands, who shocked England at the 2009 T20 World Cup, while in Group A Canada, Kenya and the returning Zimbabwe will be hoping to spring a surprise.
When looking for an overall winner things become less predictable. You can make a case for and against almost all of the major cricket playing nations before a ball is bowled. The extra knockout phase complicates things still further, and many ties may very well come down to who holds their nerve and performs on the day. The Australians are nowhere near the force of old (despite looking impressive in thrashing England 6-1 in the recent ODI series). With stars like Matthew Hayden, Adam Gilchrist and Shane Warne long gone they will also suffer from the loss though injury of Mike Hussey and the continued absence of the once formidable Andrew Simonds. Brett Lee leads a bowling attack which looks brittle elswhere, though John Hastings showed much promise in the one-sided romp over the English.
Home advantage could either help or hinder the Indians' bid for a first world title since 1983. The batting still looks powerful with the evergreen run machine that is Sachin Tendulkar ably assisted by the likes of Gautam Gambhir, Youvraj Singh and the explosive Virender Sehwag. Alongside them, India's X-factor could be the talented, big-hitting Yusuf Pathan.
South Africa are noted for crumbling in big games (witness the farcial run-out between Lance Klusener and Alan Donald with only one-run needed in the 1999 semi-final against Australia) and have had more than their fair share of bad luck with the weather down the years. Yet they retain a strong looking squad and will be a major threat. Graeme Smith has played countless destructive ODI innings for his country, while Hashim Amla, AB De Villiers and Lonwabo Tsotsobo add further batting depth. Dale Steyn is among the best fast bowlers in the world, and with Jacques Kallis still going strong the Proteas are a match for anyone on their day. It's just hard to know whether or not it is going to be their day.
England's Aussie humbling and a series of injuries have caused pessimism about their chances of adding the World Cup to the T20 title they won last year. Greame Swann has been a major factor in their success in recent times but has been battling injury of late, as have Stuart Broad and Tim Bresnan. The loss of Eoin Morgan from the batting department looks key, with the enigma that is Ravi Bopara called in to replace the Middlesex man. Moving Kevin Pietersen to the top of the order may be seen as a gamble by some but could provide the early impetus to an innings that was so successful for the Australians during the pomp of Hayden and Gilchrist. Pietersen's move also sees Matt Prior looking more comfortable down the order, but there must still be concerns over the form of Paul Collingwood and even Andrew Strauss going into their opener against the Dutch on February 22.
James Anderson has matured into one of the world's premier bowlers and he, alongide a fit-again Swann could be the difference for England with the ball. Yet Michael Yardy and Luke Wright are still to convince at this level, and James Tredwell and Ajmal Shahzad lack experience.
Muttiah Muralitharan will play his last international cricket in a Sri Lankan team which looks still to be in a development phase. Much will depend on his brilliance and that of Lasith 'the slinger' Malinga if the third host nation are going to get near to repeating their heroics of 1996. New Zealand have big game players like Jesse Ryder and Brenan McCullum, aswell as one of the shrewdest captains and most effective one-day spin bowlers in Daniel Vettori but it is highly questionable whether they have the depth to sustain a genuine challenge. West Indies seem to have been in transition forever, though if Chris Gayle can consistently find his best form they could set and chase down some big totals. Pakistan seem to rumble from one off-field disaster to another and wil need skipper Shaheed 'Boom Boom' Afridi to unite them and to produce his best form with both bat and ball if they are to be genuine contenders.
It all begins with two hosts, India and Bangladesh facing off in Mirpur on Saturday (February 19). Six weeks and 48 matches later, the remaining two teams will fight it out for the title in Mumbai on April 2.
Three countries - India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, will jointly host the event which sees 14 nations competing for a title won on the last three occasions by Australia. The teams will be split into two groups of seven, with the top four from each group all qualifying for the quarter-final stage. It is hoped that this format for the second phase, replacing the complex and seemingly endless 'Super Eight' group stage used in past tournaments will give the competition some much-need unpredictability and excitement.
Yet a quick look at the structure of the groups is all the cynic needs to label the outcome of the first phase predictable. In group A it is hard to look past Australia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand while over in Group B you might expect England to emerge alongside India, South Africa and the West Indies.
One possible exception to that might be Bangladesh, who as joint hosts for the first time have had their chances talked up more than in any previous tournament. The cricket-mad Bangladesh public is gripped by the event, raising expectations even higher for a team who, it must be remembered, have consistently failed to establish themselves as a genuine force in any form of the international game. Joining them in Group B will be Ireland and the Netherlands, who shocked England at the 2009 T20 World Cup, while in Group A Canada, Kenya and the returning Zimbabwe will be hoping to spring a surprise.
When looking for an overall winner things become less predictable. You can make a case for and against almost all of the major cricket playing nations before a ball is bowled. The extra knockout phase complicates things still further, and many ties may very well come down to who holds their nerve and performs on the day. The Australians are nowhere near the force of old (despite looking impressive in thrashing England 6-1 in the recent ODI series). With stars like Matthew Hayden, Adam Gilchrist and Shane Warne long gone they will also suffer from the loss though injury of Mike Hussey and the continued absence of the once formidable Andrew Simonds. Brett Lee leads a bowling attack which looks brittle elswhere, though John Hastings showed much promise in the one-sided romp over the English.
Home advantage could either help or hinder the Indians' bid for a first world title since 1983. The batting still looks powerful with the evergreen run machine that is Sachin Tendulkar ably assisted by the likes of Gautam Gambhir, Youvraj Singh and the explosive Virender Sehwag. Alongside them, India's X-factor could be the talented, big-hitting Yusuf Pathan.
South Africa are noted for crumbling in big games (witness the farcial run-out between Lance Klusener and Alan Donald with only one-run needed in the 1999 semi-final against Australia) and have had more than their fair share of bad luck with the weather down the years. Yet they retain a strong looking squad and will be a major threat. Graeme Smith has played countless destructive ODI innings for his country, while Hashim Amla, AB De Villiers and Lonwabo Tsotsobo add further batting depth. Dale Steyn is among the best fast bowlers in the world, and with Jacques Kallis still going strong the Proteas are a match for anyone on their day. It's just hard to know whether or not it is going to be their day.
England's Aussie humbling and a series of injuries have caused pessimism about their chances of adding the World Cup to the T20 title they won last year. Greame Swann has been a major factor in their success in recent times but has been battling injury of late, as have Stuart Broad and Tim Bresnan. The loss of Eoin Morgan from the batting department looks key, with the enigma that is Ravi Bopara called in to replace the Middlesex man. Moving Kevin Pietersen to the top of the order may be seen as a gamble by some but could provide the early impetus to an innings that was so successful for the Australians during the pomp of Hayden and Gilchrist. Pietersen's move also sees Matt Prior looking more comfortable down the order, but there must still be concerns over the form of Paul Collingwood and even Andrew Strauss going into their opener against the Dutch on February 22.
James Anderson has matured into one of the world's premier bowlers and he, alongide a fit-again Swann could be the difference for England with the ball. Yet Michael Yardy and Luke Wright are still to convince at this level, and James Tredwell and Ajmal Shahzad lack experience.
Muttiah Muralitharan will play his last international cricket in a Sri Lankan team which looks still to be in a development phase. Much will depend on his brilliance and that of Lasith 'the slinger' Malinga if the third host nation are going to get near to repeating their heroics of 1996. New Zealand have big game players like Jesse Ryder and Brenan McCullum, aswell as one of the shrewdest captains and most effective one-day spin bowlers in Daniel Vettori but it is highly questionable whether they have the depth to sustain a genuine challenge. West Indies seem to have been in transition forever, though if Chris Gayle can consistently find his best form they could set and chase down some big totals. Pakistan seem to rumble from one off-field disaster to another and wil need skipper Shaheed 'Boom Boom' Afridi to unite them and to produce his best form with both bat and ball if they are to be genuine contenders.
It all begins with two hosts, India and Bangladesh facing off in Mirpur on Saturday (February 19). Six weeks and 48 matches later, the remaining two teams will fight it out for the title in Mumbai on April 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)