Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Revisiting The X Files: S04 E17
S04E17: Tempus Fugit
Max is back! All the way from 'Fallen Angel' in Season 1, he doesn't last to see much more action, after the plane he was on crashes, killing almost everyone on board. Still there are aliens afoot in many places as Mulder and Scully try to work out exactly what happened in the air above Northville in New York.
Was there one aircraft? Was there two? Was there an alien craft? Even Joe Spano's character Mike Millar comes to see the light (literally) in the UFO conspiracy theory taking place. Mulder even stumbles across yet another alien space ship crashed under water (why doesn't this man carry a camera with him?!?!) as the episode ends, leading us to a week long cliffhanger... 4/5
Two Halves Don't Make A Whole in NRL
As with the AFL with just four rounds to go, the top eight looks to be in a solid position, with only the final order of the teams to be determined, and a possible late challenge from Manly-Warringah to try and crash the finals party.
Three teams are still a chance to be crowned as minor premiers, with the possible repeat of last season where the Roosters won the title on for-and-against. Brisbane play Dragons at home, Roosters away, Rabbitohs away and Melbourne at home. North Queensland play Rabbitohs at home, Warriors away, Melbourne away and Gold Coast at home. Roosters play Parramatta at home, Brisbane at home, Manly away and Rabbitohs at home. None of those draws are easy, and it is hard to see any of those three teams winning all four games to ensure a minor premiership. The Roosters have the far superior percentage, but are a game behind the two Queensland teams, but also have three of those games at home. Home ground advantage for the finals goes to the top two teams, with the real possibility season front runners Brisbane could be squeezed out over the closing rounds. or perhaps that is just wishful thinking.
The final spot in the top four should go to the Rabbitohs, but it isn't a foregone conclusion. Rabbitohs play North Queensland away, Bulldogs at home, Brisbane at home and Roosters away. Cronulla play Melbourne at home, Tigers at home, Parramatta away and Manly at home. Melbourne play Cronulla away, Knights at home, North Queensland at home and Brisbane away. If percentage comes into play, then the Storm will slip in by the skin of their teeth. If Cronulla can best Melbourne this weekend, they then have the Tigers and the Eels following that, which may well play into their hands perfectly.
To make the final eight, Manly would have to win all four of their final games against Canberra (away), Parramatta (home), Roosters (home) and Cronulla (away), which is not an impossible task but a tough one. At this stage you would expect both the Dragons and Bulldogs to win three of their last four to cement their spots. Dragons play Brisbane (away), Penrith (home), Gold Coast (away) and Wests Tigers (home), while Bulldogs take on Gold Coast (home), Rabbitohs (away), Newcastle (away) and Warriors (home). Manly's best chance is for the Dragons to drop two of those games (a possibility) and for themselves to win three of their last four, with a high boost in their for-and-against (a possibility).
As for the rest... start looking at 2016.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
AFL Finals Picture Almost Complete
With four rounds to go in this season's AFL, it appears that the finals teams are pretty much set in stone (though the three teams on the periphery would like to think otherwise), with only the final positions and home finals set to be confirmed over the final rounds.
Fremantle's superb season has seen them now shoot ten points clear at the top of the table, surely ensuring the minor premiership is theirs. Their dominance will not only give them two home finals, but also should rule out any travel away from their home base during the finals series until the Grand Final should they progress. While the Melbourne-based contenders will continue to believe they can take the Dockers once the pressure games begin, Fremantle by virtue of their previous grand final experience must now be considered the favourite for the flag.
2nd placed West Coast have a tough run home, and their two point buffer over Hawthorn is likely to be tested. Facing Fremantle at home, Western Bulldogs at home, Adelaide away and then St Kilda at home, they will likely need to win at least three of those games to finish in second place. Hawthorn face nemesis side Geelong, but then Port Adelaide, Brisbane and Carlton, and would be likely to win all four of those matches. A betting man would think that the Hawks will finish second and get the home final against the Eagles, setting up a probable Dockers vs Eagles preliminary final, which would bust the seams of Patterson Stadium. Hawthorn would then get a likely prelim against the fourth placed team.
That fourth place is being fought between four teams, with percentage a real chance of playing a role in the final spot. Season surprise packet the Western Bulldogs face Melbourne, West Coast, North Melbourne and Brisbane, and while they should win against the two lower ranked teams, it will be the matches against West Coast in Perth and North Melbourne that will ultimately decide their fate. Their major opponents for the fourth spot is Sydney, who should defeat all of their four opponents in Collingwood, GWS, St Kilda and Gold Coast. On this basis you would expect Sydney to finish in fourth, setting up a huge clash with Fremantle in the first week of the finals.
North Melbourne face St Kilda, Fremantle, and Western Bulldogs and Richmond face Gold Coast, Collingwood and Essendon before they both meet in the final round. North Melbourne are the most vulnerable team here. While they may be eyeing an unlikely fourth spot, they could also quite easily miss out on the finals altogether if they were to lose two or more of those last four games.
The final spot in the eight is also open, though most likely to be fought out between Geelong and Adelaide. Geelong has Hawthorn, St Kilda and Collingwood, while Adelaide faces Essendon, Brisbane and West Coast, before these two as well play each other in the final round, in a match that on paper looks as though it will be the match to decide the final team in the finals.
For GWS, the dream to play finals football would likely take four victories in succession, and relying on both Geelong and Adelaide to lose at least one of their matches. It's a tough ask but not an impossible one, given they have Port Adelaide away, then the Swans at home, Carlton at home and Melbourne away. What appears more likely is that they will fall one win short of a maiden finals appearance, still a more than commendable achievement. Collingwood are a further game back, and would have to rely on two losses each by Geelong and Adelaide, and one loss for GWS, while winning all four of their matches against Sydney, Richmond, Geelong and Essendon. Not really even in the possible column that one.
The remaining teams are playing for pride after seasons that vary from average to ordinary to abysmal. No doubt the planning for 2016 has already begun in most of those teams, and players could well be fighting for their careers over the next four weeks. Certainly some coaches will be.
Can Humiliation Change Australian Cricket Culture?
So once again, Australia will be without the Ashes for at least two and a half years, having only held them for eighteen months. The English cricket team are suddenly eyeing world domination again, the England fans can hold the gloating rights for an interminable length of time, and the English media and commentators will no doubt enjoy themselves over that period with glee. Once again as an Australian cricket supporter, we are faced with trying to ascertain how this could happen so quickly and decisively, and whether we have the ability to fight back from this humiliation and attempt to rebuild to the perceived dominance of just six weeks ago.
As was shown at both Cardiff and Edgbaston, England completely dominated in conditions that suited their team, which makes it even more unimaginable the wicket that was served up at Lords. Some may suggest that winning the toss was beneficial at Trent Bridge, but such was the decimation of the Australian batting line up, and the ineptness of its bowling line up in the same conditions - indeed, in the same session - that it is difficult to see that the result would have been any different.
The first session of this Test has probably only been matched in recent memory to another Australian collapse at Edgbaston in the 1st Test of 1997, when Australia was rolled for 118 and lost by 9 wickets (??). At least in that Test, Australia made England bat again through a gutsy revival led by Mark Taylor and Greg Blewett. At Trent Bridge in 2015, Dave Warner and Chris Rogers rode their luck to 0/113, but once one fell it was like a house of cards once again.
England must be given their due. They used the conditions magnificently. Chris Broad on the first morning had the ball on a five cent piece, and allowing the rickety techniques of the Australian batsmen to implement their own downfall. In the second innings it was the turn of Ben Stokes, who was a basket case with bat and ball 12 months ago, and now proclaimed the Next Botham after his six wicket performance with a brilliant display of swing and seam bowling. Then the batsmen led by Root, Bairstow and Cook tamed the conditions and took advantage of the less than stellar bowling from the Australians to dominate. It was almost the perfect Test match by England, though even they in their wildest dreams could not have thought what happened in the first session of the match could occur. From start to finish, it took just 32 days for Australia to relinquish the Ashes that few thought they would lose their grip on so soon or so easily.
England are joyous and rightly so. The drawn series against the West Indies and New Zealand have been forgotten in the euphoria of destroying Australia. Whatever the result is at The Oval next week, they have the Ashes and will go forward with confidence. That's not to say they will succeed. A trip to South Africa at the end of the year holds all the same dangers as did the Australian trip in 2013/14. They will rejoice in Cook's captaincy and subjective form with the bat. Joe Root is the number one (rated) batsman in Test cricket. Jonny Bairstow has returned with runs. Ben Stokes is a dangerous and competitive all rounder. Anderson and Broad still have it. Mark Wood looks an up-and-comer. What can go wrong in the climb up the Test rankings ladder? Quite a bit, given there are still some of their team holding on for the ride. But there's no need to address that until after The Oval.
Australia have little room to move within the squad that has been chosen and failed. The top three are all averaging over 40 for the series, which belies Smith's six innings apart from his Lords run-fest. Michael Clarke makes one final appearance in the baggy green having announced his retirement following the Trent Bridge massacre, and will be hoping to find anything to go out with runs and as a winner. Adam Voges visited the Dean Jones Saloon, his 51 not out likely to extend his Test career at least until The Oval, while Shaun Marsh's continued excellence in warm up games was followed by his continued failure at Test level. The choice for The Oval for the last spot in the top six will fall between Shaun Marsh, his brother Mitch Marsh... and yes... the possibility of a return for Shane Watson. If the future is in the eyes of the selectors then only one of those three should be considered.
The bowling doesn't open up a hell of a lot more options. Most commentators felt that if the selectors were not going to consider Peter Siddle for the seaming paradise of Trent Bridge then his career was over. The only other seamer in the squad is Pat Cummins, whose lack of long form cricket in his career is a stumbling block to selection. The outsider is Fawad Ahmed, still patiently awaiting his chance at the top level. If The Oval wicket is a typically flat and dry one then perhaps he'll get that chance at the expense of a seamer and the inclusion of Mitch Marsh as the third seamer. With Australia's next destination being Bangladesh, then surely this would be a proactive move. If the wicket has been spiced up then this would be less likely to occur.
With a dead Test match, followed by some unexcitable one day and Twenty20 matches to come, the winter of cricket viewing in Australia will now likely drop to almost negligible levels as the finals in both AFL and NRL take precedence over the shambles of the nation's cricket team. More is the pity given the good exposure thus far. Whether or not the team can regain lost ground with its supporters in that time all comes down to how they present themselves in the final Test of the summer.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Two Hours on Facebook to Describe A Wretched Test
As Richie would say - "Australia... not an impossible task but pretty fuckin' close to it... !!"
Posted by The 12th Man on Thursday, 6 August 2015
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Revisiting The X Files: S04 E16: Unrequited
S04E16: Unrequited
More soldiers killing superiors in this episode, which seems to have been a semi-regular occurrence throughout the X Files. Here though we have old mate Teager who seems to have the ability to disappear in plain view, which makes it quite difficult for him to be caught. Having disposed of a couple of victims, Mulder eventually comes to the conclusion that he has gained the ability to make himself a blind spot, which is not as good as invisibility, but pretty damn handy when you want to slip away virtually unnoticed.
The part of the story regarding POWs in Vietnam still being alive but ignored by the government seems to be casually swept under the carpet at the important parts of the episode. 3.5/5
Revisiting The X Files: S04 E15: Kaddish
S04E15: Kaddish
Rising from the dead for revenge, or not dead at all? Looks like neither could be the answer here, after Isaac Luria is murdered by teenagers before his wedding day, but once buried the teenagers begin to drop one by one in mysterious circumstances. Looks as though no one was prepared for a Jewish family to set loose a mystical Jewish monster called a Golem to take control of the situation.
That's all fine, but really, the villains here are very cartoonish. I guess it is possible there are such outlandish and obvious racists out there but these guys are really over the top. Fortunately Mulder is there to believe and to save the day. Kind of. 3.5/5
Revisiting The X Files: S04 E14: Memento Mori
S04E14: Memento Mori
Scully's cancer leads she and Fox back to the site of the Mutual UFO Network, only to find almost all of the other abductees have already fallen victim to the same phenomenon. of course Scully refuses to believe this to be a government conspiracy, because that's what she does!
When Fox tries and fails to convince Skinner to let him make a deal with the Smoking Man, he turns to those bastions of geekery The Lone Gunmen to help him. Let's just say that Byers is not a field agent. Alien hybrids abound in this episode again, all protecting Scully's ova.
Skinner and Smoking Man apparently do a deal at the end over Scully's life, but at this point you can't be sure who or what will be affected in the long run. 3/5
How to Help Australia to Win the 4th Test
I must admit, I thought that by splashing out some money on England to win the 3rd Test, when they were being offered at ridiculous odds of $5.50, was a sure way to ensure victory for Australia. I was found to be incorrect in this case, but I won't lie that the extra cash windfall helped ease the pain slightly.
So how to help Australia in the all important 4th Test? Well, we really must win, we can't hope to draw and then win the 5th Test, so I need to take out both the option of England winning or salvaging a draw.
Thankfully the bookies are working for me in this instance, and so this is what I have done.
I have taken England at $3.40 to win the Test - $30 @ $3.40 = $102.00
I have also taken the draw at $3.75 - $20 @ $3.75 = $75.00
So for my $50 outlay, I will either:
- Take home $52 if England wins Test
- Take home $25 if it is a draw
- Lose $50 - but Australia win Test.
Perfectly logical...
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Continued Inconsistency Plagues Ashes Cricket
It was a tough week to be an Australian cricket supporter. Everything had appeared so rosy after the Lords Test. Order had been restored. Australia had dominated a match on an unresponsive wicket, which meant that everything looked good heading into the final three Tests, and a retention of the Ashes. In eight sessions of cricket, this was blown away in a spate of poor batting, ordinary bowling and some poor fielding, and suddenly the Australians are so far behind the eight ball one wonders how they can possibly recover in time to reverse proceedings.
Whether or not the decision to bat first is seen to have been a mistake is irrelevant in the decisiveness of the loss. The conditions were not so untoward, given Cook suggested at the toss he would also have batted. The fact that Australia's batsmen were unable to make any more than 136 in that innings is where that match was lost. Australia's batting problems have been papered over for almost 12 months now, thanks to the amazing form of Steve Smith and Chris Rogers. Even at Lords, it was their partnership which ensured a huge total batting first, allowing the failures of Clarke, Voges and Mitch Marsh to pass almost unspoken of. At Edgbaston Smith failed twice for the first time in that 12 month period, and the middle order was exposed white bellied, and was gutted unmercifully. And then, even despite bowling poorly, the bowlers could have kept Australia in the match if they had been able to remove Broad or Ali early at 7/190. Instead, the 87 partnership put enough room between the two teams that when Australia's batting failed again it could not be recovered even through the tough work of Nevill and Starc.
So what happened? How did at team that was flogged by over 400 runs a week previous turn it around to win by the better part of seven wickets and over two days? Not to be unfair to England, but it was the Australians who brought it all upon themselves. England certainly improved, but not to the degree that the result suggests.
The truth of Australia's batting is now there for everyone to see, and the good news for England is that there is very little Australia can change to improve it. Take out Rogers' 52 from the first innings and Warner's 77 from the second innings, and ten Australian batsmen over those two innings contributed only 58 runs in total. It is a worrying trend. The swinging ball is again proving to be an insurmountable obstacle to Australia's batting, and precious few look likely to dig themselves in and fight their way through it. The dismissals of Voges and Marsh in particular reveal a technique raised on Western Australian wickets that is not sustainable in English conditions. Voges will be vulnerable in selection for the 4th Test given that the elder Marsh brother has scored a lot of runs in the county fixtures. The fact that they have been scored against substandard bowling attacks will not disguise the fact that he has form on the board, and Voges does not. If the change is made, it will not make Australian supporters feel any more secure, nor will it disappoint England's bowlers to have another left-hander to attack. Mitch Marsh's only replacement could be the recently deposed Shane Watson, but again that change would not really boost the confidence of Australians. No matter what the selection policy is in regards to an all rounders position in the Test line-up, you cannot bat at number 6 in Test cricket without scoring runs, and plenty of them. No ability to nip out wickets with the ball should replace the runs that are a prerequisite of batting in the top six of the Test team.
There seems to be an overreaction once again to an Australian captain who is a little short on runs. We saw it with Chappell, Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting. They all had a slump when they were approaching a zenith in their career, and all had their heads called for as a result. each and every one of them fought out of it, scored memorable innings to again prove their talent, and were able to (more or less) leave the game on their own terms rather than on the cry of the media wolves. And now its Michael Clarke's turn. His courageous century in Adelaide last year has been set aside, and the fact that it has been five Tests since then and he hasn't made a 'big' score. That's right, 5 Tests. Not to mention that he top scored in the World Cup final not that long ago. There's no doubt he doesn't look comfortable at the crease due to his well publicised injuries, and opposing bowlers know he has weaknesses because of this that they can target, which they do. And the dropped chance at slip off Ian Bell didn't look good. But seriously, who remembers the last one he grassed? And why does the media feel it must hound a player of Clarke's stature into retirement? If you would back anyone to succeed with his back to the wall, it would be Michael Clarke. His century in South Africa 16 months ago showed that. Clarke has more credits in the bank than just about anyone in Australian cricket. He deserves the leeway from the media and the public to fight his way back into form without his future being questioned at every turn.
What happened to Australia's bowling attack? All five were on fire at Lords and couldn't do a thing wrong. At Edgbaston they couldn't put the ball anywhere near the right areas. They were short, they were wide, they were too full. There was no pressure on the batsmen, and Bell and Root in particular were able to play as they liked. If these two hadn't both thrown their wickets away in the first innings it could have been an innings victory for England. The McGrath comparisons of Hazelwood at Lords dissipated at Edgbaston, his four wickets conceding runs at over 5 an over. Starc was wayward, almost back to his old ways of 18 months ago. Johnson bowled two cracking overs but couldn't back it up consistently. Lyon bowled with surprising penetrativeness without ever really looking as though he could bowl his way through the order. Were they underdone, as some speculated in the days that followed? Surely in this day and age that should not be allowed to occur. Did they take the break between Tests too easy? Did they just believe they had England's measure? None of that makes sense in a professional environment. It was obvious however that, whatever the reason, the Australians as a bowling group was as poor at Edgbaston as they were terrific at Lords.
Will there be changes? It appears highly unlikely. Peter Siddle has been advocated as a possible change to provide stability and accuracy, but at whose expense? And given Australia must now win at least one of the final 2 Tests - and probably both - to retain the Ashes - surely they need their most attacking bowlers in tow? What I wouldn't give to see Fawad Ahmed given an opportunity. It won't happen unless injury strikes Lyon, but seeing him against these English batsmen would be tantalising.
What the 4th Test will come down to is how much Australia want to fight back, and whether it can be done. England will be without Jimmy Anderson, but the possible return of Wood will make England feel comfortable. Their batsmen, Adam Lyth aside, will feel they have the Australians measure. If nothing else, this Test match should be the most competitive of the series so far, and hopefully the most watchable.
Whether or not the decision to bat first is seen to have been a mistake is irrelevant in the decisiveness of the loss. The conditions were not so untoward, given Cook suggested at the toss he would also have batted. The fact that Australia's batsmen were unable to make any more than 136 in that innings is where that match was lost. Australia's batting problems have been papered over for almost 12 months now, thanks to the amazing form of Steve Smith and Chris Rogers. Even at Lords, it was their partnership which ensured a huge total batting first, allowing the failures of Clarke, Voges and Mitch Marsh to pass almost unspoken of. At Edgbaston Smith failed twice for the first time in that 12 month period, and the middle order was exposed white bellied, and was gutted unmercifully. And then, even despite bowling poorly, the bowlers could have kept Australia in the match if they had been able to remove Broad or Ali early at 7/190. Instead, the 87 partnership put enough room between the two teams that when Australia's batting failed again it could not be recovered even through the tough work of Nevill and Starc.
So what happened? How did at team that was flogged by over 400 runs a week previous turn it around to win by the better part of seven wickets and over two days? Not to be unfair to England, but it was the Australians who brought it all upon themselves. England certainly improved, but not to the degree that the result suggests.
The truth of Australia's batting is now there for everyone to see, and the good news for England is that there is very little Australia can change to improve it. Take out Rogers' 52 from the first innings and Warner's 77 from the second innings, and ten Australian batsmen over those two innings contributed only 58 runs in total. It is a worrying trend. The swinging ball is again proving to be an insurmountable obstacle to Australia's batting, and precious few look likely to dig themselves in and fight their way through it. The dismissals of Voges and Marsh in particular reveal a technique raised on Western Australian wickets that is not sustainable in English conditions. Voges will be vulnerable in selection for the 4th Test given that the elder Marsh brother has scored a lot of runs in the county fixtures. The fact that they have been scored against substandard bowling attacks will not disguise the fact that he has form on the board, and Voges does not. If the change is made, it will not make Australian supporters feel any more secure, nor will it disappoint England's bowlers to have another left-hander to attack. Mitch Marsh's only replacement could be the recently deposed Shane Watson, but again that change would not really boost the confidence of Australians. No matter what the selection policy is in regards to an all rounders position in the Test line-up, you cannot bat at number 6 in Test cricket without scoring runs, and plenty of them. No ability to nip out wickets with the ball should replace the runs that are a prerequisite of batting in the top six of the Test team.
There seems to be an overreaction once again to an Australian captain who is a little short on runs. We saw it with Chappell, Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting. They all had a slump when they were approaching a zenith in their career, and all had their heads called for as a result. each and every one of them fought out of it, scored memorable innings to again prove their talent, and were able to (more or less) leave the game on their own terms rather than on the cry of the media wolves. And now its Michael Clarke's turn. His courageous century in Adelaide last year has been set aside, and the fact that it has been five Tests since then and he hasn't made a 'big' score. That's right, 5 Tests. Not to mention that he top scored in the World Cup final not that long ago. There's no doubt he doesn't look comfortable at the crease due to his well publicised injuries, and opposing bowlers know he has weaknesses because of this that they can target, which they do. And the dropped chance at slip off Ian Bell didn't look good. But seriously, who remembers the last one he grassed? And why does the media feel it must hound a player of Clarke's stature into retirement? If you would back anyone to succeed with his back to the wall, it would be Michael Clarke. His century in South Africa 16 months ago showed that. Clarke has more credits in the bank than just about anyone in Australian cricket. He deserves the leeway from the media and the public to fight his way back into form without his future being questioned at every turn.
What happened to Australia's bowling attack? All five were on fire at Lords and couldn't do a thing wrong. At Edgbaston they couldn't put the ball anywhere near the right areas. They were short, they were wide, they were too full. There was no pressure on the batsmen, and Bell and Root in particular were able to play as they liked. If these two hadn't both thrown their wickets away in the first innings it could have been an innings victory for England. The McGrath comparisons of Hazelwood at Lords dissipated at Edgbaston, his four wickets conceding runs at over 5 an over. Starc was wayward, almost back to his old ways of 18 months ago. Johnson bowled two cracking overs but couldn't back it up consistently. Lyon bowled with surprising penetrativeness without ever really looking as though he could bowl his way through the order. Were they underdone, as some speculated in the days that followed? Surely in this day and age that should not be allowed to occur. Did they take the break between Tests too easy? Did they just believe they had England's measure? None of that makes sense in a professional environment. It was obvious however that, whatever the reason, the Australians as a bowling group was as poor at Edgbaston as they were terrific at Lords.
Will there be changes? It appears highly unlikely. Peter Siddle has been advocated as a possible change to provide stability and accuracy, but at whose expense? And given Australia must now win at least one of the final 2 Tests - and probably both - to retain the Ashes - surely they need their most attacking bowlers in tow? What I wouldn't give to see Fawad Ahmed given an opportunity. It won't happen unless injury strikes Lyon, but seeing him against these English batsmen would be tantalising.
What the 4th Test will come down to is how much Australia want to fight back, and whether it can be done. England will be without Jimmy Anderson, but the possible return of Wood will make England feel comfortable. Their batsmen, Adam Lyth aside, will feel they have the Australians measure. If nothing else, this Test match should be the most competitive of the series so far, and hopefully the most watchable.
Monday, August 3, 2015
Review: Cricket as I See It
Cricket as I See It by Allan BorderMy rating: 3 of 5 stars
I was hoping for more from this than I got. Like most of us who love cricket, I have Beyond Ten Thousand, which means that most of the stuff AB goes over from his playing career we already know. To be honest, I was looking for some real information on cricket since that point, and especially from his point of view of being a selector and a board member. In the long run, we get snippets rather than full shots, and it's more of a tease than anything else. Still, it's an interesting read for anyone who enjoys cricket and has a love of everything on and off the field.
View all my reviews
The Goodes, The Bad and The Ugly Side of Barracking
The past week has seen a media blitz explosion over the continued booing by AFL crowds of Adam Goodes, the varied interpretations of what lies behind these actions, and debate over those interpretations from all corners of the general public up to the so-called leaders of the land. And the opinions have been many and varied, stretching from those that believe it is a racist action and must be dealt with accordingly, to those that believe it has nothing to do with racism at all but is more about the actions of the man himself, and that he has brought it all on himself. Yikes.
Opinions have been noted. None of this is good. It should never have escalated to this point. And this week has really polarised rather than brought together those opinions. There is a big fence there separating two sides of the debate, and neither appears willing to adjust their field of vision. At the risk of sounding wishy-washy and of sitting on that big fence, there must be a little give and take in the minds of both sides, whether or not it is seen rightly or wrongly.
Those out there who say it has EVERYTHING to do with racism are not doing the argument much justice. Crowds at sports events who bond together to take on a collective disgruntlement in booing one player are generally boofheads with the collective IQ of a plastic cup full of beer. Goodes has been outspoken on a number of issues, some of which would go right over the top of the head of the mug footy supporter, and he is also seen as a player who has taken the opportunity to play for free kicks in the game if it arises. This kind of behaviour will always rile up opposition crowds, especially when at their home venue. When this kind of thing catches on with the football fraternity, it can catch like wildfire, and the initial reason behind the protest is forgotten - all that is remembered is that other crowds booed him, so we will too, but louder and longer! This is not meant to be seen as an excuse, but somewhat of a possible explanation for the continued rising of this phenomenon.
Those out there who say it has NOTHING to do with racism are just as blind and out of touch. Goodes has made his stand in recent years on many issues dealing with the indigenous people of Australia. He has made a stand on racism on and off the football field, publicly and on the biggest stage. Amongst that booing mob at every game have been people yelling racism comments, throwing racist taunts. This has been acknowledged and proven. Some of those people were ejected and barred, not all were caught or punished. Does the argument "a few bad eggs doesn't make it racism" count here? How many bad eggs were there? 10? 20? 50? How MANY bad eggs DOES make it racism?
The argument that this concerted booing is solely for his actions on the football field is also not viable. So he may play for free kicks when he can. That's why he's booed, and not for his skin colour? Why don't crowds boo Joel Selwood in the same way then? He has bought more free kicks in the last eight years than anyone by ducking his head at an opportune moment. How about the argument that because the crowds only boo one black man, and not all of them that play AFL - that means it isn't racist? Where does this mentality come from?!?
What about the argument that he's an elite athlete and should be able to handle being booed, just like Stuart Broad was in Australia last summer, or other players from any assortment of sports codes have been in the past, or even us mugs who just play at our club level far beyond where courtesy should be shown? Well, how many of them were booed EVERY SINGLE TIME they touched ball during the game, not just for a week or two weeks, but every single week? Pretty sure the answer is none. Put yourself in Goodes' shoes. If you were booed constantly, every week, no matter how you played or what you did, how long before you cracked? How long before it really began to sink in to your psyche? Think about it honestly, because no one likes being hated, and imagine how that would affect you week in week out.
The round of AFL played this weekend brought forth support from players, clubs and fans alike in many different ways. However, the only way this can be stopped is by the fans themselves. To collectively and individually refrain from targeting one player. That in itself would be a victory. There's no need to participate in cheering the player if you don't feel it warranted. By simply choosing not to follow the mob in booing one player will be enough to conclude this ugly business, and allow the game to return to the players as it should, and not the gossip columnists as it has been this past week.
Opinions have been noted. None of this is good. It should never have escalated to this point. And this week has really polarised rather than brought together those opinions. There is a big fence there separating two sides of the debate, and neither appears willing to adjust their field of vision. At the risk of sounding wishy-washy and of sitting on that big fence, there must be a little give and take in the minds of both sides, whether or not it is seen rightly or wrongly.
Those out there who say it has EVERYTHING to do with racism are not doing the argument much justice. Crowds at sports events who bond together to take on a collective disgruntlement in booing one player are generally boofheads with the collective IQ of a plastic cup full of beer. Goodes has been outspoken on a number of issues, some of which would go right over the top of the head of the mug footy supporter, and he is also seen as a player who has taken the opportunity to play for free kicks in the game if it arises. This kind of behaviour will always rile up opposition crowds, especially when at their home venue. When this kind of thing catches on with the football fraternity, it can catch like wildfire, and the initial reason behind the protest is forgotten - all that is remembered is that other crowds booed him, so we will too, but louder and longer! This is not meant to be seen as an excuse, but somewhat of a possible explanation for the continued rising of this phenomenon.
Those out there who say it has NOTHING to do with racism are just as blind and out of touch. Goodes has made his stand in recent years on many issues dealing with the indigenous people of Australia. He has made a stand on racism on and off the football field, publicly and on the biggest stage. Amongst that booing mob at every game have been people yelling racism comments, throwing racist taunts. This has been acknowledged and proven. Some of those people were ejected and barred, not all were caught or punished. Does the argument "a few bad eggs doesn't make it racism" count here? How many bad eggs were there? 10? 20? 50? How MANY bad eggs DOES make it racism?
The argument that this concerted booing is solely for his actions on the football field is also not viable. So he may play for free kicks when he can. That's why he's booed, and not for his skin colour? Why don't crowds boo Joel Selwood in the same way then? He has bought more free kicks in the last eight years than anyone by ducking his head at an opportune moment. How about the argument that because the crowds only boo one black man, and not all of them that play AFL - that means it isn't racist? Where does this mentality come from?!?
What about the argument that he's an elite athlete and should be able to handle being booed, just like Stuart Broad was in Australia last summer, or other players from any assortment of sports codes have been in the past, or even us mugs who just play at our club level far beyond where courtesy should be shown? Well, how many of them were booed EVERY SINGLE TIME they touched ball during the game, not just for a week or two weeks, but every single week? Pretty sure the answer is none. Put yourself in Goodes' shoes. If you were booed constantly, every week, no matter how you played or what you did, how long before you cracked? How long before it really began to sink in to your psyche? Think about it honestly, because no one likes being hated, and imagine how that would affect you week in week out.
The round of AFL played this weekend brought forth support from players, clubs and fans alike in many different ways. However, the only way this can be stopped is by the fans themselves. To collectively and individually refrain from targeting one player. That in itself would be a victory. There's no need to participate in cheering the player if you don't feel it warranted. By simply choosing not to follow the mob in booing one player will be enough to conclude this ugly business, and allow the game to return to the players as it should, and not the gossip columnists as it has been this past week.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
So Few Wins Needed for Finals Spot
With five rounds remaining of the NRL before the finals begin (apart from tomorrow night's non-event between the Titans and the Eels), it once again appears that at least one of the teams that finishes inside the top eight will have lost more games than they have won in the regular season.
It is conceivable that three of those teams in the top eight will have less than a 50% win record and yet still get the opportunity to play finals football. I have a real problem with that. I just don't see that if you can't win a majority of your games over 26 rounds, that you should have the chance to win a premiership if you happen to win four finals in a row. And no, that hasn't happened yet, but Canterbury went close to doing it last year from seventh position, after having 13 wins from 24 matches. And no, it isn't a likely event in any case, but would you ever rule out a team such as Melbourne or Canterbury, currently 6th and 8th respectively, being able to do it?
There is no way of course that Channel 9 will allow the top 8 finals to change. It offers three extra finals matches than the old top five used to, which is all dollars and ratings they would be unwilling to lose. I guess the quality of the games will still be a deciding factor in the future, and the finals in the first week between 5 vs 8 and 6 vs 7 are generally the best of the first week.
It is conceivable that three of those teams in the top eight will have less than a 50% win record and yet still get the opportunity to play finals football. I have a real problem with that. I just don't see that if you can't win a majority of your games over 26 rounds, that you should have the chance to win a premiership if you happen to win four finals in a row. And no, that hasn't happened yet, but Canterbury went close to doing it last year from seventh position, after having 13 wins from 24 matches. And no, it isn't a likely event in any case, but would you ever rule out a team such as Melbourne or Canterbury, currently 6th and 8th respectively, being able to do it?
There is no way of course that Channel 9 will allow the top 8 finals to change. It offers three extra finals matches than the old top five used to, which is all dollars and ratings they would be unwilling to lose. I guess the quality of the games will still be a deciding factor in the future, and the finals in the first week between 5 vs 8 and 6 vs 7 are generally the best of the first week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)