The changing nature of sport, or the evolution of the rules of sport. Yesterday I attended the Anglo-Welsh semi-finals of the EDF cup. It is a tournament which is a cup competition between the top tier of English and Welsh clubs. The competition is innovative, exciting and fosters excellent cross boarder rivalry. Whether the tournament will continue is another issue as the premiership rugby clubs do not like it. But it is well received by the fans and game administrators alike. The subject of this blog is not the tournament. It is the laws of the game and the laws of any games and how often to change the game?
The reason I started thinking about this blog, is during the games I watched yesterday and during the six nations championship the kick became king. There was lots of games when minutes went by went the ball was in the air being kicked from wing to wing. The reason for this was the experimental law variations. Rather than going into the specifics of the law that causes this it is enough to know that the idea of the experimental law variations was to keep the ball in play more often. There is no doubt this happens, but rugby union is a game of many facets not just running with the ball in fact the ability to drive the ball up the field in the forwards is a technically difficult skill. In my opinion the ELV laws have fundamentally changed the nature of a great game. They were brought about by pressure from Australia really because they wanted to de power the technical aspects of the game, the scrum and the rolling maul. Essentially to make the game more like rugby league which coincidentally the Australians excel at. Hopefully sense will prevail and the ELVs will go the way of the dinosaurs.
Some sports like Rugby union have a habit of changing the laws of the game on a yearly basis. Football has not changed the laws of the game in years. The argument in football is that the game has to be the same from the park too the stadium. This is fine in principal, in practice it is a joke. Football has to change its rules. Firstly the discipline aspect of football is poor ant referees can not enforce it and the players are not interested in it. If the discipline was tightened up by the introduction of the sin bin at the highest level it would filter down to the lowest level. Maybe just maybe the kids who follow the game might not want to imitate the temper tantrums of Rooney and Ronaldo just the skills they show.
So we the key to changing the laws of the game. Don't change the laws so they fundamentally change the game. Listen to the people in the game from the grass roots upwards not just the broadcasters and the any game will be in safe hands.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Lions team post six nations
This is my lions team post six nations
15. Byrne - Wales
14. Carney - Ireland
13- O'Driscoll- Ireland
12- Flutey - England
11. Monye - England
10- Jones - Wales
9- Philips - Wales
8. Leamy - Ireland
7. Wallace -Ireland
6. Croft - England
5. Wyn Jones - Wales
4. O Connell -Ireland (Captain)
3. Murray- Scotland
2. Rhys -Wales
1. Sheridan - England
What will be the team for the first test?
15. Byrne - Wales
14. Carney - Ireland
13- O'Driscoll- Ireland
12- Flutey - England
11. Monye - England
10- Jones - Wales
9- Philips - Wales
8. Leamy - Ireland
7. Wallace -Ireland
6. Croft - England
5. Wyn Jones - Wales
4. O Connell -Ireland (Captain)
3. Murray- Scotland
2. Rhys -Wales
1. Sheridan - England
What will be the team for the first test?
Coaching
What makes a great coach? The six nations has ended and Ireland have been gloriously crowned as grand slam champions after sixty one long years. What made Declan Kidney take a group of players that have been around for ten years and so often disappointed, champions. The players are the same the support staff are the same, only the head coach is different. Has the coach made this much of a difference?
It seems appropriate to be talking about coaching as a film about Brian Clough has just been released. Brian Clough as a manager did the unthinkable by taking two small provincial town sides in Derby County and Nottingham Forest to the absolute pinnacle of the game of football. In the age of the premiership and the dominance of Manchester United et al, this seems almost fantastical. Nobody could quite understand Clough's genius as a manager. He rarely saw his players on a weekly basis but performed miracles.
The concept of the personality of the coach came from America. In the rest of the world the coach was the guy who picked up the kit at the end of the game. In fact in Britain it was considered unsporting to have a coach in case you gave yourself an advantage. Vince Lombardi was the first great coach. Originally a highly successful college basketball coach in a men's catholic college he became the great head coach of the Green Bay Packers. In English football the first great managers were all from the industrial heart of Scotland. Busby, Stein and Shankly all these men created a legacy and great clubs in Manchester United, Celtic and Liverpool. All these clubs were built on the force of these mens coaching personalties. What made all these people great coaches
There is no common thread between all these men, all these managers or coaches. The best place to look really is the players who play under them and that is where the link is formed. Every player who has played under what they consider to be a great coach or manager has respect for these coaches. Also if any of thee coaches loses the respect of these players they are cut off quickly and without sympathy. Witness David Beckham and Alex Ferguson at Manchester United as soon as he became bigger than the club he was out.
The point of this blog is too say no coach has any kind of monopoly on the skills of coach. Different coaches work well with different people. The true test of a great coach is building a legacy and long periods of success as well as passing that legacy on to the next generation of coaches.
It seems appropriate to be talking about coaching as a film about Brian Clough has just been released. Brian Clough as a manager did the unthinkable by taking two small provincial town sides in Derby County and Nottingham Forest to the absolute pinnacle of the game of football. In the age of the premiership and the dominance of Manchester United et al, this seems almost fantastical. Nobody could quite understand Clough's genius as a manager. He rarely saw his players on a weekly basis but performed miracles.
The concept of the personality of the coach came from America. In the rest of the world the coach was the guy who picked up the kit at the end of the game. In fact in Britain it was considered unsporting to have a coach in case you gave yourself an advantage. Vince Lombardi was the first great coach. Originally a highly successful college basketball coach in a men's catholic college he became the great head coach of the Green Bay Packers. In English football the first great managers were all from the industrial heart of Scotland. Busby, Stein and Shankly all these men created a legacy and great clubs in Manchester United, Celtic and Liverpool. All these clubs were built on the force of these mens coaching personalties. What made all these people great coaches
There is no common thread between all these men, all these managers or coaches. The best place to look really is the players who play under them and that is where the link is formed. Every player who has played under what they consider to be a great coach or manager has respect for these coaches. Also if any of thee coaches loses the respect of these players they are cut off quickly and without sympathy. Witness David Beckham and Alex Ferguson at Manchester United as soon as he became bigger than the club he was out.
The point of this blog is too say no coach has any kind of monopoly on the skills of coach. Different coaches work well with different people. The true test of a great coach is building a legacy and long periods of success as well as passing that legacy on to the next generation of coaches.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Sport and Money
Sport and money go together hand in hand. This has never been more obvious than in the week just gone. The Cheltenham festival has just been and gone. It is a magnificent sporting occasion. It is also a huge gambling occasion with millions being spent on the track and on-line. However Cheltenham benefits from these bets it gives people a stake, it creates legends, stories and hero's not only of the horses but also the owners and gamblers. One of the great stories is of JP McManus the legendary Irish gambler walking into the betting ring with 50000 pounds and taking on the bookies in as though he was a cowboy walking into a gunfight at the OK Corral.
Cheltenham is an example where sport and money go hand in hand in a way that is beneficial for both. The problem is when sport sells itself its very soul for the elusive dollar. The most obvious example of this is the controversy surrounding cricket. Where the traditions of the game are being compromised by the headlong charge towards 20/20 cricket. However, many sports are even further down the road. There is talk of the English premiership having an extra game played abroad to capitalise on the future investment abroad, this is a mirror of the NFL agreeing to play a game at Wembley stadium. This is fine for generating profits but negates the history of the game. For example Manchester United is the biggest football club in the world but without the people who built the club from the city it would be nothing. The same with American football, why should a fan from London get to see a game which a season ticket holder from Tampa or Chicago will not.
The point of this blog is that all sports can take money and it often benefits the sport in numerous ways but so often sporting administrators forget the 'little people.' This is fine in times of economic plenty. We are now in a lean time where sporting sponsorship is getting harder to obtain corporate boxes are more difficult to sell. These clubs and sporting organisations are now trying to tempt the fans they lost back and to take their money again. Ironically the Cheltenham festival horse racing has made more money than ever. This is because it listened to its fans by extending the festival. Now other sports have to do the same.
Cheltenham is an example where sport and money go hand in hand in a way that is beneficial for both. The problem is when sport sells itself its very soul for the elusive dollar. The most obvious example of this is the controversy surrounding cricket. Where the traditions of the game are being compromised by the headlong charge towards 20/20 cricket. However, many sports are even further down the road. There is talk of the English premiership having an extra game played abroad to capitalise on the future investment abroad, this is a mirror of the NFL agreeing to play a game at Wembley stadium. This is fine for generating profits but negates the history of the game. For example Manchester United is the biggest football club in the world but without the people who built the club from the city it would be nothing. The same with American football, why should a fan from London get to see a game which a season ticket holder from Tampa or Chicago will not.
The point of this blog is that all sports can take money and it often benefits the sport in numerous ways but so often sporting administrators forget the 'little people.' This is fine in times of economic plenty. We are now in a lean time where sporting sponsorship is getting harder to obtain corporate boxes are more difficult to sell. These clubs and sporting organisations are now trying to tempt the fans they lost back and to take their money again. Ironically the Cheltenham festival horse racing has made more money than ever. This is because it listened to its fans by extending the festival. Now other sports have to do the same.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Living with the Lions
When people talk about seminal sports documentary films, When we were Kings comes up all the time. My favourite sports documentary is the 1997 film, Living with the Lions. For the un-initiated it is the story of the 1997 British and Irish lions tour to South Africa. It really is a warts and all journey with that rugby team across the continent. No real game footage but a fascinating look at what it takes to build a successful team out of disparate nations who normally spend their time knocking lumps out of each other.
This year the Lions return to South Africa again, same head coach but the world of rugby has moved on apace. There have been two lions tours since the South African adventure. The tour to Australia was memorable for “Waltzing O’Driscoll,” as well as Jason Robinson stepping round Chris Latham. Ultimately it was unsuccessful. The 2005 tour to New Zealand was completely forgettable whether it be for the ugly tackle on Brian O’Driscoll or the horrific organisation by Woodward. This included Alistair Campbell as spin doctor!
What can we expect from 2009 in South Africa? Hopefully it will be a reinvigoration of the Lions brand. McGeechan as head coach is the right step. With respect to Henry and Woodward it was like they never got what it meant to tour as a Lion and the traditions that go with that. After all the Lions and lions tour are built on legends. The famous “99” call of the 74 lions is one example. The brilliance of O’Reilly, Jackson and Kyle in the 50’s in South Africa and the peak of brilliance that was the 71 lions to New Zealand. Barry John was at his best and he was surrounded by JPR, Gareth and the David Duckham the man the Welsh called Dai.
The Lions is unique in professional sport no trophy, no tournament just touring for the sake of it. This year it will be fascinating to see whether the Lions will live up to their brilliant traditions of old or attempt to become that uber-professional team that Woodward tried to build. I would like them to play hard but ultimately live up to the traditions of old. I would love McGeechan and Edwards to talk about what it means to be a lion and the importance of red shirt.
After three rounds of the six nations my Lions side would be:
15. Byrne (Wales)
14. Scotland (Wales)
13. O’Driscoll (Ireland)
12. Shanklin (Wales)
11. Williams (Wales)
10. Jones (Wales)
9. O’Leary (Ireland)
8. Hyslip (Ireland)
7. Willams (Wales)
6. Worsley (England)
5. O Connell (Ireland)
4. Wyn Jones (Wales)
3. Jones (Wales)
2. Rees (Wales)
1. Jenkins (Wales)
The beauty of the Lions is that it could all change as team combinations are worked out and the inevitable dark horse comes through. Think of Young 1989, Gibbs 1993 and Bentley 1997.
This year the Lions return to South Africa again, same head coach but the world of rugby has moved on apace. There have been two lions tours since the South African adventure. The tour to Australia was memorable for “Waltzing O’Driscoll,” as well as Jason Robinson stepping round Chris Latham. Ultimately it was unsuccessful. The 2005 tour to New Zealand was completely forgettable whether it be for the ugly tackle on Brian O’Driscoll or the horrific organisation by Woodward. This included Alistair Campbell as spin doctor!
What can we expect from 2009 in South Africa? Hopefully it will be a reinvigoration of the Lions brand. McGeechan as head coach is the right step. With respect to Henry and Woodward it was like they never got what it meant to tour as a Lion and the traditions that go with that. After all the Lions and lions tour are built on legends. The famous “99” call of the 74 lions is one example. The brilliance of O’Reilly, Jackson and Kyle in the 50’s in South Africa and the peak of brilliance that was the 71 lions to New Zealand. Barry John was at his best and he was surrounded by JPR, Gareth and the David Duckham the man the Welsh called Dai.
The Lions is unique in professional sport no trophy, no tournament just touring for the sake of it. This year it will be fascinating to see whether the Lions will live up to their brilliant traditions of old or attempt to become that uber-professional team that Woodward tried to build. I would like them to play hard but ultimately live up to the traditions of old. I would love McGeechan and Edwards to talk about what it means to be a lion and the importance of red shirt.
After three rounds of the six nations my Lions side would be:
15. Byrne (Wales)
14. Scotland (Wales)
13. O’Driscoll (Ireland)
12. Shanklin (Wales)
11. Williams (Wales)
10. Jones (Wales)
9. O’Leary (Ireland)
8. Hyslip (Ireland)
7. Willams (Wales)
6. Worsley (England)
5. O Connell (Ireland)
4. Wyn Jones (Wales)
3. Jones (Wales)
2. Rees (Wales)
1. Jenkins (Wales)
The beauty of the Lions is that it could all change as team combinations are worked out and the inevitable dark horse comes through. Think of Young 1989, Gibbs 1993 and Bentley 1997.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)