Ashes Preview, stat-attack and pun-athon

After the shortest wait in Ashes history, this week sees the return to the England-Australia cricketing battlefield. After England's successful summer, the record stands at 31 series victories each (5 drawn), only adding to the significance of already something of a meaningful set of matches. With England marginal favourites to repeat their triumph of 2010-11, all of the talk, predictions and injury-waiting will soon be at an end. Few would argue that the 3-0 victory in the summer was perhaps not as convincing as the scoreline would suggest, and it'll take a marked improvement from Cook's men to repeat the trick down under. That being said, you could say there is a lot more to come from the likes of Cook, Trott and Pietersen - leaving the Aussies quaking at the prospect of absurd run-scoring like the last time in Oz. 

It is interesting to compare the two squads in relation to the last time we were here, namely November 2010. Believe it or not, I like a stat. Especially when I have a hunch then do the research and the genuine stats reflect what I wanted to say (I don't like having to Cook them up)

Looking at the top 5 ranked batsmen from each team now and from the 18th November 2010 tells an interesting story:

England top 5 batsmen
2010	Ranking	2013	Ranking
Trott	16	Bell	10
Pietersen	23	Cook	11
Strauss	25	Pietersen	13
Bell	26	Trott	15
Cook	29	Prior	17
Total:	119	Total:	66
Australia top 5 batsmen
2010	Ranking	2013	Ranking
Clarke	14	Clarke	5
Katich	15	Watson	32
Ponting	18	Warner	36
Watson	24	Smith	43
Hussey	30	Rogers	46
Total:	101	Total:	162

Prior (pun intended) to last time here, the Aussies had theoretically the marginally stronger batting line up, yet there is little question as to whose batsmen dominated the series. This time, the difference in Rankin places between the top 5 is simply astonishing. Joe Root is England 6th highest ranked batsmen, and at 33, would be in Australia's top 3. 

Don't pretend you don't want to know how the bowlers line up as well. Here you go... (you won't be disappointed)

England top 5 bowlers
2010	Ranking	2013	Ranking
Swann	2	Swann	7
Anderson	5	Anderson	10
Broad	9	Broad	11
Finn	24	Finn	20
Panesar	26	Bresnan	24
Total:	66	Total:	72
Australia top 5 bowlers
2010	Ranking	2013	Ranking
Johnson	6	Harris	6
Bollinger	7	Siddle	7
Siddle	15	Hilfenhaus	15
Hilfenhaus	16	Lyon	21
Watson	29	Johnson	23
Total:	73	Total:	72

Never again can the word 'statto' ever have negative connotations (I never understood the Root of that criticism anyway). England's bowlers were ranked slightly better last time out, but ahead of this week's clash, they are tied dead even. I appreciate that these won't be the 5 bowlers each team play (especially as England only play 4) but there's no denying the similarities. Something else that is striking, and which may be a huge factor as the winter develops, is the consistency of England's squad, both in batting and bowling - 4 of the top 5 have remained the same in each category. Consistency doesn't equal success but it could go a long way. This may ring a Bell from this summer, given that there's little doubt that inexperience cost Australia in the summer, failing to convert promising positions and being unable to dig themselves out of tricky situations. It's not to say that we'll Swann our way through the first couple of days, but there will be a lot less fear and "rabbit in headlights" than last time we were here.

Will England make history in winning 4 series in a row, for the first time since it all began, when they won 8 on the Trott? I've made a fool of myself with Broad predictions too many times to repeat the trick here so I'll just say that I would love to hear Warne embarrass himself further by saying we're too defensive yet again. It seems he'll only be satisfied if we beat them 5-0.

PS I apologise if you've Haddin-uff of the puns. Clarke my words, I'd be Lyon if I said it was easy to Ballance writing a real post with one that just Stokes the reader's fury. I was glad to Finnish though

Just how important are the ATP Tour Finals?

2012 Paris finalists

Just how important are the ATP Tour Finals?

With the Paris Masters starting this week, it offers a final chance for qualification to the ATP Tour Finals at the O2. There are 2 places still to play for, to be fought out between Federer, Wawrinka, Gasquet, Tsonga and Raonic. Haas, Youzhny and Almagro still have very slim hopes and need to win in Paris to even have a chance. It adds a new dimension to a tournament that otherwise can be a bit of a damp squib. For once, all of the major seeds (bar Murray due to injury) are participating and the final weekend could produce a top match (a slight contrast to last year's closing stages). 

Surprise entrant to 2008
Masters Cup finals

Which leads into the tour finals. It has been something of a mixed bag in recent years. The 2010 edition was the only year in recent history with the top 8 players actually competing, all of the others (including this year) having suffered at least one withdrawal, either before or during tournament. There was a ridiculous situation in 2008 when Nadal withdraw drew to fatigue and then Roddick pulled out after one match, having turned his ankle. This led to 26th ranked Radek Stepanek playing the final two group games (losing both), purely by virtue of being the highest ranked person prepared to travel to Shanghai. He was there without racquets, socks and even contact lenses. In 2009 Davydenko beat Del Potro in the final, but then it hit the heights with an amazing final between Federer and Nadal in 2010. 

In terms of ranking points, it is between Grand Slams and 1000 Series tournaments (like Paris this week), with a potential 1500 points to an undefeated champion (Grand Slams are 2000 points, 1000 series are (remarkably) worth 1000). So how much does it mean to a top player? How significant will they be looking back in history? Theoretically you wold think that a competition between only the game's elite would matter hugely in evaluating the quality of a player compared to his peers, but the reality is that the tournament is blighted by end-of-season fatigue and injuries.

Federer has won it 6 times and Djokovic twice, but Nadal has 0 wins and Murray's not yet even made a final. Of course the same old arguments arise about standard of opposition but the truth is that it's more to do with the fact that Nadal and Murray in particular are shattered by the end of a season and needing time to rest/recover for the next season. Fairly frequently Nadal/Djokovic are in the Davis Cup Final as well. 

In reality, a tournament that should be an absolute pinnacle and exciting climax to the season often fails to deliver and is unlikely to be considered a significant factor in considering players' legacies. Nevertheless, let's hope that this November's edition proves to be a classic. 

Can Rafa get to 18 Slams?

After Rafa's stunning US Open campaign, the question on everyone's lips is whether he can go onto break the record for male Grand Slam winners. At the moment Roger Federer holds the record with 17, and it's widely accepted now that he is highly unlikely to add to that tally given his showing at the last couple of majors. As of the other night, Rafa now has 13 Slams: 1x Aus, 8x Fre, 2x Wim, 2x US, and needs another 5 to hold the record out on his own.

He now has an unparalleled 9 consecutive years with at least 1 Grand Slam victory (incidentally he also holds a similar unmatched record for 9 consecutive years winning a Masters Series/1000 Series title), and not many would bet on 2014 breaking that streak. 

It doesn't take an expert tennis analyst (luckily for me) to recognise that the main thing standing in Rafa's way is likely to be his own fitness. Over the last 5 years or so, he has been decidedly held back by recurring injuries, and in particular tendonitis in his knees. The chances of him being fully fit for all of the slams over the next 2 or 3 years seem slim at best. 
If there was less competition then he might be able to cruise to the odd title but with Murray and Djokovic (as well as the likes of JMDP, Wawrinka, Berdych, even Federer) around, he will have to be at his best to win a Slam. Even then it might not be enough.

There has been lots of talk about this being one of the best years in tennis history but just a couple of months ago he was knocked out of Wimbledon in the first round. Then, all of the discussion was about Nadal's knees and his ability to play on surfaces other than clay.

At most he is likely to have 3 years left at the very top, before the physical nature of his play restricts his chances of claiming the biggest prizes, even on clay. That means potentially just 12 more chances. Can he win 5 of them to enhance his claim to be considered the greatest ever? Only time will tell.


Geeky statto alert:

It is interesting (I appreciate this is a subjective term) to look at the ages of Grand Slam winners. The below graph shows the progression in terms of slam victories for each of the best known major winners.

You should be able to click on the graph to open it up and see more, but here are a few highlights that I thought were interesting. 

1) Aged 27, only Federer had more Slams than Rafa.
2) At 25 years old, Federer and Borg had 11 Slams, Sampras and Rafa 10. Borg retired without winning another, Pistol Pete kept going for years longer and added a consistent 1 per year, and then another aged 31.
3) Djokovic is considered one of the greatest and aged 25 he was behind only McEnroe (who didn't win another), and the above 4. He hasn't won one as a 26 year old yet so he's got a long way to go to catch up those in double figures.
4) Murray's slow start to winning Slams, mirroring his coach Lendl, is demonstrated as well, with the two of them being the oldest to claim their maiden slams from this list.
5) Agassi won more than half of his Slams after he turned 28, so there could yet be lots to come from RN/ND/AM all moving into the 2nd half of their careers.
6) I'm really geeky

PS I sort of just chose players who are best known for the chart, and left off the likes of Laver/Rosewall who won Slams both pre and post-Open era because it was too confusing.

Indianapolis Colts 2012: The Storybook Season

The story of the 2012 Indianapolis Colts season may just be the inspiration for one of those "based on a true story" movies in a few years time. I appreciate that neither of my readers will be overly well versed with the gridiron world but last season my own passion for American Football has soared and it's due in no small part to the aforementioned Colts.

I've followed them for many years, from the dismal dark days of the late 90s when I decided I needed to support a team in every league in every sport, through the glory years of Peyton Manning, right up to the present day. Admittedly with varying levels of passion and interest, they have nevertheless remained unquestionably my team.

Peyton Manning is without doubt one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game. By sheer numbers, he is 2nd in history for touchdown passes and completed passes, and 3rd for total passing yardage (and he's got a few years left in him). You have to scroll down on his Wikipedia page to see all of the NFL records he holds. Needless to say, he has been a somewhat significant figure for the Colts the last dozen years.

Then Manning was out injured for the entire 2011 season, and the Colts won just 2 games all season. They had the worst record of everyone in the league, and then, having got back to full fitness, Manning left to go to the Denver Broncos.

So there was relatively limited optimism going into the 2012 season, with most commentators expecting a mediocre display of rebuilding at best. What followed was an pretty remarkable and dramatic storyline of a season.

At the NFL Draft, the Colts secured the top college prospect quarterback, Andrew Luck, as part of wholesale changes that saw them start the season with a huge number of rookies on the roster. He proved to be an incredible success, setting a number of rookie quarterback records, and leading the Colts to the 3rd largest turnaround in NFL history from one season to the next. From winning 2 games in 2011, they won an impressive 11 in the 2012 regular season (more than Superbowl champions Baltimore Ravens). 

This outstanding season included a remarkable number of 4th quarter comeback wins and game-winning drives, the highlight of which was a simply outstanding victory against the Detroit Lions, from 33-21 down with less than 3 minutes left. 

This relative success from minimal expectations was set against the backdrop of Head Coach Chuck Pagano being diagnosed with leukaemia at the beginning of the season. The heartstring-tugging story of his fight against cancer united the entire city under the slogan 'Chuckstrong', leading to moving demonstrations of support such as cheeerleaders shaving their heads. His emotional return late in the season had virtually the entire NFL welling up.

In Pagano's absence, up stepped offensive coordinator Bruce Arians. In the 12 games he was at the helm, the Colts won 9, and when the season ended, Arians was rewarded with coach of the year in recognition of his achievement in the face of such circumstances. Then, having made it the playoffs against all the odds, Arians was hospitalised and absent for the clash against the Ravens.

It was there that it finally came to an end. Like the end of Cool Runnings, it wasn't a fairytale victory but a respectable and dignified defeat, to the eventual Superbowl Champions (who had their own destiny-fulfilling storybook ending to come). 

And so the 2013 season begins this weekend with much optimism. Andrew Luck is a year older and stronger, Chuck Pagano is in remission and back at the helm, NFL general manager of the year Ryan Grigson (like a Director of Football) overseeing what will hopefully be another hugely successful season. 

English lambs before the Aussie slaughter

You don't have to be Glenn McGrath to know that England have very little chance in the remainder of this series. The dominant Australia batsmen, coupled with their prolific wicket-taking attack will surely be too much for the meagre poor English lambs. Putting aside all emotion and subjectivity, the positive thinking for which us Brits are famed, is there any hope for us?

Yes we have scraped through two matches thus far, reliant on a potent and controversial combination of dubious umpiring decisions, dodgy technology and being better than Australia. There's only so long though that we can rely on greater skill and application, and surely this Thursday will be the time for Australia's brilliance to become apparent. The question must be whether there is anything we can do to stop the surely inevitable demolition?

Let's look at the facts:

- England only have 3 batsmen averaging over 40 in the series. I appreciate that Australia only have 3 over 30, and one of those (Pattinson) is out injured for the rest of the series and the other is a teenage spin bowler, but that won't matter.

- England have no replacement for the likely absent Pietersen. Of course, James Taylor will play but I don't see him scoring any runs against the Australians.

Waterboy or run-machine?

- David Warner is back. Guaranteed to knock get Joe Root out, and fresh from a massive 193 against the mighty South Africa A, he's sure to be a threat. After all, prior to that innings he had scores of 6, 11, 9, 0, 0, 2, 0, 44, 4 and 13. Devastating stuff for England to fear.

- Australia have the series record for the opening, 9th and 10th wicket partnerships. England may have the highest partnership for all the other wickets, but it's how you start and end that matters isn't it?

I think we can all agree that we're in serious trouble. Just because we've won the first two matches, have the better batting line-up, bowling attack, experience and confidence, surely nothing can stop the organised and professional Aussies.