That was the Sporting Week that was.: Why a Bon Jovi song comes to mind when thinking ab...: Last week, due to one of my favourite hobbies of late evening channel hopping, I found myself stumbling upon a programme on the ITV channel ...
Sunday, 26 July 2015
Why a Bon Jovi song comes to mind when thinking about Chris Froome.
Last week, due to one of my favourite hobbies of late evening channel hopping, I found myself stumbling upon a programme on the ITV channel in relation to the now 2 times Tour De France winner Chris Froome. This was a fascinating "biographical" account, principally of Froome's sporting career but also featuring little smidgeons of his life growing up in Kenya, which provided a wonderful insight into the true strength of character of the man who has reached the pinnical of his sport and possibly shall we say his "lunatic" side, regularly riding his bike on busy motorways during his youth.
Somewhat bizarrely however it wasn't the account of his 2013 Tour De France victory or his "strained" sporting relationship with Sir Bradley Wiggins particularly during Wiggins's Tour De France victory in 2012, that struck a chord with me. It was in fact Froome's first international appearance representing his country of birth Kenya, in the Road Time Trial at the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. You would think well big deal, the fella finished 17th in the Time Trial. What's all the fuss about? When you attract the attention of Great Britain's Cycling Supremo and now Team Sky General Manager Sir David Brailsford, who appears to conjur up successful British Cyclists en masse out of a magic hat, you start to think, well hold on a second I may actually be quite good at this cycling melarchy.
It would appear that day back in 2006, Froome was cycling around Melbourne's streets on what sounds like the equivalent of a bike you'd ride to the local corner shop. Yet Brailsford clearly saw potential in the young Froome. If he could achieve 17th on a corner shop bike, what could he do on a proper professional bike.
Roll on 9 years and I think you can safely say we have the answer to that question.
This steely determined British Cyclist has achieved what no other Cyclist representing this country, including Wiggins, has managed to achieve in the entire history of the Tour De France. Win the damn thing twice!
Yet no thanks to the old black sheep in the cycling family Lance Armstrong, Chris Froome has spent the vast majority of his second victorious Tour De France, having to fend off questions about that old chestnut "doping". Yes to understand the accusations piled against both Froome and his teammates, you probably require a Degree of Statistics from the University of Cycling Gobbledygook to have a clue when the likes of Dr Pierre Sallet, part of the Athletes for Transparency Anti-Doping non-profit organisation, are on about when they state they categorically believe Team Sky are literally doped up to their eyeballs. It appears they have convinced an entire French nation as well, with Froome have urine chucked at him, being spit at, and having attempted sabotage to his bike in the Champs-Elysee with a McDonalds bag.
I myself would like to put out a more simplistic view of proceedings. Chris Froome along with his Team Sky teammates have worked bloody hard to achieve victory in the Tour De France these past 3 weeks, and Froome deserves his victory. They have ridden with strength and courage, and have displayed exemplary and dignified behaviour both on and off their bikes throughout the 3 weeks, despite being on the end of a barrage of unsubstantiated accusations.
Why do I take this view you may ask? Well firstly I'm British. I like to take the view that the sportsmen and women of our country are talented, hard working individuals, who don't see the need to cheat to be the best on the sporting stage. I hasten to add I'd expect that to be the response of a citizen from any nation.
Secondly, every accusation thrown at Team Sky during this Tour De France is unsubstatiated. There is not a scrap of concrete evidence to support a theory that Team Sky members are doping. In fact the likes of Pierre Sallet, the kind of professional experts dragged to court by lawyers to prove/disprove a theory to support their case in court, and you wonder if they have any effect on the result of a case whatsoever.
Finally though, and this is the most important, we as spectators have to believe sport is contested honestly with no attempt to gain an unfair advantage and deceive fellow competitors and the public alike. Maybe my thoughts date back to an age of innocence, when we enjoyed marvelling at the achievements of athletes, before becoming aware that some were injecting a sea of chemicals into their bloodstream to achieve results. If we lose our innocence however, we will lose our love of this great drama that is sport, and frankly I couldn't think of anything worse.
So to Chris Froome and Team Sky, Congratulations, and to rest of you Keep The Faith!
Somewhat bizarrely however it wasn't the account of his 2013 Tour De France victory or his "strained" sporting relationship with Sir Bradley Wiggins particularly during Wiggins's Tour De France victory in 2012, that struck a chord with me. It was in fact Froome's first international appearance representing his country of birth Kenya, in the Road Time Trial at the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. You would think well big deal, the fella finished 17th in the Time Trial. What's all the fuss about? When you attract the attention of Great Britain's Cycling Supremo and now Team Sky General Manager Sir David Brailsford, who appears to conjur up successful British Cyclists en masse out of a magic hat, you start to think, well hold on a second I may actually be quite good at this cycling melarchy.
It would appear that day back in 2006, Froome was cycling around Melbourne's streets on what sounds like the equivalent of a bike you'd ride to the local corner shop. Yet Brailsford clearly saw potential in the young Froome. If he could achieve 17th on a corner shop bike, what could he do on a proper professional bike.
Roll on 9 years and I think you can safely say we have the answer to that question.
This steely determined British Cyclist has achieved what no other Cyclist representing this country, including Wiggins, has managed to achieve in the entire history of the Tour De France. Win the damn thing twice!
Yet no thanks to the old black sheep in the cycling family Lance Armstrong, Chris Froome has spent the vast majority of his second victorious Tour De France, having to fend off questions about that old chestnut "doping". Yes to understand the accusations piled against both Froome and his teammates, you probably require a Degree of Statistics from the University of Cycling Gobbledygook to have a clue when the likes of Dr Pierre Sallet, part of the Athletes for Transparency Anti-Doping non-profit organisation, are on about when they state they categorically believe Team Sky are literally doped up to their eyeballs. It appears they have convinced an entire French nation as well, with Froome have urine chucked at him, being spit at, and having attempted sabotage to his bike in the Champs-Elysee with a McDonalds bag.
I myself would like to put out a more simplistic view of proceedings. Chris Froome along with his Team Sky teammates have worked bloody hard to achieve victory in the Tour De France these past 3 weeks, and Froome deserves his victory. They have ridden with strength and courage, and have displayed exemplary and dignified behaviour both on and off their bikes throughout the 3 weeks, despite being on the end of a barrage of unsubstantiated accusations.
Why do I take this view you may ask? Well firstly I'm British. I like to take the view that the sportsmen and women of our country are talented, hard working individuals, who don't see the need to cheat to be the best on the sporting stage. I hasten to add I'd expect that to be the response of a citizen from any nation.
Secondly, every accusation thrown at Team Sky during this Tour De France is unsubstatiated. There is not a scrap of concrete evidence to support a theory that Team Sky members are doping. In fact the likes of Pierre Sallet, the kind of professional experts dragged to court by lawyers to prove/disprove a theory to support their case in court, and you wonder if they have any effect on the result of a case whatsoever.
Finally though, and this is the most important, we as spectators have to believe sport is contested honestly with no attempt to gain an unfair advantage and deceive fellow competitors and the public alike. Maybe my thoughts date back to an age of innocence, when we enjoyed marvelling at the achievements of athletes, before becoming aware that some were injecting a sea of chemicals into their bloodstream to achieve results. If we lose our innocence however, we will lose our love of this great drama that is sport, and frankly I couldn't think of anything worse.
So to Chris Froome and Team Sky, Congratulations, and to rest of you Keep The Faith!
That was the Sporting Week that was.: From Heroes to Zeroes in the Space of a Week - The...
That was the Sporting Week that was.: From Heroes to Zeroes in the Space of a Week - The...: So that was the sporting week that was blog readers and the International Cricketers of England appear to have had a quicker journey from be...
Monday, 20 July 2015
From Heroes to Zeroes in the Space of a Week - The Inquest Game
So that was the sporting week that was blog readers and the International Cricketers of England appear to have had a quicker journey from being Heroes to becoming Zeroes than the speed of light
Yes the two old adversaries of England and Australia have been battling it out for the smallest global sporting trophy the world has probably ever witnessed and it appears normal service has been resumed pretty quickly with England batters proving to be useful cannon fodder for the Australian "Mitchell" Dynasty.
So we head for the halfway point of the series with the teams now level at 1-1, but how contrasting can you get. England a week ago in Cardiff were on top of the world, having brushed aside the Aussies with relative ease with both bat and ball and likely ending Shane Watson's test career in the Australian team to boot. Fast forward a week, and Bob "The Judge" Willis is giving the England Team members an average rating of about "2" on Twitter feed, after they capitulated to a 405 run defeat to a now rampant Aussie side.
Of course England's dismal performance has meant that the public and media alike have held more inquests than a Coroner probably holds in a month.
So why have England lost? Let's see the gems that have been bandied around:
1) England lost the toss and couldn't bat first. As the first two tests have highlighted this has a huge influence on who wins a test match. Fear not Allistair Cook! If you win the next 3 tosses England are on course to win this series 4-1.
2) The groundsman - Yes the Lords batsman produced a miserably flat pitch that Australia looked like they could bat on, if they so wanted, until they had to turn up for the third test at Edgbaston on 29th July. England players clearly couldn't cope with the alien nature of a flat pitch. I mean who on earth thought they could be able to bat on that.
3) England players, having made double figured and sometimes, "shock horror" even triple figured scores in recent months are now completely useless, out of their depth and ready for the guillotine, if Lord Justice Willis has his say. Let in every county player knocking on that door I say. We'll have the Ashes wrapped up by the Oval surely.
4) The prerequisite that England must lose 3-4 wickets before lunch, tea or ice bath, depending on the time of day, is generally starting to lose credibility when the Australian Bowler Investment Bank is seeking further cheap England investments for their portfolio
5) Shane Watson - I'm kidding by the way, but you'd get the impression the poor fella would be blamed for World War Three by the Australian Media and public if they had anything to do with it. Indirectly, the introduction of the third member of the "Mitchell" Dynasty to the Ashes, as Watson's replacement, has appeared to create a new dynamic for Australia, like they weren't suffering from dynamism issues in the first place. It will reach a point when any Australian named Mitchell will be banned from entering the country at this rate.
In all seriousness Australia, I hope you can find it in your heart to thank Shane Watson for a valuable contribution to your test team over the past "not so golden" decade for Australia. No one is claiming he's been the greatest ever cricketer in the world, but he's helped to lay the foundations for the new golden generation of Aussie players in their team. I hope he continues to play International One Day and TwentyTwenty cricket, if only to piss the Australian Media and Public off.
Anyway, back to the reason England lost the Lords test match, my theory is a simple one.
About a week ago Australia turned up to Cardiff thinking we are superior to England in all skill sets of the game so we will win easily. Five days later they thought "oh sh*t" we've actually forgot to execute those superior skills. We are not going to make the same mistake twice when we reach Lords. It's a bit like Ben Stokes in this test. "Oh sh*t" I've forgot to ground my bat. I won't be doing that at Edgbaston.
Yes the two old adversaries of England and Australia have been battling it out for the smallest global sporting trophy the world has probably ever witnessed and it appears normal service has been resumed pretty quickly with England batters proving to be useful cannon fodder for the Australian "Mitchell" Dynasty.
So we head for the halfway point of the series with the teams now level at 1-1, but how contrasting can you get. England a week ago in Cardiff were on top of the world, having brushed aside the Aussies with relative ease with both bat and ball and likely ending Shane Watson's test career in the Australian team to boot. Fast forward a week, and Bob "The Judge" Willis is giving the England Team members an average rating of about "2" on Twitter feed, after they capitulated to a 405 run defeat to a now rampant Aussie side.
Of course England's dismal performance has meant that the public and media alike have held more inquests than a Coroner probably holds in a month.
So why have England lost? Let's see the gems that have been bandied around:
1) England lost the toss and couldn't bat first. As the first two tests have highlighted this has a huge influence on who wins a test match. Fear not Allistair Cook! If you win the next 3 tosses England are on course to win this series 4-1.
2) The groundsman - Yes the Lords batsman produced a miserably flat pitch that Australia looked like they could bat on, if they so wanted, until they had to turn up for the third test at Edgbaston on 29th July. England players clearly couldn't cope with the alien nature of a flat pitch. I mean who on earth thought they could be able to bat on that.
3) England players, having made double figured and sometimes, "shock horror" even triple figured scores in recent months are now completely useless, out of their depth and ready for the guillotine, if Lord Justice Willis has his say. Let in every county player knocking on that door I say. We'll have the Ashes wrapped up by the Oval surely.
4) The prerequisite that England must lose 3-4 wickets before lunch, tea or ice bath, depending on the time of day, is generally starting to lose credibility when the Australian Bowler Investment Bank is seeking further cheap England investments for their portfolio
5) Shane Watson - I'm kidding by the way, but you'd get the impression the poor fella would be blamed for World War Three by the Australian Media and public if they had anything to do with it. Indirectly, the introduction of the third member of the "Mitchell" Dynasty to the Ashes, as Watson's replacement, has appeared to create a new dynamic for Australia, like they weren't suffering from dynamism issues in the first place. It will reach a point when any Australian named Mitchell will be banned from entering the country at this rate.
In all seriousness Australia, I hope you can find it in your heart to thank Shane Watson for a valuable contribution to your test team over the past "not so golden" decade for Australia. No one is claiming he's been the greatest ever cricketer in the world, but he's helped to lay the foundations for the new golden generation of Aussie players in their team. I hope he continues to play International One Day and TwentyTwenty cricket, if only to piss the Australian Media and Public off.
Anyway, back to the reason England lost the Lords test match, my theory is a simple one.
About a week ago Australia turned up to Cardiff thinking we are superior to England in all skill sets of the game so we will win easily. Five days later they thought "oh sh*t" we've actually forgot to execute those superior skills. We are not going to make the same mistake twice when we reach Lords. It's a bit like Ben Stokes in this test. "Oh sh*t" I've forgot to ground my bat. I won't be doing that at Edgbaston.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)