The five greatest loves of my life are as follows:
1) In Bruges
2) Sprinting
3) the Tour de France
4) The Amber Spyglass
5) Tom Huddlestone
I've gushed about the first four previously on this blog; now for number five.
Tom Huddlestone is a Spurs midfielder, usually played in a holding role, but sometimes is roped into playing centre half in desperate situations. He doesn't even start these days, with Andre Villas Boas preferring Sandro, Dembele, Parker and possibly Livermore and new-boy Tom Carroll, too, and has earned just four England caps, all of which came in insignificant matches. He deserves better, no doubt, but I have to concede it isn't too far off, either; as much as I love watching him play football, it's hard to deny that his ability is limited by his complete lack of pace. The man has the turning circle of a battleship.
He plays like a battleship, too. Huddlestone has the most outrageous, ridiculous passing range of any player I've ever seen play, ahead even of Xabi Alonso. He sits deeps and whacks bombs all over the place with almost unerring accuracy. Stats-wise, his passing accuracy is truly only average, however tiki taka is most definitely not Huddlestone's game. He plays dangerous balls at every opportunity, and his teammates, knowing how rarely he misses passes, are keen to make runs behind the defence. They don't always succeed, but they are very often dangerous. I loathe the phrase, but essentially he plays the 'quarterback role', which is a pretty good summation of his playing style.
Huddlestone is an absolute unit, and his unthreatening face belies his immense strength. Is there anyone in the Premier League that I'd want to fight less? Maybe Lee Cattermole, but I doubt it. Not ripped, just...big. Not fat, just...big. Huddlestone carries the essence of big-ness. He treats the ball like his plaything, toying with it, knocking it around like its the easiest thing in the world. Right foot? Left foot? Instep? Outside of the foot? Doesn't matter; all are effortless. He barely has to try and the ball zips across the turf or through the air, bending or dipping at his discretion.
Whenever a player executes a difficult skill, like a volley or some outstanding close-control, a football commentator on the telly is liable to say, 'Kids, watch and learn: that is textbook stuff'. Kids, watch a video of how Huddlestone strikes a football, because that is textbook stuff. In fact, this video, which is the best video on the internet, opens with almost that exact line. Did you watch that video yet? The goals, right? Amazing. Here's something more (or possibly less) amazing. Huddlestone has only scored fifteen goals, eight of them in the league. Frickin' all of 'em are from outside the box: four (City, Bolton, Sunderland, Arsenal (yussss)) are in that video; here are two against Fulham from the same match, both from outside the box; another one against Fulham here; here's another stonker against Dinamo Zagreb. All of them are like that! Ridiculous, no? Gerard has a reputation for scoring from outside the box; that man Gareth Bale is making a habit of it. But outside the box net-busters are the only sort of goal Huddlestone scores. A Huddlestone blooter is a rare gemstone on the footballing landscape.
Essentially, I love Tom Huddlestone as a footballer because he is a flawed genius. He has a tendency to slow the game down, which has its uses, but doesn't fit Spurs' thrusting pacey style of play. He is immensely, truly slow at running, and lumbers like an ent. I don't even care; I just love how he deals only in the spectacular, and even if I have to wait two years for his absolute best moments (he hasn't scored for two years; his hair reflects this), I will wait.
So, Tom, for the sake of the footballing world at large, and for the sake of crimes against hair-styles, hurry up and score a sodding goal.
Friday, 12 April 2013
Friday, 5 April 2013
Cloud Atlas: A Sort-Of Review
It's one of my favourite books, Cloud Atlas. Not as good as Ghostwritten, David Mitchell's other genre- and era-spanning novel, but still pretty special. And it's been made into a film, unbelievably. I say unbelievably because of the sheer enormity of the task of cramming six different storylines into one film, while maintaining coherency, pace, drama, and thematic connections. There's enough content in each individual storyline to make into a standalone film. It's a miracle that the Wachowskis and Tykwer pulled it off, frankly, and Cloud Atlas must go down as one of the most dizzyingly ambitious films ever made.
There are two big decisions that shape Cloud Atlas. The first is the repeated use of actors across the six plotlines: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Doona Bae, James D'Arcy, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Grant, Hugo Weaving and so on all crop up time and time again. One of the effects of this is that it's very silly. Part of the fun is trying to spot when each actor re-appears in a new role. It takes you out of the action for a moment - a cardinal sin in the world of Hollywood narrative form, which depends on invisibility - but only for a moment. Tom Hanks' Irish greaser-cum-Miami-druglord-author is utterly ridiculous, Doona Bae plays a white American at one point and all of them (except Bae, obviously) undergo the prosthetic transition to Asianness, which is very weird, too. There have been calls of 'racism!' but that's a load of nonsense. Odd as it may be, as an approach to casting, I found it to be genius. The Wachowski's rationale behind reusing actors is to help tie themes of a united and continuous humanity together; one suspects it was also a budgetary concern. That's not why I like it so much. I like it precisely for its ridiculousness, I like that the Wachowskis and Tykwer took this enormous gamble knowing that many people would find it bizarre and off-putting, despite the $100m that they ploughed into it. A quick browse through this Wikipedia page indicates that while actors playing multiple roles is not uncommon, it is usually done for comedic effect, as in Kind Hearts and Coronets, or characters that are related and share a physical resemblance. In having most of its cast appear time and time again, even if it sometimes looks a bit shoehorned in, Cloud Atlas surely stands alone. It is this throwing caution to the wind and going all-out that I find admirable. Which brings me to the second big decision.
Instead of copying Mitchell's Russian doll plotline (it goes: Ewing (part 1), Frobisher (1), Rey (1), Cavendish (1), Sonmi (1), Zachry (1 and 2), Sonmi (2), Cavendish (2), Rey (2), Frobisher (2), Ewing (2)) they opted to cut between all six at regular intervals until they all collide in one flippin' stupendous climax. Thus, it becomes this spinning-plates balancing act, maintaining focus on one storyline while keeping the other five spinning. For three hours. It is completely barmy, and stunningly ambitious, and they nail it. Perhaps not the cleanest hammer-stroke; maybe the first one didn't catch it fully, but they got it in. And because they had to cram everything in, as with the actor situation, they just go for broke, making use of everything at their disposal to tie the segments together: match-cuts, cliffhangers, sound-bridges, thematic links, cliffhangers, plot parallels, the magnificent score, cliffhangers...It's like the end of Chicken Run (bear with me...) where the chickens' barmy flying machine somehow manages to fly despite nearly falling apart at the seams at every opportunity. It has just enough glue and good-will to succeed. That's what Cloud Atlas is like: a barmy contraption that should by all rights fail, but the power of the movies gives is just enough gung-ho spirit to get it over the barbed-wire fence. Andy and Lana Wachowski and Tom Tykwer's bravery is commendable.
There are two big decisions that shape Cloud Atlas. The first is the repeated use of actors across the six plotlines: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Doona Bae, James D'Arcy, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Grant, Hugo Weaving and so on all crop up time and time again. One of the effects of this is that it's very silly. Part of the fun is trying to spot when each actor re-appears in a new role. It takes you out of the action for a moment - a cardinal sin in the world of Hollywood narrative form, which depends on invisibility - but only for a moment. Tom Hanks' Irish greaser-cum-Miami-druglord-author is utterly ridiculous, Doona Bae plays a white American at one point and all of them (except Bae, obviously) undergo the prosthetic transition to Asianness, which is very weird, too. There have been calls of 'racism!' but that's a load of nonsense. Odd as it may be, as an approach to casting, I found it to be genius. The Wachowski's rationale behind reusing actors is to help tie themes of a united and continuous humanity together; one suspects it was also a budgetary concern. That's not why I like it so much. I like it precisely for its ridiculousness, I like that the Wachowskis and Tykwer took this enormous gamble knowing that many people would find it bizarre and off-putting, despite the $100m that they ploughed into it. A quick browse through this Wikipedia page indicates that while actors playing multiple roles is not uncommon, it is usually done for comedic effect, as in Kind Hearts and Coronets, or characters that are related and share a physical resemblance. In having most of its cast appear time and time again, even if it sometimes looks a bit shoehorned in, Cloud Atlas surely stands alone. It is this throwing caution to the wind and going all-out that I find admirable. Which brings me to the second big decision.
Instead of copying Mitchell's Russian doll plotline (it goes: Ewing (part 1), Frobisher (1), Rey (1), Cavendish (1), Sonmi (1), Zachry (1 and 2), Sonmi (2), Cavendish (2), Rey (2), Frobisher (2), Ewing (2)) they opted to cut between all six at regular intervals until they all collide in one flippin' stupendous climax. Thus, it becomes this spinning-plates balancing act, maintaining focus on one storyline while keeping the other five spinning. For three hours. It is completely barmy, and stunningly ambitious, and they nail it. Perhaps not the cleanest hammer-stroke; maybe the first one didn't catch it fully, but they got it in. And because they had to cram everything in, as with the actor situation, they just go for broke, making use of everything at their disposal to tie the segments together: match-cuts, cliffhangers, sound-bridges, thematic links, cliffhangers, plot parallels, the magnificent score, cliffhangers...It's like the end of Chicken Run (bear with me...) where the chickens' barmy flying machine somehow manages to fly despite nearly falling apart at the seams at every opportunity. It has just enough glue and good-will to succeed. That's what Cloud Atlas is like: a barmy contraption that should by all rights fail, but the power of the movies gives is just enough gung-ho spirit to get it over the barbed-wire fence. Andy and Lana Wachowski and Tom Tykwer's bravery is commendable.
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Karma: A Story For The Internet Age
He was seconds from passing out from the pain, but Mike
still had the presence of mind to pull out his phone and take a picture of his
mangled right hand with his left, and upload it to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and
Reddit, alongside an appropriately pithy/depreciating comment.
“That’ll get me so much karma” he said, before slipping into
shock-induced unconsciousness.
He was right, too: ‘Safety First, Kids [OC]’ was on the
Front Page within hours. 3k karma, 100k views. Lucky git.
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
Drugs and Sports Science: Where is the line?
Human sportspeople are, broadly speaking, fitter, faster and stronger than they've ever been. Seven of the top eight male 100m runners are currently active on the international athletics circuit. The days of footballers having to do 10 miles runs to improve their fitness are long gone: in their place are tailored drills that replicate the type of fitness required of a footballers; modern rugby players dwarf their counterparts from the 1970s; Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray are amongst the fittest tennis and strongest players ever; British cycling is the pre-eminent force in both track and road cycling.
These changes are all down to science. I think we can assume that modern day sportsmen and women are not more talented or innately physically superior to those of thirty years ago. Rather, the people behind them - coaches, analysts, nutritionists, physiotherapists - have upped their game. British cyclists are sweeping all before them at the moment, and much of this is due to Dave Brailsford and his much publicised marginal-gains approach to sport. Every facet that shapes an athletics performance is analysed then polished, all that is left for the athlete is to put in the hard work and success seems to come easy. The British approach, it seems, is still some way ahead of the chasing bunch. It is possible that British cycling has a greater pool of talent to choose the best from, but it is likely that the main reason for success is this laboratory approach.
The modern scientific approach has undeniably improved human performance beyond the capabilities of the lone, unaided sportsman. It's methodical, scientific, analytic. Why then, are drugs illegal? The makers of performance enhancing drugs have analysed ways humans can improve athletic capabilities, such as oxygen take-up, recovery methods and improved concentration, and devised a way to target these areas with science. Training programs use science to analyse how the body responds to certain stimuli in an effort to improve the same oxygen take-up, recovery methods and improved concentration that the drugs target.
Is there a difference (apart from effectiveness) between EPO, which supplies the body with more red blood cells, thus boosting its oxygen take-up, and modern compression clothing which (the makers claim) increases blood-flow and aids recovery by artificially expanding blood vessels? One is used by amateurs all over the country and the other is the most reviled aspect of professional sports and carries a prison sentence, and yet what is the difference? Both artificially boost the body's performance beyond what it could do un-aided. I would argue they're two branches of the same tree.
I suspect a large part of the resistance to drugs in sport is the perception that they're seen as improvement without effort: you pop some pills or inject some blood and you're faster and stronger already. This isn't the case because they mostly just allow an athlete to train harder; the improvements in sports science listed above are also intended to allow an athlete to train harder, so morally there is little difference.
I would draw the line at drugs that can endanger the lives of an athlete: EPO thickens the blood and puts an athlete at risk of cardiac arrest: users in the Tour de France have reported having to get up at 2am to do half an hour on the exercise bike in order to keep the heart pumping thick blood around the body in order to stave off a heart-attack. I make no claim to know the dangers of the myriad performance-enhancing drugs, but I'm sure there are quite a number that have a negligible negative impact on a sportsperson's physical well-being.
Should then, governing bodies open up certain performance-enhancing drugs to be used in sport? The line seems arbitrary and blurry. Sport and science are now entwined inextricably; even though when we see a sportsperson perform all we see is the person, they are supported by complex and advanced scientific methods. Certain drugs should be one of those scientific supports.
These changes are all down to science. I think we can assume that modern day sportsmen and women are not more talented or innately physically superior to those of thirty years ago. Rather, the people behind them - coaches, analysts, nutritionists, physiotherapists - have upped their game. British cyclists are sweeping all before them at the moment, and much of this is due to Dave Brailsford and his much publicised marginal-gains approach to sport. Every facet that shapes an athletics performance is analysed then polished, all that is left for the athlete is to put in the hard work and success seems to come easy. The British approach, it seems, is still some way ahead of the chasing bunch. It is possible that British cycling has a greater pool of talent to choose the best from, but it is likely that the main reason for success is this laboratory approach.
The modern scientific approach has undeniably improved human performance beyond the capabilities of the lone, unaided sportsman. It's methodical, scientific, analytic. Why then, are drugs illegal? The makers of performance enhancing drugs have analysed ways humans can improve athletic capabilities, such as oxygen take-up, recovery methods and improved concentration, and devised a way to target these areas with science. Training programs use science to analyse how the body responds to certain stimuli in an effort to improve the same oxygen take-up, recovery methods and improved concentration that the drugs target.
Is there a difference (apart from effectiveness) between EPO, which supplies the body with more red blood cells, thus boosting its oxygen take-up, and modern compression clothing which (the makers claim) increases blood-flow and aids recovery by artificially expanding blood vessels? One is used by amateurs all over the country and the other is the most reviled aspect of professional sports and carries a prison sentence, and yet what is the difference? Both artificially boost the body's performance beyond what it could do un-aided. I would argue they're two branches of the same tree.
I suspect a large part of the resistance to drugs in sport is the perception that they're seen as improvement without effort: you pop some pills or inject some blood and you're faster and stronger already. This isn't the case because they mostly just allow an athlete to train harder; the improvements in sports science listed above are also intended to allow an athlete to train harder, so morally there is little difference.
I would draw the line at drugs that can endanger the lives of an athlete: EPO thickens the blood and puts an athlete at risk of cardiac arrest: users in the Tour de France have reported having to get up at 2am to do half an hour on the exercise bike in order to keep the heart pumping thick blood around the body in order to stave off a heart-attack. I make no claim to know the dangers of the myriad performance-enhancing drugs, but I'm sure there are quite a number that have a negligible negative impact on a sportsperson's physical well-being.
Should then, governing bodies open up certain performance-enhancing drugs to be used in sport? The line seems arbitrary and blurry. Sport and science are now entwined inextricably; even though when we see a sportsperson perform all we see is the person, they are supported by complex and advanced scientific methods. Certain drugs should be one of those scientific supports.
I'm Ready To Graduate
I’m Ready To
Graduate
I’m ready to
graduate, three years is enough,
I know what
comes next won’t be easy but
I’ve grown
up – older, wiser, smarter: I’m tough.
I’m ready to
graduate with the world at my feet,
The choices
are endless, doors open wide -
A 2:1 in Film
& English: one of the élite.
I’m ready to
graduate, who needs to have fun?
Getting hammered
is childish and stupid and dumb.
…What’s that
you’re holding? Is it rum?
I’m ready to
graduate, back to the nest
For a while
- a year, maybe two, maybe three -
Not long at
all, Mum, just a temporary guest.
I’m ready to
graduate, my friends aren’t too far,
We can see
each other at weekends, right?
It’s easy to get to Hampshire or London without a car.
I’m not
ready to graduate but time marches on.
The bell
rings, brace yourselves lads, over the top,
We go
together into the unknown beyond.
by Malcolm Gledhill
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Snow: Overstretching a Metaphor
Shout out to Ali Hendry wooo
We’ve had a lot of weather recently. Fortunately the weather
is mostly back in the rivers and skies where it belongs now. But for a while,
we had a lot, and it caused delight and frustration in equal measure. (Although,
it should be pointed out, not within individual people. It’s either delight or frustration. Pick one)
I am firmly in the frustrated camp: my bike, which I go
everywhere on, is stricken by snow, with its skinny tyres and lightweight
frame rendered helpless by the icy roads; walking was just as problematic, with
the 5-minture walk to Tesco extended, penguin-step-by-penguin-step, to double
that time. Nevertheless, as an English student with an overactive imagination
and love for a good metaphor, snow fascinates me.
If there’s a problem that must be done
Don’t turn your tail and run
Don’t pout; don’t sob
Just do a half-assed job
There’s a Simpson’s episode where Sherry Bobbins – a bargain-basement
Mary Poppins – floats in hanging from an umbrella to babysit Bart and Lisa
(Maggie is self-reliant). She teaches them to shove all the mess in their rooms
into the closet and under the duvet. Out of sight, out of mind. A fresh blanket
of snow has the same effect. Every outside surface is covered in a pure, fresh,
white blanket of snow that hides everything underneath. It’s beautiful; boring
urban vistas look like fairytale vilages and genuine nice parts of the world,
like parks and proper fairytale villages usually found in Dorset, are amazing. Transport
links are screwed up by snow too*, so for a good number of people a thick
surface of snow means an unexpected and delightful holiday. It leads to a ‘I can’t get to work, so I won’t even worry’
attitude, and this is a lovely feeling, an unexpected break from responsibility.
In short, snow allows us to forget about the real world for a while. Our
problems and the ugly bits of the world are all covered up.
Of course, this idyll cannot last. The snow has to melt, and
if it doesn’t melt it turns to ice. Our problems do not really go away, rather
they lurk under the surface, waiting for their time again. They’re still there,
shoved under the duvet, crammed into the closet. And when they do emerge, they
are the equivalent of a metaphorically iced-over footpath: a small problem
(walking somewhere) is now quite difficult indeed. The ugly bits come out, and
things are worse than before. The closet has been opened, and everything has
fallen out into a pile more annoying, difficult and time-consuming than ever
before. Maybe we should just have done it properly to begin with. The feeling this prompts is somewhat like the one I experienced in Bruges last April, the feeling of being duped by excessive levels of wonderment.
So screw you, Sherry Bobbins, and screw you Snow.
*In defence of the English transport systems.
Unlike our Scandinavian and Alpine cousins, we only get snow
roughly once a year, which lasts for a few days. The cost of setting up a
strong snow-coping infrastructure outweighs the cost of financial losses incurred
from the havoc caused by the snow. While we may seem pathetic in comparison, it
isn’t worth the effort to be super snow-ready.
Sunday, 16 December 2012
Merry Listmas Part III. Best of the Best: SPOTY '00-'12
Without a shadow of a doubt, the 2012 shortlist for BBC Sports Personality of the Year is the strongest ever seen. Bradley Wiggins, Andy Murray, Mo Farah, Jess Ennis, Ben Ainslie would all be shoe-ins as winner for most years of the past two decades; add to those five Hoy, Grainger, Rutherford (not even nominated this year despite a coveted track and field gold), McIlroy, Storey, Adams and Weir, and you've got an absolutely outstanding list.
Consider this: in 1997 Greg Rusedski won SPOTY for reaching the US Open final; Andy Murray may yet come fourth even though he won the US Open (against a far stronger field than the class of '97), and won Olympic Gold and Silver, and reached the Wimbledon final. In 2010, Tony McCoy won and Phil "The Power" Taylor came second; in 2009 Ryan Giggs won presumably for the reason that he was quite old and received it as some sort of Lifetime Achievement award. Neither would be in with a chance this year.
This got me thinking. What would be a top 10 from the years 2000-2012 be? First of all we need some rules. Since SPOTY is awarded on the basis of a sportsperson's efforts over a single calendar year (Ryan Giggs notwithstanding), each candidate could only put forward their annus mirabilis, so for instance from Mark Cavendish's years of dominance in road cycling from 2008-2012, he could only put forwards one year, in his case 2011. This works for and against Olympians, depending on their sport. Due to the relative infrequency of the Olympics a gold medal is a huge achievement: Kelly Holmes, Chris Hoy and Mo Farah, who were able to compete for and win multiple golds in 2004, 2008 and 2012 respectively, are at an advantage against someone like Ben Ainslie, who has won four Olympic golds, but only one in any single year. You could make a case for the deciding factor being percentage of world-title chances converted, but that would throw up numerous sportsmen and women competing in sports outside the Big 5 (football, rugby, athletics, cycling, cricket) who won everything they could. It would be impossible to differentiate between these performances and would result in ten competitors tied for the number 1 spot. Are these unfair? Perhaps, but prioritising the sports with the most participation seems fair enough, and restricting it to one calendar year is in keeping with SPOTY's 12-month ethos.
There is also an inherent bias against team players. Such is the nature of team sports that outstanding individuals are harder to discern. It also throws up the question of whether a team sportsman (and it is only men I'm afraid who could come close on this list) should be favoured if his team wins, or whether his performance can be isolated and evaluated properly. This is really difficult to do. Take for instance Steven Gerrard, who came third in 2005 after Liverpool won the Champions League on that "barmy night in Istanbul". Some people think Gerrard was the hero; others think Didi Hamann was the actual orchestrator. How do we rank Gerrard? No idea. As such, only two team players have made the top ten.
Speaking of which, on with the countdown
10. Jess Ennis (2012)
The last spot on this list was contested tightly between Freddie Flintoff and Jess Ennis. Flintoff won it in 2005 for the remarkable Ashes win, a series in which he was England captain. It was a fantastic achievement: the first win for ages against a particularly strong Australia, which could count Ricky Ponting, Shane Warne, Adam Gilchrist and Michael Clarke amongst its numbers. But Jess Ennis has been favoured for three reasons: 1) Heptathlon gold means Ennis can be considered the best all-round sportswoman in the world, 2) Her 100m hurdles performance was so good she would have won gold in 2008 in that event, 3) She did it at our home games, 4) The pressure on her was incredible as not only our biggest, brightest track and field medal hope, but also as a severe hottie that meant her face was on billboards across the country.
9. Chris Hoy (2008)
Enough to win it in 2008, Hoy only makes ninth here. Hoy's achievements are clear cut: he won almost everything in 2008, taking two golds and a silver at the World Championships and three golds at the Beijing Olympics. While circumstances elevated Ennis above Flintoff, it is circumstances that prevent Hoy from getting a higher position. British track cycling was utterly dominant in 2008, with huge amounts of money and expertise available to the British squad, putting Hoy at a large advantage. We take track cycling so much more seriously than other nations, too. That said, Hoy's achievements are still colossal.
8. Andy Murray (2012)
The US Open title, Olympic Gold, Olympic Silver and Wimbledon finalist: with that haul Murray is indisputably our best ever tennis player. Murray's story is made that much more special by his seemingly eternal position as a nearly-man. If he got past Federer, there was Nadal, if he got past Nadal, there was Djokovic, one all-time great after another. Then he managed it, providing us with hours of excruciating drama across the year. Almost as much as the titles he won, it's his never-say-die attitude that is most enduring in the memory.
7. Mark Cavendish (2011)
2011 was Mark Cavendish's best year, the best road sprint-cyclist in history. Cav dominated, winning the green jersey at the Tour de France, taking five stages including the Champs-Elysee finale, and the World Road Race. The Green Jersey at the Tour is rarely won by riders that solely target stage wins - the intermediate sprints points available more than compensate for a rider that finishes 2nd, 3rd or 4th in a stage-ending sprint. Cavendish is rubbish at the intermediate sprints, particularly in the mountains, so he had to rely on stage wins to fill out his points total. He did this in style, rarely giving his opposition a chance. His World Road Race win was a culmination of four years of hard work by British cycling, who furnished Cavendish with one of the most formidable teams ever seen at the event. That said, it was far, far from a simple task, because every other team would be aware of Cavendish's invincibility in a bunch sprint. The team was able to neutralise opponents' attacks, setting Cav up to do what Cav does best.
5. Kelly Holmes (2004), Mo Farah (2012)
I've tied Holmes and Farah at fifth because their achievements are almost indistinguishable. Both double Olympic gold medalists both firsts for Britons, both on the track, both in (at least from this sprinter's point of view) distance running. Holmes won in the face of extreme personal problems - injury, depression - while Farah won in the face of extreme competition in The Africans, who as a continental force have since 1980 won Olympic gold in the 5000m and 10000m on every occasion bar two.
3. Wilkinson/Johnson (2003)
The inspirational captain or the talisman? No use differentiating between the two either: they can share a spot. Even ignoring the Six Nations Grand Slam and the #1 ranking, England's 2003 Rugby World Cup win was perhaps the country's greatest achievement since 1966, and provided us with the enduring image of Wilkinson's trademark penalty-kicking pose. Of course, the win was very much a team effort, and without the immense talents of Dallaglio, Greenwood, Robinson, Dawson, Cohen, Moody, Vickery and the lot, it would not have been possible. However, we can't pick all of them, so we'll follow SPOTY's lead, which nominated Wilkinson and Johnson, who took the top two spots in 2003. They may have made the number 2 spot (number 1 is set in stone), but there's that anti-team bias that I mentioned before. Wilkinson's kicking was unerring, but would not have been possible without the powerful forwards winning penalties and getting him into drop-goal positions. Likewise Johnson was one of our best players and an inspiration throughout, but hasn't quite done enough on an individual basis to go higher.
2. Bradley Wiggins (2012)
The Tour de France is the world's biggest race. It's the longest, the toughest and the most storied, with it's 99 editions containing epic feats of endurance, tragedy, death, scandal, and glory. It attracts the most spectators of any sporting event, with the 2000-odd kilometers of the route lined start to finish with spectators, who number in their millions. It had also, until this year, never been won by a Brit. It was the final sporting frontier. Wiggins won it, and won it well. This alone is not enough to rank him a lofty 2nd, however. Most Western-European countries can boast a winner (and, not incidentally, mountains); even Luxembourg has a winner of the Tour de France. Three in fact. What puts Wiggins ahead is his dominance of every race he entered, from the early season tours (Normandie, Paris-Nice, Criterium du Dauphine), to the Olympic time-trial win, via the Tour. Put into the tumultuous context of the sport, namely the Lance Armstrong drugs scandal, Wiggins has emerged as something of a saviour of cycling: a legitimately clean Tour de France winner. Wiggins in 2012 has heralded a new era of cycling, and swept the cheating, bullying, egotistical Lance Armstrong, and everything he represents, aside.
1. Paul Radcliffe (2003)
Paula Radcliffe didn't even win SPOTY in 2003. She was beaten by those rugby players above. She did win it in 2002, but that wasn't her best year. In 2003, she finished the London marathon in a time of 2:15:25. This is one of the single greatest feats by any sportsperson in history, male or female. It was a world record by a huge margin. The next best time by someone other than Paula Radcliffe is 2:18:47 by Catherina Ndereba, which was itself a fantastic run, taking a minute off the previous record. Radcliffe's world record is simply a staggering time; perhaps the nearest equivalent would be steroid-enhanced Florence Joyner-Griffith's 100m WR of 10.48s, which will likely never be beaten by a clean athlete. There isn't much more to add to this final entry: it was simply a run of brutal speed and endurance.
Consider this: in 1997 Greg Rusedski won SPOTY for reaching the US Open final; Andy Murray may yet come fourth even though he won the US Open (against a far stronger field than the class of '97), and won Olympic Gold and Silver, and reached the Wimbledon final. In 2010, Tony McCoy won and Phil "The Power" Taylor came second; in 2009 Ryan Giggs won presumably for the reason that he was quite old and received it as some sort of Lifetime Achievement award. Neither would be in with a chance this year.
This got me thinking. What would be a top 10 from the years 2000-2012 be? First of all we need some rules. Since SPOTY is awarded on the basis of a sportsperson's efforts over a single calendar year (Ryan Giggs notwithstanding), each candidate could only put forward their annus mirabilis, so for instance from Mark Cavendish's years of dominance in road cycling from 2008-2012, he could only put forwards one year, in his case 2011. This works for and against Olympians, depending on their sport. Due to the relative infrequency of the Olympics a gold medal is a huge achievement: Kelly Holmes, Chris Hoy and Mo Farah, who were able to compete for and win multiple golds in 2004, 2008 and 2012 respectively, are at an advantage against someone like Ben Ainslie, who has won four Olympic golds, but only one in any single year. You could make a case for the deciding factor being percentage of world-title chances converted, but that would throw up numerous sportsmen and women competing in sports outside the Big 5 (football, rugby, athletics, cycling, cricket) who won everything they could. It would be impossible to differentiate between these performances and would result in ten competitors tied for the number 1 spot. Are these unfair? Perhaps, but prioritising the sports with the most participation seems fair enough, and restricting it to one calendar year is in keeping with SPOTY's 12-month ethos.
There is also an inherent bias against team players. Such is the nature of team sports that outstanding individuals are harder to discern. It also throws up the question of whether a team sportsman (and it is only men I'm afraid who could come close on this list) should be favoured if his team wins, or whether his performance can be isolated and evaluated properly. This is really difficult to do. Take for instance Steven Gerrard, who came third in 2005 after Liverpool won the Champions League on that "barmy night in Istanbul". Some people think Gerrard was the hero; others think Didi Hamann was the actual orchestrator. How do we rank Gerrard? No idea. As such, only two team players have made the top ten.
Speaking of which, on with the countdown
10. Jess Ennis (2012)
The last spot on this list was contested tightly between Freddie Flintoff and Jess Ennis. Flintoff won it in 2005 for the remarkable Ashes win, a series in which he was England captain. It was a fantastic achievement: the first win for ages against a particularly strong Australia, which could count Ricky Ponting, Shane Warne, Adam Gilchrist and Michael Clarke amongst its numbers. But Jess Ennis has been favoured for three reasons: 1) Heptathlon gold means Ennis can be considered the best all-round sportswoman in the world, 2) Her 100m hurdles performance was so good she would have won gold in 2008 in that event, 3) She did it at our home games, 4) The pressure on her was incredible as not only our biggest, brightest track and field medal hope, but also as a severe hottie that meant her face was on billboards across the country.
9. Chris Hoy (2008)
Enough to win it in 2008, Hoy only makes ninth here. Hoy's achievements are clear cut: he won almost everything in 2008, taking two golds and a silver at the World Championships and three golds at the Beijing Olympics. While circumstances elevated Ennis above Flintoff, it is circumstances that prevent Hoy from getting a higher position. British track cycling was utterly dominant in 2008, with huge amounts of money and expertise available to the British squad, putting Hoy at a large advantage. We take track cycling so much more seriously than other nations, too. That said, Hoy's achievements are still colossal.
8. Andy Murray (2012)
The US Open title, Olympic Gold, Olympic Silver and Wimbledon finalist: with that haul Murray is indisputably our best ever tennis player. Murray's story is made that much more special by his seemingly eternal position as a nearly-man. If he got past Federer, there was Nadal, if he got past Nadal, there was Djokovic, one all-time great after another. Then he managed it, providing us with hours of excruciating drama across the year. Almost as much as the titles he won, it's his never-say-die attitude that is most enduring in the memory.
7. Mark Cavendish (2011)
2011 was Mark Cavendish's best year, the best road sprint-cyclist in history. Cav dominated, winning the green jersey at the Tour de France, taking five stages including the Champs-Elysee finale, and the World Road Race. The Green Jersey at the Tour is rarely won by riders that solely target stage wins - the intermediate sprints points available more than compensate for a rider that finishes 2nd, 3rd or 4th in a stage-ending sprint. Cavendish is rubbish at the intermediate sprints, particularly in the mountains, so he had to rely on stage wins to fill out his points total. He did this in style, rarely giving his opposition a chance. His World Road Race win was a culmination of four years of hard work by British cycling, who furnished Cavendish with one of the most formidable teams ever seen at the event. That said, it was far, far from a simple task, because every other team would be aware of Cavendish's invincibility in a bunch sprint. The team was able to neutralise opponents' attacks, setting Cav up to do what Cav does best.
5. Kelly Holmes (2004), Mo Farah (2012)
I've tied Holmes and Farah at fifth because their achievements are almost indistinguishable. Both double Olympic gold medalists both firsts for Britons, both on the track, both in (at least from this sprinter's point of view) distance running. Holmes won in the face of extreme personal problems - injury, depression - while Farah won in the face of extreme competition in The Africans, who as a continental force have since 1980 won Olympic gold in the 5000m and 10000m on every occasion bar two.
3. Wilkinson/Johnson (2003)
The inspirational captain or the talisman? No use differentiating between the two either: they can share a spot. Even ignoring the Six Nations Grand Slam and the #1 ranking, England's 2003 Rugby World Cup win was perhaps the country's greatest achievement since 1966, and provided us with the enduring image of Wilkinson's trademark penalty-kicking pose. Of course, the win was very much a team effort, and without the immense talents of Dallaglio, Greenwood, Robinson, Dawson, Cohen, Moody, Vickery and the lot, it would not have been possible. However, we can't pick all of them, so we'll follow SPOTY's lead, which nominated Wilkinson and Johnson, who took the top two spots in 2003. They may have made the number 2 spot (number 1 is set in stone), but there's that anti-team bias that I mentioned before. Wilkinson's kicking was unerring, but would not have been possible without the powerful forwards winning penalties and getting him into drop-goal positions. Likewise Johnson was one of our best players and an inspiration throughout, but hasn't quite done enough on an individual basis to go higher.
2. Bradley Wiggins (2012)
The Tour de France is the world's biggest race. It's the longest, the toughest and the most storied, with it's 99 editions containing epic feats of endurance, tragedy, death, scandal, and glory. It attracts the most spectators of any sporting event, with the 2000-odd kilometers of the route lined start to finish with spectators, who number in their millions. It had also, until this year, never been won by a Brit. It was the final sporting frontier. Wiggins won it, and won it well. This alone is not enough to rank him a lofty 2nd, however. Most Western-European countries can boast a winner (and, not incidentally, mountains); even Luxembourg has a winner of the Tour de France. Three in fact. What puts Wiggins ahead is his dominance of every race he entered, from the early season tours (Normandie, Paris-Nice, Criterium du Dauphine), to the Olympic time-trial win, via the Tour. Put into the tumultuous context of the sport, namely the Lance Armstrong drugs scandal, Wiggins has emerged as something of a saviour of cycling: a legitimately clean Tour de France winner. Wiggins in 2012 has heralded a new era of cycling, and swept the cheating, bullying, egotistical Lance Armstrong, and everything he represents, aside.
1. Paul Radcliffe (2003)
Paula Radcliffe didn't even win SPOTY in 2003. She was beaten by those rugby players above. She did win it in 2002, but that wasn't her best year. In 2003, she finished the London marathon in a time of 2:15:25. This is one of the single greatest feats by any sportsperson in history, male or female. It was a world record by a huge margin. The next best time by someone other than Paula Radcliffe is 2:18:47 by Catherina Ndereba, which was itself a fantastic run, taking a minute off the previous record. Radcliffe's world record is simply a staggering time; perhaps the nearest equivalent would be steroid-enhanced Florence Joyner-Griffith's 100m WR of 10.48s, which will likely never be beaten by a clean athlete. There isn't much more to add to this final entry: it was simply a run of brutal speed and endurance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)