Athletes shouldn't be our China policy
Should our athletes boycott this year's Beijing Olympics? Nick Cohens in a reasonably interesting article says
yes.
I don't know whether he is appealing to individual athletes or to the Government to impose something, but in both cases I am more persuaded by the objections he lists in his final paragraph, which basically are that in the absence of any economic or financial sanctions, I think tellin, or even expecting, athletes to boycott the Olympic Games is rather unfair [1]- putting all of the onus on them rather than us.
There doesn't seem to be enormous pressure on anyone else in the country to make the slightest effort or suffer the slightest cost in their relations with China, or must desire to do so either. All of us interact with or benefit from China via various forms of trade, e.g. buying a flat screen TV or microwave (I'm writing this on a computer made in China), getting cheap new clothes, visiting the Great Wall, having an account at Morgan Stanley, etc. All of these are reliant on the Chinese government to some degree or another, and all of them can be reduced at a relatively small cost.
For athletes this is not really the case - the Olympics is the pinancle of many athletes' careers, and only comes around ever four years, so it's not like they will get many chances at performing in it. Furthermore it's not the athletes fault that it is in Beijing.
One might argue that the Olympics is linked to the government and the government's prestige, but so are the major industries and state investment funds.
It's not that I don't believe in sporting boycotts per se, but surely they must be an addition to economic and financial boycotts [2], not as something done instead? If the government can lead trade missions to China, the public buy masses of cheap imports, and investment banks - with large operations in the UK, if not actually British owned - receive cash injections, why can't or even shouldn't an athlete perform at the Beijing Olympics? [3]
[1] It's of course possible that Nick Cohen might have reduced his expenditure on China-linked goods and services to a bare minimum, which would certainly give him the right to demand similar actions of others.
[2] I don't think we should impose financial or economic sanctions on China as a country.
[3] There is also the question of how much they would care if it was limited to us, but I'm not sure that is the main point of such a boycott.
Labels: China, sport
The new Wembley
Cost a lot of money - around £750m, which according to the BBC is roughly 1,000 times the amount the old Wembley cost in 1923. Is this dearer in real terms? Yes, by a long way. Using the RPI (or its predecessors) £750,000 in 1923 has the same purchasing power as £28.5m today. So the new stadium is around 26 times more expensive than the old one in real terms. Even using the GDP as your deflator, the old stadium would now have cost only £215m. So even terms of the UK's much higher income now than in 1923, it was still about three times more expensive.
The costs break down something like this:
* £325m to build the stadium
* £120m to buy land
* £50m for improving infrastructure
* £23m for demolition
* £40m for development costs
* £80m in financing costs
Labels: sport
The Things Daily Mail Sports Journalists Say!
Matt Lawton, Daily Mail, Aug 16 2006:
SVEN Goran Eriksson's greatest achievement during his tenure at Soho Square was convincing his employers that coaching the England team was, in fact, akin to rocket science. All very secretive, all very complicated and all very, very confusing...Thankfully, Steve McClaren takes a more simplistic, more intelligent view to the job, and those who should benefit most are the players he has selected for this evening's not-so-friendly game against Greece...At times Eriksson was a nightmare as he played Steven Gerrard as a second striker or Jamie Carragher as a holding midfielder...McClaren said: 'We have to learn from our failure and from our mistakes, and we have to try to get the shackles off and release the players from the fear they've been playing with. We have to win football matches. We have to create a Team England, and we have to develop different systems. 4-5-1, 3-5-2, I can see us using that at some point because we need to be flexible.' As long as the players are familiar with the roles they are given and McClaren keeps it simple, there should not be a problem.
Matt Lawton, Daily Mail, March 26, 2007
Steve Simply Hasn't A Clue
An Englad team fast slipping out of contenton in this European Championship qualifying campaign are being led by a coach quite clearly out of his depth. Steve McClaren will not be sacked after his side delivered another desperately poor performance on Saturday night. But he probably should be...No sudden dmonance of part-time opposition (Andorra) will convince us that these players are responding to mCClaren with anything other than apathy...If anything England have sunk even deeper since McClaren took over...this game against a distinctly ordinary team was one Eriksson woul dhave won with a less than inspiring but effective display.
Labels: sport
Slower times
The Times in 1950 carried a story on May 31st about the World Cup which was to being on june 24th:
The dates, but not the grounds, for the finals of the World Cup tournament were announced by the International Federation here. It was decided to wait until Wednesday to allow Portugal time to reply to an invitation to compete before allocating the grounds.
It was the first time British teams had competed, and the qualification was simply the Brtiish championship (all the "Home" nations), 1st place and 2nd place. However Scotland said they would only compete if they won the British championship. They didn't, and didn't.
One thing surprised me - this championship (perhaps because of the World Cup) was played in April, on the same day as full programme of league fixtures. I wonder how popular that would be nowadays?
Labels: sport
Bradman's last innings
As everyone knows
Don Bradman ended his test career with an average of 99.96, as he scored zero in his last test innings (at the Oval). I was reading the Times' archive to see how they reported this momentous day and it was a bit of a disappointment.
So with the pavilion standing to their feet, and the English team standing in the middle ready to acclaim him with three cheers, in came Bradman to be bowled out for the second ball he faced.
One reason for the lack of fancare is that it's only the first innings so he can still score 8 or whatever he needs in the second. However England, as is often the case, didn't score enough to make Australia bat a second innings - in particular their 52 all out in the first innings, with a 0 from Crapp, was particularly embarassing.
Wikipedia also says it wasn't known that it was his last test, merely his last test in England. But this seems wrong - the Times article says "Bradman's last test match".
Labels: sport
Warne for England?
"England may turn to Aussie Warne - Duncan Fletcher says he would consider asking Shane Warne to help him resurrect England's fortunes".
What an idea. Warne bowling in tandem with Monty. Admittedly he'll be 40 by the time the next Ashes finishes, but that just reminds one of that supposed Bradman quote when asked how he thought he would fare against the (then) current England team, namely that he would "probably average 50 or so". The shocked journalist said, "Don Bradman, against this England attack. Only 50?" "Well, I am 87". The English nationality might be a bit more difficult to square, though.
Labels: sport
Cricket
Surely this is a bit over the top?
England coach Duncan Fletcher has come in for criticism throughout the tour over matters of selection and preparation, and Close believes it is now time for him to leave the post.
"I think he is past his sell-by date," he added. "In our day we didn't need coaches. If you played for England you were supposed to be a good player and didn't need coaches."
Labels: sport
Ashes over
Well the bet didn't quite pay off... At about 7am on Sunday morning it was looking very good, with the odds on England falling to 7-1. Then McGrath got two wickets, and it all looked bad again. The smug feeling of having got 10-1 on England winning is rather deflated when you see you could now get 22-1 and rising. 29.
England lost quite convincly in the end, though not quite as bad as in the first test. Then Australia scored 804 for 11, beating 527 for 20. In the second they got 681 for 14, having beaten 680 for 16, and in the final test they got 771 for 15, to which we could only reply with 565 for 20.
In total the figures are a rather stark 2256/40 plays 1772/54, an average (batting, but reverse it to get bowling) of 56.4 for them, and just 32.8 for us. We were probably unluckier with the umpiring decisions, particularly with Andrew Strauss, but overall you can't escape the conclusion that they
played better.
Update: I changed England's 2nd test score and the aggregate score after Simon, in the comments, pointed out that we only lost 16 wickets in the 2nd test. The first innnings was (mistakenly, with hindsight) declared after 6 wickets had fallen.
Labels: sport
The Master Gambler
All the talk is of Monty, but Harmison got Ponting with a beauty, and the 3rd star - myself - is the talk of Betfair. I'm off to Monte Carlo to break the bank.
Labels: Posts I had to retract later, sport
The Ashes, 3rd Test
England are 9-1 to win. I think that's generous of the bookmakers and have bet accordingly. Please note this is not a tip - my betting record is terrible.
Labels: economics, sport, Taxation
The Ashes
As with many children and even adults,
Chris Brooke's cat was introduced to cricket during the Ashes of 2005, and thus probably sees The Ashes as being a close (and sometimes not even that) fought contest which England win, instead of the one-sided embarassment that us older folk know and love.
Hopefully such youthful innocence won't be dashed, though the early signs are not good (or perhaps that's how newer fans imagine it always starts, as England lure the Aussies into a false sense of superiority). On the other hand having it totally one-sided does help with the time zone - in 2002 I watched a lot of the Ashes and was in bed by 2am, as often England were mostly out by then. This year I am Sky +ing it, which means I record the seven hours it is on, and then watch it at 30 times normal speed. It takes just 14 mins, and Glenn McGrath seems almost pacey.
It's reasonably hard to regain the Ashes, as you need to win. England are currently 7 to 1 on Betfair if you fancy a punt.
Labels: England, sport
