Netball - on the up?

Viewers of Sky Sports recently had the chance to see an English Ashes whitewash. The sport? Netball!

England's world No.3 team took on the world No.1 and gave them what for. The feat was made even more remarkable by the fact that England had only beaten the Aussie side TWICE before this series and now that total is FIVE.

All the soundbites coming out of the series was how this is a huge step for the sport in this country, that is in its strongest ever position and will push on from here. I felt inclined to look into this a bit further to see if the buzz is justified.

Well, not only were the three games won by England, but they were won to sold out crowds. Ok, the venues aren't massive capacity centres, but an aggregate attendance of around 16,000 saw the three games live at the venues.

Sport England definitely feel the sport is going in the right direction. Whilst a number of more high profile sports like Tennis and Rugby Union have seen funding cut for the four year cycle starting 2013, Netball has seen an increase to £25.3million from £18.7million given for the last four year cycle.

The funding increase is based on participation figures increasing by a third during the four year period. An increase of 40,000 people playing netball at least once a week during the period has seen overall participation rise to around 160,000 players per week. 

During the period, participation increases were seen across age groups and demographics, but notable increases were seen in the age group 16-25 (25,000). The satisfied one of the key aims of retaining players to the game that are leaving schools and colleges .

The figures show a great success story at grass roots level. This is supported by the fact that Sport England funding figures during the period just ended included a bonus £1million that was awarded by The National Lottery as reward for Netball England's 'Back to Netball' program. This program has been key in the boost in participation. The 'Back to Netball' initiative was showcased as a gentle introduction into sport and gives people from a variety of social, economic and ethnic backgrounds the chance to play. Clearly the number show it has worked.

With Netball it isn't all about grassroots, as the England team have recently shown. Netball is one of only three non-Olympic sports that gets Sport England funding for the elite level of the game. £5million of the £25million allocated to the sport will go towards the senior elite team over the next four years. Key in this cycle, and undoubtedly a major reason for the elite level funding, is the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. Building into that and as part of the sport's growth is an increase to 12 test matches a year from six - so we can expect more series like the triumphant one we've just seen.

Optimism is high at the top level of the game. Funding isn't the only reason for this. As well as having an organised regularly televised domestic league - the Superleague - for our players to compete in with a host of international stars featured, the top players are also now playing in the top league in the world - the ANZ League. Three players from the England squad are playing in this league now and the experts say it showed from the performances in the recent series win.

Attendances in the Superleague aren't great (around 30,000 total in the 2011 72 game season), but trends have been upwards and some individual games have been able to attract four figure crowds. Sky Sports broadcast 6 live games in 2012, up from 4 in 2011. Typically broadcast on Thursday nights in late winter/early spring, the live games will have competed at times with Europa League football and Premier League Darts for viewers. Despite this, viewing figures have been promising. The 2011 Grand Final attracted 90,000 live viewers, and personalities like Gary and Phil's sister Tracey Neville don't hurt the games image at all.

The ashes series success has given the sport great exposure in the national media. Interview spots on BBC and Sky Sports News have followed and newspaper column inches have been dedicated more than ever before. So where next?

Well, the sport hasn't moved out of definite minority status yet, that's for sure. Participation figures are more than promising, but I feel this is still a participation sport, not a spectator sport. Media attention and sponsorship opportunities are on the up right now, but this has to be followed by a greater commitment to increasing audiences in arenas and on TV if the sport truly wants to get the national exposure the passionate contributors to the game feel it deserves.

A long term aim is to be an Olympic sport. The way I see it, being a participation over spectator sport plays into the Olympic wheelhouse - it's basically a festival of high participation sports. The major stumbling block there is that this is a women only sport. Sports tends to be a male dominated area, making it hard to see a female sport dislodging a male sport on the Olympic slate. Another issue is this is seen to be a Commonwealth only sport - like cricket and bowls, it would be unusual to see the leap to the Olympic arena. Rugby has made the leap, but through the more accessible Sevens game which already has wider global appeal. Maybe having a 3rd best team that has only beaten the best team once in a series ever doesn't help too - there isn't much depth and unpredictability in the international game.

Me, personally, I'd much prefer netball in place of the completely uninspiring Women's Basketball - but convincing the IOC and their sponsors isn't something I see as likely.

Netball - definitely on the up in the UK, and in Australasia, but a long way off reaching the promised land. But hey, Gold for England in Glasgow would be pretty great.

Super League 2013 preview

February approaches, and all fans of extraordinary and tough sport know what this means - the new Super League season is coming. 

The adverts are on TV and if they are anything to go by we should all be excited for what is to come. (Seriously, give them a watch>>>)

Slick adverts and the 100% genuine words of Sir Wiggo set the scene. Now its over to the players to deliver. 

Here's my thoughts on how it might all unfold, starting with last seasons League Leaders shield winners and working down the ladder.

Wigan Warriors

Last season was a nearly year for the Wigan side. The seeming desire to win all games they played was their undoing with Leeds raising their game to upset Wigan in two semi-finals. 

It would be easy to say key injuries for those two particular games cost them, but if that's the case, how will they cope with the loss of five experienced star players? Thomas Leuluai, Brett Finch, Jeff Lima, and George Carmont have all left the club behind them, and Gareth Hock has left for this year at least. 

The replacements? Well, Matty Smith has plenty of Super League experience now and had a third of last season to help him bed into all things cherry'n'white. Blake Green has shown flashes of inspiration at Hull KR in the past two seasons. This half-back pairing should upgrade Wigan's kicking game, but it remains to be seen if they can create the space and chances Finch and Leuluai did for Sam Tomkins. Younger, less experienced players are expected to fill the other gaps left, and lack of experienced depth looks an issue when you compare this side to the one Michael Maguire had.

With Sam Tomkins, Wigan have the best player in the league, which always gives them a chance. But he can't do it all on his own and a weak pre-season from the squad players suggests there will be an inconsistent platform given by the forwards on which to build from. If the front row fronts up, Wigan can beat anyone, If not, they'll struggle to dominate teams like they have in the last few years.

Prediction: 3rd place finish, at least one final appearance.

Warrington Wolves

The Wire finally got over their playoff issues last time around, reaching the Grand Final. They couldn't add this title to their Challenge Cup crown picked up in August, so you expect this will be Tony Smith's priority. 

Few major moves have been made in the off-season. No notable incomers and David Solomona's diminishing talents is all they've really lost. The younger players they fed into the first team squad last year like Ben Currie are a year more developed and will add support the the players that have done so well for them in recent seasons. 

A solid if sparse pre-season with a couple of wins over Super League rivals has set them up for the new season well. The main question mark may be over the endurance of the ageing players like Brett Hodgson, Adrian Morley and Lee Briers, but Warrington showed last year they can manage without these talismanic players from time to time - and the inspiration that it may be the last serious go around for a couple of them could spur the team on.

Prediction: 1st place and GF winners

St Helens

2012 was a lost year for Saints really. There was no final appearance, they lacked consistency and they didn't seem to have enough edge to win the big games. The new stadium wasn't exactly ushered in on a glorious note.

However, 2013 looks promising. Two good signings from Hull FC in the shape of Willie Manu and Jordan Turner are more than adequate replacements for the players going out. Manu especially can be a devastating runner and the combination of him and Sia Soliola in the second row can punch holes through any defence. Two comprehensive pre-season wins gives reason for optimism.

James Roby is again the key man. If he stays free of injury he should lead his team to a competitive position. If he misses serious game time then Saints will struggle as they did without him at times last year. To rely so heavily on an 80 minute player who is involved in so many plays in a game is a dangerous thing. Combined with what I feel is a defensive weakness in the outside backs, I find it hard to predict what will happen with Saints. I think inconsistency in the league will be combined with stringer performances in the big games. Another question will be if Nathan Brown can put a full season together or whether his failings at Huddersfield will continue.

Prediction: 4th and maybe the Cup final

Catalan Dragons

Fourth place in 2012 was well earned by a Catalan side who showed power up front with the best prop in the competition Remi Casty leading from the front. I felt they lacked a bit of their normal flair in the back division last year though and relied on a strong kicking game behind skillful play in the second row channels.

They have let a number of their French stalwarts go over the off-season, as well as losing influential attacking threats Clint Greenshields and Setiamata Sa. Brent Webb and Olivier Elima have come in, as well as Zeb Taia, but that only covers the star players that have gone. There are still holes in the backs if injuries are suffered by the starting players so I'm not sure they've done anything to improve the squad and make them more likely to challenge during the 'business end' of the season.

A close fought loss to the London Broncos in their final pre-season outing doesn't tell us much and it will be interesting to see what the new French coach can bring out of the team after Trent Robinson left for the NRL. There is certainly a down grade in that department, although the experience of David Waite has been brought on board to help Laurent Frayssinous find his feet.

Prediction: 6th and second round playoff disappointment.

Leeds Rhinos

Consecutive Grand Final triumphs from the bottom half of the playoff draw have emphasised the champion quality this Leeds side has, if raised a few questions about their ability or indeed desire to compete consistently. The two GF rings have come after two Cup final losses in otherwise patchy seasons. This team was ageing so delivered in the big games, then in transition with enough experience to pull them through. This year they might just have it all covered again.

The young skillful outside backs that really emerged last year are now experienced champions. I expect big things from Zak Hardaker and Kallum Watkins again this year. Stevie Ward and Liam Hood must be expected to come through too as no great fight was made to retain Shaun Lunt. Joel Moon will add a lot more in the centre than Lee Smith could, with Hardaker making the permanent switch to full back.

Pre-season has suggested their defence might not be watertight with 50 points going in against them in two games, but this is a team for the big occasions too. The cup has escaped them so I think that may be a priority, requiring them to be in full form earlier in the year to get over that final hump. The speed and talent in the back unit will score a lot of points this year, which will get them over more games than not even if the defence isn't consistently brilliant. I expect them to be more consistent but efforts in the cup may see them fall short in the playoffs.

Prediction: 2nd, Cup win

Hull FC

The Black'n'Whites showed promise in 2012 but ultimately showed they didn't have the quality to win the crunch knock out games, and it didn't help that they couldn't find a consistent full back.

There has been another big overhaul of the playing squad this year for the third season in a row, but you have to feel they've strengthened their overall depth. The loss of Willie Manu has been compensated for by the headline pick up of Gareth Ellis, returning from a celebrated stint in the NRL. A number of signings from cross city rivals Rovers has added experience and depth. Joe Arundel could be an exciting addition in the backs if he fulfils the potential he showed at Cas, and they've done the key thing of keeping Tom Briscoe on board - for my money the best winger in Super League.

Pre-season hasn't told us much. One win and one tough derby loss against Super League opposition. My worry is that Hull won't know their best 17 on day one and it might take time for the new team to settle in together. I'm not sure how well they can afford a slow start, but I do feel they have the quality for a solid playoff placing.

Prediction: 5th place, outside chance of deep playoff run

Huddersfield Giants

Huddersfield did a Huddersfield last year and only really competed for the first third of the season. There was no uplifting news that Nathan Brown would actually be staying this time around and the slump pretty much continued.

With a new coach at the helm the Fartown fans would hope that might change, although the coach has been promoted from within. There is also the lack of an exciting signing for this season. Players have come and gone, but overall quality in the squad has remained largely the same. The major loss is former captain Kevin Brown, although I find him to be an overrated player who doesn't make much happen himself, so no massive loss for me. The problem is, the players they have just aren't that good. None of their players are the best in their position in the league, or even top five, other than maybe Eorl Crabtree.

A thumping pre-season defeat at Saints and a decent win over Widnes suggest Huddersfield will be there or thereabouts the bottom end of the playoffs for me this year. They should win against the teams that finish below the playoffs, but not be so successful against the teams already discussed above.

Prediction: 8th

Wakefield Trinity Wildcats

Wakefield finished 2012 regular season as the form team. They have to continue in that vein to get anywhere near the playoffs for me this year - but they surprised in 2012 and can do again.

A bit more experience has come in and young Reece Lyne is an exciting wing talent in attack. No notable players have really left and I don't see much change out of the Wildcats this year to last year. I really feel it depends on what their opponents come up with because this team is beatable. Tim Smith has the potential to be a wildcard in attack with his great skill and vision, but he has mistakes in him in defence that could undo any good he does. I think that applies across the board. 

Wakefield will beat a team that doesn't turn up, but will lose more close games than they win I think. Pre-season has included games over Championship opposition and a big loss to St Helens, so there is no real indication on what they can do out of that.

Prediction: 11th

Bradford Bulls

The Bulls were the story of 2012, both good and bad. Had it not been for the financial struggles deducting points from their total they would have made the top 8, and deservedly so. The fight against adversity was great to watch from a group of players who proved their metal.

2013 should be a rebirth of the club. Unfortunately I don't think it will be. The worry I have is in the forward pack, which has been decimated in the off-season. Bryn Hargreaves, Tom Burgess, Craig Kopczak, Olivier Elima and Ian Sibbit have all left, with Adam Sidlow the only real addition to the pack. The losses up front are combined with a fairly thin squad overall. Staying injury free across the whole first 17 is key to any playoff chances.

A big win against lower opposition and a draw against Leeds are what they have to show from the pre-season. That shows they'll be competitive, but whether they have enough to be competitive enough often enough is the doubt I have. Francis Cummins is a first year head coach and his team lacks in strong experienced characters outside of the hooker position, so I think a bad start or losing run might be hard to overcome.

Prediction: 10th

Hull Kingston Rovers

The Robins had a disappointing year under new coach Craig Sandercock in 2012. They never really looked like threatening the playoffs.

This season has seen a large overhaul in the playing squad. The losses might be felt most in the heart of the club rather than on the pitch, with Ben Galea defecting to cross city rivals FC and home grown products Liam Watts and Scott Taylor also leaving. The players that have come in bring talent and excitement though. Greg Eden started last season great with Huddersfield and has potential to become a real strike threat. Omari Caro offers similar potential, with electric speed. Cory Paterson, Evarn Tuimavave and Travis Burns bring NRL experience on board.

Pre-season suggests the new look side could have a decent year. Wins over Hull FC and an understrength Wigan side have them heading into the Super League in good form.

Prediction: 7th

Salford City Reds

Salford are the toughest team to predict. The off-season almost saw them fall out of existence but has seen them saved as part of a potentially exciting new venture that could open them up to vast new finances and commercial opportunities.

They've had the heartbeat taken out of the team - the full back and both halfbacks have left as well as both centres, meaning they have to find new ways of creating scores. Only an out of practice Martin Gleeson and uninspiring Andrew Dixon have come in and the squad list looks threadbare, although you expect some activity in the coming weeks that should strengthen things up. Loan signings might be the only option at this stage though, which largely means youth and second string players after missing out on Gareth Hock. 

A pre-season win against lowly Swinton and a loss to Wigan tell us very little because we don't know who the team will be half way through the year. I expect this year to be a tough transition year for Salford. I hope brighter things will emerge by the end of the season to offer a promising future for a franchise I feel should be much bigger than they are, but I don't see this year as being anything special.

Prediction: 13th

London Broncos

London were woeful in the first half of 2012, but some signs of revival were shown at the later stage of the season when club legend Tony Rea came back into the coaches position. They will need more than a few signs that the big names they brought in for 2012 care enough to deliver on the field, and I still have my doubts.

The only notable player movement is the retirement of Julien Rinaldi and the acquisition of Tommy Lee as a replacement. I think Lee lacks the spirit Rinaldi demonstrates so can't fulfil the same leadership role Rinaldi offered at times last season. Therefore, the playing squad remains largely unchanged. The only change the fans need to see is the 2012 big signings showing some interest. I was alarmed by how little it looked like these players cared last year, Craig Gower's end to the season aside, and I don't feel they've bought into the club - a club that doesn't really have a permanent home or identity right now.

Pre-season has seen big wins over lesser opponents and a last gasp win over the Catalan Dragons down in France, but I don't think that will shine through during the season. 

Prediction: 14th

Castleford Tigers

'Classy Cas' were anything but in 2012. Rangi Chase seemed to mess the club about with his too big for his boots off the pitch antics and not so inspirational on the field antics. 

Michael Shenton has come back to the club he made his name and I think he still has something in the tank, but all the other domestic signings may just be past their best. Justin Carney could offer something coming in from the NRL, but really it's hard to say with any certainty that he'll do great things with an uninspiring recent record behind him. Losing talented Joe Arundel and winger Josh Griffin could be big losses in the try scoring charts and the retirement of Danny Orr and Ryan Hudson takes away some of the core experience and leadership from the team on the field. Reliance on want away players like Rangi Chase and Daryl Clark for leadership could be difficult.

A loss at Hull FC and a win over Championship Featherstone has made up an unpromising pre-season on the pitch and despite coach Ian Millward talking the good talk, I expect another poor season from Cas. There will undoubtedly be some highlight reel tries, but these will more often than not come at the back end of big losses in my view.

Prediction: 12th

Widnes Vikings

Widnes finished bottom of the pile in 2012, but only on points difference in the end. They were always expected to struggle as the new boys in the league, and their squad really was made up of cast offs and inexperience.

In my view, 2013 promises to be different. I think they have a coach who really knows the game and they've done the right thing persevering with him through the bad first year up. Now it's time to build, and they've done so through signing some big names - none bigger than Gareth Hock on a loan deal from Wigan. In Hock Widnes have one of the genuine world class talents in the British game - a player wanted by the NRL, but with a point to prove to his former coach Shaun Wane.

They will be weakened at hooker in losing the players who played there for the majority of the season, but overall I feel the squad has more experience and depth than last year, with Kevin Brown another key addition. A couple of decent loan pickups at the right times in the season and Widnes will scare a few teams this year I think. A big loss to Huddersfield in pre-season tells us nothing, because they didn't have Gareth Hock then. Once he is fit and ready, if he keeps his head together, the Vikings could be a force.

Prediction: 9th

The Curiosity of International Eligibility

International eligibility has often been a source of conversation and debate in sports. The issue has hit the headlines again recently because of news South African born former England international Rugby Union player Hendre Fourie feared he would face deportation from the country he represented 8 times. Happily for Hendre on a personal level, it seems these fears have eased.

I don't really want to get into the politics of UK nationality and deportation rules too much because this is a sports blog, but suffice to say I find it strange that a person can represent a country and all that it stands for on the sporting field of battle when they in fact can't represent the country as a citizen or passport holder. I find it even stranger that the rules vary markedly between different sports.

During the past few years it's been an issue for the England football team, though more because of fears future stars of the game like Danny Welbeck, Carl Jenkinson, Rahim Sterling and Wilfred Zaha might take up offers to play for other nations they were eligible to represent, meaning England would lose out on them for good.

In rugby league, eligibility has been an issue in England with the selection of Rangi Chase in recent international squads and in Australia with James Tamou electing to wear green and gold over all black. A bigger issue and raft of questions are likely to present themselves with a World Cup on the horizon.

And the England cricket team has been filled with South Africans for a long time, as well as the odd Irishman making the switch too.

Rugby League

The Rugby League International Federation (RLIF) are responsible for the laws governing the international game these days. A full break down of the eligibility rules can be found on their website. The headline rules are:

A player is eligible to play an International Match for:-

(a)        the country in which he was born;

(b)        the country in which either of his parents or any of his grandparents was born;

(c)        the country which has been his principal place of residence for a period of three years up to the date of his selection;

(d)        the country that he has represented (irrespective of whether that country continues to be his principal place of residence) provided that he has not subsequently represented any other country.

They seem standard enough - but the real curiosity comes from the rules allowing a player to play for more than one senior international team. This is explained in rule 3.3, which states:

A player who is eligible to play for more than one country shall be entitled to elect for which country he wishes to play.  When a player plays a Senior International Match for a country, he is deemed to have elected to play for that country.  Subject to Rule 3.5, once an election is made the player may not play Senior representative rugby league for any other country until the end of the next World Cup tournament, or the expiry of two years, whichever is earlier (“Election Period”).

This law leads to players playing in consecutive World Cups for different countries. A player could play in a World Cup against the country of his birth, who he may have played for once up on a time, for a country he has been living in for three years, then theoretically play against that country for his first country the next time around.

This may seem absurd, and it certainly seems counterproductive against long term international development, but part of the problem is there are only two full-time domestic leagues comprising of 14 teams in Europe (and some say that is too many) and 16 teams in Australia/New Zealand - there aren't a lot of players playing at a top level of competition to share around and the big three nations want to be able to pick from the best of the best to make themselves as competitive as they can.

Eligibility point (b) has been the source of some controversy in the past with famous examples being Nathan Fien and Chris Morley.

Rugby Union

The International Rugby Board (IRB) are the global governing body which set the sports' international eligibility laws, the main points of which are:

A Player may only play for the senior fifteen-aside National Representative Team, the next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team and the senior National Representative Sevens Team of the Union of the country in which:
(a) he was born; or
(b) one parent or grandparent was born; or
(c) he has completed thirty six consecutive months of Residence immediately preceding the time of playing.

Unlike Rugby League, a player is excluded from appearing for another country (or Union as they call it) once they have played at senior level (1st team, 2nd team or Sevens team). The obvious exceptions are the representative teams that aren't part of a 'Union' - The Barbarians pulled from all over the world, and the British & Irish Lions are examples.

Controversy over point (b), specifically the grandparent aspect, has been even more notable in the 15-a-side code than in league. 'Grannygate' in 2000 concerned ineligible players turning out for Wales and Scotland - Wales also having question marks over other players' eligibility around that time. With the scandals and the potential of players being eligible to represent up to 10 nations if birth, residency and 8 grandparents all lead to different nations claiming a stake, question marks have been raised over the continued use of the grandparent rules.

There have been attempts from New Zealand to introduce a law similar the that in league allowing players to represent more than one nation during their career, but these have been quashed, largely due to the fears that wealthier unions like England and France would look to poach players from smaller nations like Scotland and Wales - the countries that benefit most from the current set up.

Another issue that has recently come more into focus is the 'next senior representative team'. For England that is clearly the Saxons, Ireland have the Wolfhounds, and other countries have the various 'A' teams - but not all countries do have a team at this level. For Wales, their next team could be seen as their Under 20s team. This has thrown up some question marks when players later in their career have looked to play for other countries, though maybe the word 'senior' in the eligibility rules has now put this to bed - I'm not sure.

Football
FIFA controls football's eligibility rules, although they aren't set out in as simple and straightforward a way as the sports already discussed:

Article 5

1. Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that country.
2. With the exception of the conditions specified in article 8 below, any player who has already participated in a match (either in full or in part) in an official competition of any category or any type of football for one Association may not play an international match for a representative team of another Association.

Article 6

1. A Player who is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play in an international match for one of these Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant
nationality, he fulfils at least one of the following conditions:
a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
d) He has lived continuously on the territory of the relevant Association for at least two years.

One curiosity immediately jumps out that applies to England - Associations (i.e. countries) sharing a common nationality (e.g. those in the UK) can amend part (d) of the above - just to complicate things!

Part (d) is also confused by the caveat of Article 7 that to acquire a new nationality, (a), (b) and (c) remain unchanged, but (d) becomes "He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association."

Providing all of the above is satisfied, a player can change which 'association' he plays for, but only in the following circumstances:

Article 8

1. If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams due to nationality, he may, only once, request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions:
a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an official competition at “A” international level for his current Association, and at the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match in an official competition for his current Association, he already had the nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play.
b) He is not permitted to play for his new Association in any competition in which he has already played for his previous Association.

2. If a Player who has been fielded by his Association in an international match in accordance with art. 5 par. 2 permanently loses the nationality of that country without his consent or against his will due to a decision by a government authority, he may request permission to play for another
Association whose nationality he already has or has acquired.
3. Any Player who has the right to change Associations in accordance with par. 1 and 2 above shall submit a written, substantiated request to the FIFA general secretariat. The Players’ Status Committee shall decide on the request. The procedure will be in accordance with the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Once the Player has filed his request, he is not eligible to play for any representative team until his request has been processed.

All very clear and not at all bureaucratic! One strength is it refers to a nations own laws of nationality - although this has brought about controversy with players previously becoming naturalised in a short space of time to a new country, that lead to the introduction of stronger five year rules in article 7, plus the written request rules of article 8.

As with other sports, the grandparent ruling, as well as the residency and naturalisation issues, has raised questions and controversy in football. I think the issue with football isn't necessarily a player getting a 'better offer' like in Rugby League, or lying about their eligibility like in Rugby Union. The issue for people is that so many national teams now are filled with players who weren't born in the country they play for, and these national teams are doing well - France in the late 90s, Germany since, for example. 

Cricket
The International Cricket Council (ICC) make the rules for cricket. I've left possibly the most complicated for last, so for a full picture follow the link, whilst I'll try and simplify things. The ICC, to their credit, cover both the male and female game specifically in their. I, to my undoubted discredit, will focus solely on the rules as they apply to men.

The parent / grandparent rule isn't included by the ICC in the rules, although a lot of countries allow someone born abroad take their parents nationality, which explains how Dirk Nannes played for Netherlands for example. The rules stipulate birth, nationality (possesses a passport. or through residency (residing in the country for 183 days in at least the four preceding years). There are additional development criteria for players looking to qualify through residency. 

A player can switch nations, but only if they satisfy all the qualificaiton criteria and haven't played in an intenrational match for another nation in the previous four years, unless they are moving up from an associate member (e.g. Ireland) to a full member (e.g. England). Players can only switch once, unless they revert back to the first nation they represented.

All this means no restrictions applied when Eoin Morgan moved from Ireland to England, but Kevin Pietersen had to satisfy further rules when he chose to play for England instead of South Africa.

The benefit of this system is the long term nature of what is required to represent another country. A serious commitment is undertaken. The drawback, as in other sports like Rugby League, is minor nations face difficulty in advancing - as soon as an Irish player shows good form in an ICC event or has a good county season, they most likely will get picked up by England.

The main controversy other eligibility in cricket has come from the amount of non-English born players representing England. For example, four of England's top five in the 2010 ICC World T20 final were born outside England and had qualified for the team, including player of the match and player of the tournament. The reliance of one nation on players who've chosen to play in their colours rather than been born to them could be criticised. 

Different countries earn different revenues and can offer different contracts to the players that represent them. Financial incentives can be a big draw in cricket. The West Indies Cricket Board have been in dispute with some of its players over the money they are paid, and not all national boards pay the same.

Summary
Team sports aren't the only area of sports where nationality, and switching of nationality, have been news worthy - athletics has a few stories to tell for example, but lets stick to what I know!

To gain British nationality, as well as passing other entrance criteria, if you aren't married to or in a civil partnership with a British citizen you need to have had five years legal residence in the UK. So, you can represent a British sports team before you can become a British citizen. Similar situations exist in other countries.

It seems strange to me that this is the case. Although the world is a more cosmopolitan and multinational place than in years gone by, surely pulling on a national shirt should mean something more than eligibility and a paycheck. We as fans don't want to see our sporting heroes as mercenaries switching allegiance to the highest bidder. To some extent we accept it with the club teams we support, but it's harder to do that with the national team.

So should the nationality rules of a country play a part? The problem with this is not all countries have the same rules or follow the same processes. It may mean those looking to represent a foreign country to their own will group to the same countries with the most lax nationality rules. This could create unfair situations.

Sports could group together. They could come up with a consistent set of rules that follow the same principles. I would like to see the additional qualification requirements seen in cricket be more widely applied. I think a true four or five year commitment to the sport in the country you want to represent shows dedication necessary. I would like to see a system where a player has to formally state that he is looking to qualify for a different nation than one he already qualifies for, rather than the national coach go looking for players who qualify for selection themselves. I would like to see limits on the amount of times players can switch nationality - the options in rugby league are too unrestricted that it could make a sham of international representative games, but football gives too little flexibility. Grandparentage also offers far too wide a choice and a chance of rule breaches. 

If all sports could take any one of the options presented, I'd say choose cricket's approach.

Managerial Merry-Go-Round

Pep Guardiola has really put the proverbial cat amongst them this week as it was confirmed that he'll be joining Bayern Munich for next season. This after the Catalan manager had cheekily proclaimed his dream to work in England, a dream he couldn't fulfill as a player but hopes to as a manager he says.  

Now Chelsea's plan, and maybe that of Manchester City, has been thrown into disarray. 

To be fair, if the Bayern deal was done before Christmas, the Blues' hierarchy probably knew the Pep dream was over for them, for now at least. A lot of their suddenly disillusioned fans had also realised Pep might not go for their club, who despite signing a very Barca style of player in recent times haven't done a lot to make a manager believe he'll get time to put his shape on things. Or choose who he signs. Or choose who he plays.  

The question they'll be asking is Who will they be able to get? 

You expect Ambramovic will want a big name with a history of success. But you have to ask who he hasn't already had and who he hasn't already put off the club. And who in a job at one of the top European clubs would want to leave what they have.

Well, there are obvious 'never going to happen' guys like Fergie and Wenger. Anchellotti won't be an option either, despite the success he has shown in his career - what's that Roman, he won you a league and a cup? Well, he can't be any good for you now can he. 

The time has probably now passed for others who've reportedly been in the frame in the past. Sven - not any more. Hiddink - doesn't seem to want to be Roman's full time fall guy. Harry - was that ever a real possibility? Frank Rijkaard - a forgotten manager, now coaching Saudi Arabia national team, doubt he's in the picture anymore at the top level. 

Roman might go for a talented young up and coming manager with a knowledge of English football...but then again, that will only lead to a Champions League victory and three points off the top of the league. 

No, I'm expecting him to look around the top clubs in Europe. So who are the options?

Jose Mourinho has been there before, has fallen out with Roman before. Now all his boys has left or are on the way out of the club. But the likelihood is he'll be available. He'll probably go back if he doesn't get another offer. His ego will want to go in and finish the job he left behind and win a Champions League with Chelsea. His stock may has fallen with his further antics including eye-gouging and upsetting the Real Madrid legend and club captain Iker Casillas.  

If Mourinho isn't available, this may mean another man has become available. Roberto Mancini probably needs to mount a comeback in the league to save his job after more Champions League disappointment this year. Even that might not be enough. If he gets the axe, Jose is the overwhelming favourite to succeed him with Pep in Munich now. 

Who else? Jurgen Klopp's stock has risen considerably with what he has done at Dortmund in the last few years. He may see more of the team he has built head off around Europe to bigger named clubs. That might encourage him to take on a 'new challenge'. The type of player Chelsea now have might well suit his style.  

In Italy, there is Andrea Stramaccioni at Inter and Massimiliano Allegri at AC. A bit of experience at clubs like that will potentially put them in the frame. Allegri has a league title under his belt and is in the process of making the Milan side younger. That might give him some assets Roman might like. Antonio Conte has done a great job in getting his Juventus team back in European contention and they almost unbeatable in Serie A. His team also knocked Chelsea out of Europe this season. Whether his defensive mind will be what Roman wants is questionable. Whether Conte would want to leave a club very close to his heart at this stage in his career is questionable too. Walter Mazzarri at Napoli may be ready for a new job, and his team gave Chelsea a big scare on the road to the 2012 Champions League final. 

An outsider I would throw into the mix is Manuel Pellegrini. He is going well at Malaga, who aren't afraid to splash the cash themselves, and he must be spending it well to be showing the progress in Europe they have. He has experience at a big club in Real Madrid and did a great job at Villarreal. 

Of course they could keep Rafa Benitez in place, but he hasn't got the support of the fans and can't win a game at home. He didn't help himself by not lifting the Club World Cup either.

As a Manchester United fan what I would want to happen is Klopp to Chelsea, Mourinho to Dortmund to resume battle with Guardiola for a few years, and then when Fergie hangs up his stopwatch and chewing gum in two or three years we'll have our choice of the two. And I think now Pep is off the market Klopp is a realistic shout for Chelsea, but I also think Jose will be at City next year, so my ideal won't come through, but it'll be interesting to watch it unfold.

2012 - A Good Class Gone Bad For The Steelers

People have been calling my Steelers an ageing team for what seems itself an age, so following the draft a little closer each year and looking at the contributions of our rookie signings has taken on more significance as age and injuries have started to show.

I have to say, I was very happy going in to training camp with what we had going on with the young players. I felt the team identified and addressed the needs as well as it had in recent times. Some had rated the draft as A grade or better. However, as we close out the season having already seen the Steelers on their holidays for a couple of weeks I can't help but feel underwhelmed - heck, even disappointed, with the 2012 rookie class.

Now I don't watch much college football, so I didn't know a great deal of what to expect other than what I read and YouTube clips... but lets go back to the start and look at the rookies that were signed for the 2012 season:

1st round (24th overall) - David DeCastro (Stanford) - Rated as the best guard prospect in the draft and no-one expected him to still be available when the Steelers were on the board, he was expected to start from the off and make the same sort of impact Maurkice Pouncey had a couple of years earlier.


2nd round (56th) - Mike Adams (Ohio State) - Considered a risk based on questionable character because of recreational drug offences, he was also considered a great talent and capable of shaping himself into being a starting tackle in the NFL. As a Pennsylvania kid and Steelers fan, there was good hope that the organisation could get he to grow out of his problems.

3rd round (86th) - Sean Spence (Miami, Fl.) - My impression was he was a little undersized but I was impressed by his speed. Middle linebacker depth was a useful thing to have with Larry Foote getting no younger, and he looked like a good special teams contributor whilst Dick LeBeau shapes him up.

 4th round (109th) - Alameda Ta'amu (Washington) - Some were surprised he was taken in the 3rd round, the Steelers gave up their 6th round pick to get him in the 4th. Nose tackle was clearly a position we needed a young guy to come in and develop as a potential replacement for Casey Hampton.

5th round (159th) - Chris Rainey (Florida) - Fast. His highlight reel was full of exciting breakaway plays. He would never be an every-down back, but an explosive 3rd down and dump off threat with potential to assist in the return game, he looked to me like a good fit as something the Steelers hadn't really had before, our Darren Sproles.

7th round (231st) - Toney Clemons (Colorado) - Wide receiver was a position with doubt hanging over it and depth needed at draft time, so a sensible choice was to find a receiver low down and see what they could do.

7th round (240th) - David Paulson (Oregon) - Possibly a better receiver than the back ups to Heath Miller we already had, needed work as a blocker but available to play straight away.

7th round (246th) - Terrence Frederick (Texas A&M) - Always good to have depth at corner back in the modern game with formation where many will be on the field at a time, so worth a look with William Gay leaving.

7th round (248th) - Kelvin Beachum (SMU) - With the O-line issues, no harm in picking up another rookie to give a chance to and could cover guard or tackle.

And, there were some undrafted rookies too. Punter Drew Butler (Georgia), full back Will Johnson (West Virginia), linebackers Marshall McFadden (South Carolina State) and Adrian Robinson (Temple), and safety Robert Golden (Arizona) made roster.

So...how did this A rated, needs-satisfying rookie class work out? Well, we know now that the season ended 8-8. We know we beat some tough teams and lost to some soft teams. I expected us to have a transition year with rookies getting more game time early on than maybe in years past. I wasn't sure we would get playoffs, but expected the team to have shown signs of moving on to the future of the team. I'm not sure that's what we got...

DeCastro's season was over before it got chance to begin, with his knee injury in the pre-season game against Buffalo restricting him to only 4 late season appearances. Obviously promise is still there, and he can't be blamed for his lack of impact, but his 2012 rookie year can't be considered a success.

Adams suffered from injuries limiting his practice time pre-season and restricting him during the season to only 10 games (6 starts), but when he was a starter the team performed well, notably in the running game. Adams rookie year was successful and he has definitely shown promise for the future.

Spence is another player who's season never started. Placed on injured reserve during the pre-season with a knee injury, he will essentially be a rookie next year. Hopefully his speed won't have been affected and he has been able to put some size and power in to his upper body.

Ta'amu is where the story starts to get even worse than just injury limited play. Not only did he not give himself the opportunity to get any snaps in the line-up, but a DUI offence in October was followed by him being temporarily off the roster through November before being picked up again for week 17. Hopefully he can sort himself out and show some promise, but I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't on the 53 man roster come September 2013.

Rainey could be seen as the defining point on this rookie class and this rebuilding season. Released on 10 January shortly after being arrested for battery on his girlfriend, Rainey is now gone from the Steelers and we can't expect to see him back in black and gold. Not that we saw much of him anyway. On offence he was disappointing really. He famed speed coming out of college only saw a long of 19 on 26 rushing attempts where he averaged 3.9 per carry. In the passing game I expected him to make some splash plays coming out of the backfield, but a long of 14 and an average of 4.3 yards on 14 receptions showed this guy didn't cut it in his rookie year and deserved the cut he got. In the kick return game he was at least contributing with over 1000 yards and an average of 26.5 per attempt, but as consistent as he was at getting it to the 30, he never broke a long one and didn't put up any special teams points. Very disappointing, and now departed.

Clemons made no impact at the Steelers, spending time on the practice squad before being picked up by the Jaguars and playing in four games, making three catches. An unsuccessful pick.

Paulson actually beat out the other back ups to be the second TE on the depth chart come the season start. He played in every game and made 7 grabs, also contributing a little on special teams. He looks more of a receiving tight end, blocking still needs work, and he isn't going to be able to step up if Miller misses game time next year unless he shows rapid development in the off-season. Not a failure, but not really a success either and not destined for great things I fear.

Frederick never made it to the season start for the Steelers. Waived, he was picked up on the Giants practice squad and eventually played a couple of games for them. I forgot he existed until I started researching this blog post.


Beachum played a lot more than expected. Five starts at tackle showed potential. I think he is undersized for a tackle and will see himself play more as a guard in coming years. He even has the possibility of putting himself in the frame for a starting role in 2013. With Adams, Beachum would be considered the other relative success of the draft class, but he isn't the finished product yet.

Of the undrafted guys, Butler had a reasonable year after beating out Kapinos in training camp. A third of his kicks were into the 20 and he only gave up 6 touchbacks, but my abiding memory from him this year will be that blocked punt in the upset loss to Tennessee. 

Will Johnson was a player that impressed me at full back. Full backs aren't expected to run the ball much these days, but he did a good job in blocking and showed some ability in the receiving game. I was happy to have a full back that wasn't just a body to block and I hope he continues to play and develop. 

Golden got some playing time and made a few tackles. Robinson was in on 12 games but didn't trouble the statisticians and Marshall got 1 tackle in 1 game. The roster fillers like these guys didn't do anything wrong, but none really stood up for the team to take notice of.

Overall, the rookie class disappointed me even more than the season outcome, because I at least wanted to see the buds of transition from an ageing squad to our next Super Bowl unit. Promise and potential in the offensive line is one of the few bright sparks from this rookie class. That is the only area where last years needs were really satisfied by the draft. We still need some emerging depth at receiver and a legitimate all around tight end. We still need a new nose tackle and young outside line backers to grow into our defense. Safety depth isn't convincing either. Add to that, we'll be looking for a running back and a splash play return threat.

Why cycling?

Gold medal winner Nicole Cooke retired from cycling today and went with a parting shot to the drug addled sport she's leaving behind, and a promise to help bring any and all cheats she competed against to justice.

A question it raised in my mind was - Why cycling? Why have so many competitors doped themselves up? Why has this sport become the biggest headline maker in the world of doping? And if this is so pandemic in cycling, how much of it is going on in other sports?

Don't be misunderstood, I'm not ignorant to the high profile cases across sport. Athletics has had its share of big names fall as drug cheats - Marion Jones and Ben Johnson for example. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemons and Mark McGwire are a few of the big names in baseball to come out and admit to using performance enhancing drugs. In the NFL there are countless examples of players receiving short-term bans for using banned steroid substances.Terry Newton is a famous and tragic example from Rugby League. In other sports there have been accusations and innuendo. But no sport has had the same success in getting doping in the headlines as cycling.

To my mind, there are far more financially rewarding sports than cycling. There are sports where muscle growth and physicality are more required. There are sports where recovery might be harsher or competition might be more brutal. There are sports that take a more lenient view on the issue and where one drugs ban wouldn't end your legacy. So why cycling?

Terry Newton explained how it was the pain climbing his stairs after pre-season training as he moved into his 30s that pushed him to dope - the constant wear and tear on his body that a high impact contract sport can cause meaning he needed that extra push to get himself through. The same sort of problems are faced by American Football players. The amount of work you need to do to get yourself in shape combined with the hits you have to get over make players think they need something to help them out. I get that cycling and athletics competitors will benefit from that extra boost to their training capabilities, but I don't feel they have the same motivation in this regard as rugby or gridiron players.

As for money - why haven't we heard of golfers doping? Surely the financial incentive to get an edge would be greater. Rumours about Nadal exist, and Agassi had a doping question over him for a while, but generally tennis isn't questioned. Boxers at the top level can earn as much for one fight as some sportsmen earn in a year, or even a career, but you don't get much talk about doping. The top footballers can earn a million euros a month, but no one is suggesting Messi, Ronaldo or Van Persie are doping. I understand that the sport has gained a higher profile and sponsorship earnings began to soar in cycling in the last 20 years, but it isn't the highest earning sport.

The punishments are quite severe too. Serious bans are given out. Cyclists compete in the more stringent environment of Olympic Games so are more likely to be found out. It's not like the NFL where the league runs the show, can hide what they want to and only have to give four game bans to players anyway. Cyclists can get two year bans or worse, they can have medals stripped and reputations ruined.

So, it's not the richest or most popular spectator sport, it isn't the most physical sport, and the punishments are severe. So why do cyclists seem to dope so much more than other sports?

I don't subscribe to the Lance the Kingpin theory. It can't just be one man, one star ego, that took a whole sport with him. I also feel the 'everyone's doing it so you have to as well' argument carries little weight, because everyone would be doing it in every sport and we would have legalised it if that was the case - pharmaceutical companies would love the chance to make bigger profits from selling stuff to amateurs. 

My fear is cyclists aren't doping more than the rest. My fear is it goes on in all sports. My fear is we're paying our hard earned money to enjoy the achievements of the heroes we idolise, and they're earning a pretty penny from it, and we're being duped. We aren't watching what one athlete is able to do, it's what they are willing to do. And cycling as a minority sport is the tip of the iceberg...at least that's my fear. I'm afraid that we'll no longer be able to trust what we see, to believe the edge a sportsman or sports team has is through hard work and exploiting everything they have within their power, within the rules, within themselves.