'The Jump' is Channel 4's 8pm reality show which pits celebrities against each other in events that will be at the competed at the Sochi Winter Olympics. The bottom two in the event each day then must face off on the dreaded 'Jump', the real name for the even is the ski jump.
The ratings were strong a the start of the series with 2.6 million viewers. However, as it continued less and less people watched with ratings dropping to 1.84 million viewers last night.
There was significant hype around after the success of the original 'The Games'. This had the same concept, but with Summer Olympic events used. Sadly the drop in numbers demonstrate that the show has not got it right this time around.
The problem is that the whole show is based around 'The Jump'. The issue is how embarrassingly tame the actuality of the jump. With all the other events they are near enough to the actual event that there is excitement. Disappointingly these are all pre recorded so it lacks the real time buzz that comes with live sport, like they had on 'The Games'.
The ski jump is meant to be the big finale with the fear of the height mixed in with the skill of landing a big jump creating outstanding entertainment. The problem is that the celebrities are too scared to go off any real height. There's only one way to describe the attempts off the small jump, lame.
The set up is strange as Davina McCall tries to make conversation with celebrities who, for some reason, are far too nervous of 'The Jump' to offer insight into the event. If they do offer any, McCall is told to move on as soon as possible. With the celebrities getting less and less more awkward conversations are going to continue.
What should have happened is that they all do all the events, with no jump elimination, and 'The Jump' being the final event. There could even offer more points for said event.
I have lost interested sadly, after expecting so much. I am sure there are more like me hoping if they do try again to get back to the sport rather than the tedious nonsensical chatter.
Thursday, 30 January 2014
Monday, 27 January 2014
Is bigger always better (Part 2 Football)?
Following on from my previous blog I will now look at whether being bigger is an advantage in professional football.
When looking at arguably the two best players in the world. I say arguably but I would like to see someone to try and disagree with me that Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo have been the best two players in the world. Yet, there physical stature could not be more different.
Messi at 5 feet 7 and weighs 67 kilograms can be considered as diminutive. Ronaldo at 6 feet 1, 84 kg is literally head and shoulders above Messi and others. There is, however, little difference in overall ability.
Unlike other sports, to play in positions there is often a specific body type needed to excel. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but generally speaking certain positions require certain physiques.
Using a traditional four - four - two formation I will set out the ideal body types for each position and give an example of a player matching this type. It demonstrates that being the right size is the most important factor, rather than necessarily being bigger:
GK
6ft 4
David Seaman
5ft 9 6ft 6ft 4 5ft 9
ST ST
As a goalkeeper you have to be able to deal with crosses that come in so a physical presence is crucial. You must also have the agility to deal with quick, low shots but be tall enough to reach shots in the top corner. At 6 feet 4 inches I feel that David Seaman's size gives him the perfect frame for what is needed.
At 5ft 9 Cafu and Ashley Cole have the necessary stature to be quick across the ground, maintain this explosive pace up and down for 90 minutes and have enough height to be an aerial presence if called upon. With the main aim of a full back to stop the ball coming in to start with have quick acceleration is crucial something that Cafu and Cole are able to do with ease.
The spine of the team throughout have size differences between the pairs. Starting with the centre backs, they need to compliment each other. With Thiago Silva you have someone who is still tall enough to challenge physically with the world's strikers but have the pace and to match them as well. The word sweeper best describes this role, while as the phrase ball winner best describes Tony Adams. At 6ft 4 few are able to compete with the former Arsenal man in the air. He is still not too tall that his movement is heavily restricted.
In centre midfield, for this formation, the type of players needed are a creative player and someone more combative. Yaya Toure at 6ft 3 loses little in the air, he is also able to build up serious speed through the middle when his long legs get going and is as strong as an ox. At 5ft 10 Andrea Pirlo can put up a fight in the air but his main role is to quick sharp movements that can get the ball moving, but still be physically tough enough for the midfield battle.
Up front the little and large combination is the ideal match for a 4-4-2 formation. What is needed is someone to compete for headers so Van Persie is a good height to do this. People may decide that the striker needs to be at the same height of the tallest defender but Van Persie is tall enough to compete but still quick enough to shrug off the centre back and lose his man. That same philosophy of losing his man especially applies to role Michael Owen plays in using his acceleration to get in behind the defence.
With the 4-4-2 formation it is crucial that wide players are able work up and down and so there defensive duties are crucial. Being at 6ft David Beckham and Gareth Bale can offer defensive duties as well as offer an attacking threat aerially. They also have the change of pace to take on their man.
This formation, however, is becoming redundant with the versatility of the 4-2-3-1 being preferred. With the backline and centre midfielders similar and the attacking three versatile in physique the difficulty is choosing the right player to play the lone striker.
Van Persie is the type of forward who could lead the line where as Owen would struggle. Does this spell the end for the role of the poacher?
Watching Tottenham Hotspurs play this formation with Roberto Soldado up front has seen them lack any real cutting edge and it wasn't until they brought in the physicality of Emmanuel Adebayor have they turn their fortunes.
Another example that the fox in the box style striker is becoming obsolete is Javier Hernandez at Manchester United. He has not featured as much with the preference of the 4-2-3-1 under David Moyes. He is not able to compete with opponent defenders as easily as other, taller strikers and the only team able to play without a striker who can help link up the play is Barcelona.
So it is not necessarily how big you are it is about whether your size fits the role you are playing in your side.
When looking at arguably the two best players in the world. I say arguably but I would like to see someone to try and disagree with me that Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo have been the best two players in the world. Yet, there physical stature could not be more different.
Messi at 5 feet 7 and weighs 67 kilograms can be considered as diminutive. Ronaldo at 6 feet 1, 84 kg is literally head and shoulders above Messi and others. There is, however, little difference in overall ability.
Unlike other sports, to play in positions there is often a specific body type needed to excel. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but generally speaking certain positions require certain physiques.
Using a traditional four - four - two formation I will set out the ideal body types for each position and give an example of a player matching this type. It demonstrates that being the right size is the most important factor, rather than necessarily being bigger:
GK
6ft 4
David Seaman
RB CB CB LB
Cafu Thiago
Silva Tony
Adams Ashley Cole5ft 9 6ft 6ft 4 5ft 9
RM CM CM LM
David Beckham Yaya
Toure Andrea Pirlo Gareth
Bale
6ft 6ft 3 5ft 10 6ft
ST ST
Michael
Owen Robin Van Persie
5ft 8 6ft 2
As a goalkeeper you have to be able to deal with crosses that come in so a physical presence is crucial. You must also have the agility to deal with quick, low shots but be tall enough to reach shots in the top corner. At 6 feet 4 inches I feel that David Seaman's size gives him the perfect frame for what is needed.
At 5ft 9 Cafu and Ashley Cole have the necessary stature to be quick across the ground, maintain this explosive pace up and down for 90 minutes and have enough height to be an aerial presence if called upon. With the main aim of a full back to stop the ball coming in to start with have quick acceleration is crucial something that Cafu and Cole are able to do with ease.
The spine of the team throughout have size differences between the pairs. Starting with the centre backs, they need to compliment each other. With Thiago Silva you have someone who is still tall enough to challenge physically with the world's strikers but have the pace and to match them as well. The word sweeper best describes this role, while as the phrase ball winner best describes Tony Adams. At 6ft 4 few are able to compete with the former Arsenal man in the air. He is still not too tall that his movement is heavily restricted.
In centre midfield, for this formation, the type of players needed are a creative player and someone more combative. Yaya Toure at 6ft 3 loses little in the air, he is also able to build up serious speed through the middle when his long legs get going and is as strong as an ox. At 5ft 10 Andrea Pirlo can put up a fight in the air but his main role is to quick sharp movements that can get the ball moving, but still be physically tough enough for the midfield battle.
Up front the little and large combination is the ideal match for a 4-4-2 formation. What is needed is someone to compete for headers so Van Persie is a good height to do this. People may decide that the striker needs to be at the same height of the tallest defender but Van Persie is tall enough to compete but still quick enough to shrug off the centre back and lose his man. That same philosophy of losing his man especially applies to role Michael Owen plays in using his acceleration to get in behind the defence.
With the 4-4-2 formation it is crucial that wide players are able work up and down and so there defensive duties are crucial. Being at 6ft David Beckham and Gareth Bale can offer defensive duties as well as offer an attacking threat aerially. They also have the change of pace to take on their man.
This formation, however, is becoming redundant with the versatility of the 4-2-3-1 being preferred. With the backline and centre midfielders similar and the attacking three versatile in physique the difficulty is choosing the right player to play the lone striker.
Van Persie is the type of forward who could lead the line where as Owen would struggle. Does this spell the end for the role of the poacher?
Watching Tottenham Hotspurs play this formation with Roberto Soldado up front has seen them lack any real cutting edge and it wasn't until they brought in the physicality of Emmanuel Adebayor have they turn their fortunes.
Another example that the fox in the box style striker is becoming obsolete is Javier Hernandez at Manchester United. He has not featured as much with the preference of the 4-2-3-1 under David Moyes. He is not able to compete with opponent defenders as easily as other, taller strikers and the only team able to play without a striker who can help link up the play is Barcelona.
So it is not necessarily how big you are it is about whether your size fits the role you are playing in your side.
Friday, 24 January 2014
Is bigger always better (Part 1: Rugby)?
As humans we are getting progressively bigger, faster and stronger. This reflects in the sportsmen and women competing at the elite level. Being physically superior nowadays seems to be the way forward. Could the days of brain over brawn be over and the survival of the fittest has been won by brawn? Does this preferance to size worsen the standard of play? I look at three sports (focussing on the male teams) to see whether or not this is the case.
Rugby
I am starting off with possibly the best example of brawn over brain. Yes there are players who can be considered as both but I am looking at the general desire to choose a bigger consistent player rather than a smaller more creative player. I feel that Shane Williams was the last of his breed, never again will see a 5 feet 7 man light up the International stage like Williams.
A perfect example of this increasing phenomenom comes from Tom Fordyce's blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2012/03/land_of_the_rugby_giants.html. Where he looks at the astonishing growth in the size of players.
He demonstrates with the increase in the average weight and height of the English rugby team:
1962: 85.7kg, 1.80 m
1972: 90.7kg, 1.85 m
1982: 89.9kg, 1.82 m
1992: 96.8kg, 1.85m
2002: 101.9kg, 1.86m
2012: 104kg, 1.88m
If you went into more detail you will find that this is a growing trend all over rugby. This shows that brawn is a necessity for a player to make selection nowadays. Does this mean that the preference of size limits the emphasis on intelligent moves to win games? Does it just create a battle of attrition with the best kicker deciding who comes out on top?
Sadly in the Northern Hemisphere this is true. There has been a gradual slump in the Aviva Premiership of the total tries scored by the season's top scorer. The most telling statistic comes from the RBS 6 Nations (according to IRB Game Analysis):
Year Average try per game Total tries
2000 5.0 75
2006 4.1 61
2012 3.1 46
These telling figures demonstrate that there is concern in the lack of invention from teams. There seems to be a preference to break down teams through power rather than guile.
The fear of failure has lead to a fear of expression and has lead to point accumulation being far more important than try scoring.
I have a proposition to increase the amount of tries at professional level, because at Amateur level this tends not to be an issue. This proposition is to increase the amount points given for a try. Obvious I know but it would have a positive reaction.
There is also a case for ridding scrums in order have more time with the ball in open play and thus more chance to score tries. More time with the ball in open play can only be a positive surely?
The downside is that this would get rid of the conventional front and second row player. They would be replaced by a number of flankers and centres.
This would turn Rugby Union into a very similar game to Rugby League. It would also not necessarily increase the technical standard, but merely the game speed and thus it is not likely to drastically improve the amout of tries scored.
Mavericks such as Frederic Michalak and Stuart Barnes are being slowly but surely ousted out of the games in preference of more consistent players. Brawn does not mean better in Rugby Union but it is certainly the pattern that teams are going to take in the forseeable future.
Rugby
I am starting off with possibly the best example of brawn over brain. Yes there are players who can be considered as both but I am looking at the general desire to choose a bigger consistent player rather than a smaller more creative player. I feel that Shane Williams was the last of his breed, never again will see a 5 feet 7 man light up the International stage like Williams.
A perfect example of this increasing phenomenom comes from Tom Fordyce's blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2012/03/land_of_the_rugby_giants.html. Where he looks at the astonishing growth in the size of players.
He demonstrates with the increase in the average weight and height of the English rugby team:
1962: 85.7kg, 1.80 m
1972: 90.7kg, 1.85 m
1982: 89.9kg, 1.82 m
1992: 96.8kg, 1.85m
2002: 101.9kg, 1.86m
2012: 104kg, 1.88m
If you went into more detail you will find that this is a growing trend all over rugby. This shows that brawn is a necessity for a player to make selection nowadays. Does this mean that the preference of size limits the emphasis on intelligent moves to win games? Does it just create a battle of attrition with the best kicker deciding who comes out on top?
Sadly in the Northern Hemisphere this is true. There has been a gradual slump in the Aviva Premiership of the total tries scored by the season's top scorer. The most telling statistic comes from the RBS 6 Nations (according to IRB Game Analysis):
Year Average try per game Total tries
2000 5.0 75
2006 4.1 61
2012 3.1 46
These telling figures demonstrate that there is concern in the lack of invention from teams. There seems to be a preference to break down teams through power rather than guile.
The fear of failure has lead to a fear of expression and has lead to point accumulation being far more important than try scoring.
I have a proposition to increase the amount of tries at professional level, because at Amateur level this tends not to be an issue. This proposition is to increase the amount points given for a try. Obvious I know but it would have a positive reaction.
There is also a case for ridding scrums in order have more time with the ball in open play and thus more chance to score tries. More time with the ball in open play can only be a positive surely?
The downside is that this would get rid of the conventional front and second row player. They would be replaced by a number of flankers and centres.
This would turn Rugby Union into a very similar game to Rugby League. It would also not necessarily increase the technical standard, but merely the game speed and thus it is not likely to drastically improve the amout of tries scored.
Mavericks such as Frederic Michalak and Stuart Barnes are being slowly but surely ousted out of the games in preference of more consistent players. Brawn does not mean better in Rugby Union but it is certainly the pattern that teams are going to take in the forseeable future.
Thursday, 23 January 2014
Does Fantasy Ruin Reality?
In most sports nowadays ranging from Basketball to Rugby Union anyone can create their own fantasy league team, compete against friends and show their credentials as managers. This brings enjoyment to all those who are successful and despair to those struggling.
The concept is a great own because, unlike manager simulation games which to play against one another is incredibly impractical, it is easy to see who is a better manager (to some extent). Though it can ruin the enjoyment of reality.
I am talking about wanting a player to succeed from a rival team, just so you can earn a few extra fantasy points. For example my fantasy football team I play using the Barclays premier league website has 3 Manchester City players in it. Every time City play I want them to lose but as long as the players I have gain points. This means desiring ridiculous score lines that have no real chance of happening.
This sees me supporting players I do not want to succeed and puts me in a weird position in celebrating goals that I really shouldn't and waiting with anxiety as to whether my defender has claimed a clean sheet for a team one point ahead of the team I support.
The counter argument is that it does provide excitement to games that you would otherwise completely ignore. This also exposes people to different players and to teams that they would otherwise have ignored. It also makes people more knowledgeable of players and thus a better, less biased view on the sport.
This is all well but it does not retract from that awkward moment when as a Fulham fan you celebrate a Eden Hazard goal or as a Pittsburgh Steelers fans you hope that Sebastian Janikowski can make a last minute field goal. Also, no matter how knowledgeable you are about a sport bias will always remain and be a strong part of your opinion.
A friend of mine refuses to do this because he feels that it ruins games. I can see why he believes in this and can definitely see positives behind it. I am tempted not to play fantasy football next year (not just because I am struggling in my leagues) for this reason, yet the games appeal out weighs the negatives.
To get the same enjoyment from non event matches I would need to start gambling and that's something I personally do not want to get into. So I will be cheering on Norwich at home to Aston Villa or hoping that Fulham and Everton can either give me a 0-0 or Steve Sidwell scores more than anyone else this season.
The concept is a great own because, unlike manager simulation games which to play against one another is incredibly impractical, it is easy to see who is a better manager (to some extent). Though it can ruin the enjoyment of reality.
I am talking about wanting a player to succeed from a rival team, just so you can earn a few extra fantasy points. For example my fantasy football team I play using the Barclays premier league website has 3 Manchester City players in it. Every time City play I want them to lose but as long as the players I have gain points. This means desiring ridiculous score lines that have no real chance of happening.
This sees me supporting players I do not want to succeed and puts me in a weird position in celebrating goals that I really shouldn't and waiting with anxiety as to whether my defender has claimed a clean sheet for a team one point ahead of the team I support.
The counter argument is that it does provide excitement to games that you would otherwise completely ignore. This also exposes people to different players and to teams that they would otherwise have ignored. It also makes people more knowledgeable of players and thus a better, less biased view on the sport.
This is all well but it does not retract from that awkward moment when as a Fulham fan you celebrate a Eden Hazard goal or as a Pittsburgh Steelers fans you hope that Sebastian Janikowski can make a last minute field goal. Also, no matter how knowledgeable you are about a sport bias will always remain and be a strong part of your opinion.
A friend of mine refuses to do this because he feels that it ruins games. I can see why he believes in this and can definitely see positives behind it. I am tempted not to play fantasy football next year (not just because I am struggling in my leagues) for this reason, yet the games appeal out weighs the negatives.
To get the same enjoyment from non event matches I would need to start gambling and that's something I personally do not want to get into. So I will be cheering on Norwich at home to Aston Villa or hoping that Fulham and Everton can either give me a 0-0 or Steve Sidwell scores more than anyone else this season.
Too many cooks spoil the broth
With Juan Mata looking destined to join Manchester United there is a lot of speculation as to how will he fit into a full strength United side. A player who for the past two years had been Chelsea's player of the season could was ousted by the former young pretender turn star Oscar, but will Mata's proposed move bring success or will it be more bench time for the Spanish international.
Mata has looked a shadow of himself when pushed out wide for Chelsea this season. The same can be said for United's former Bundesliga player of the year Shinji Kagawa. Manchester United's manager David Moyes seems reluctant to play Kagawa there preferring almost every other option. This could not only spell the end for a player who was pivotal to the success of Borussia Dortmund but also see Mata replace him in a wide role on the left.
Unfortunately for him, with the ever improving Adnan Januzaj proving a revelation and Moyes' consistent desire to play Valencia, Mata's lack of form playing wide may see him fall out of favour there and have to fight for the number 10 role with club legend Wayne Rooney
People will suggest that the United first choice front for will look like this:
Van Persie
Mata Rooney Januzaj
However, only two out of the four are playing in their most effective positions. When Mata has played this season he has underperformed when placed out wide.
Obviously strength in depth is key to any side and having an abundance of attacking options can not be seen as a bad thing but there is also many negative impacts of this. For one, players vying for a starting role will need to make sure they perform or fear being dropped. This fear can drive better performances but can also see players afraid to express themselves and when they do get a chance lack match sharpness, for example Javier Hernandez at the moment.
So instead of adding to an already populated position in the United squad, Moyes should have looked to improve areas where United have looked the most vulnerable, across back four and in centre midfield. There is not enough quality in this area, whereas in attacking positions there are too many options, not enough consistency and because of this they have underperformed this year.
Only time, and a signed contract, will tell whether it will be a success story, but what it has done is made the shelf life of a number of players considerably shorter.
Mata has looked a shadow of himself when pushed out wide for Chelsea this season. The same can be said for United's former Bundesliga player of the year Shinji Kagawa. Manchester United's manager David Moyes seems reluctant to play Kagawa there preferring almost every other option. This could not only spell the end for a player who was pivotal to the success of Borussia Dortmund but also see Mata replace him in a wide role on the left.
Unfortunately for him, with the ever improving Adnan Januzaj proving a revelation and Moyes' consistent desire to play Valencia, Mata's lack of form playing wide may see him fall out of favour there and have to fight for the number 10 role with club legend Wayne Rooney
People will suggest that the United first choice front for will look like this:
Van Persie
Mata Rooney Januzaj
However, only two out of the four are playing in their most effective positions. When Mata has played this season he has underperformed when placed out wide.
Obviously strength in depth is key to any side and having an abundance of attacking options can not be seen as a bad thing but there is also many negative impacts of this. For one, players vying for a starting role will need to make sure they perform or fear being dropped. This fear can drive better performances but can also see players afraid to express themselves and when they do get a chance lack match sharpness, for example Javier Hernandez at the moment.
So instead of adding to an already populated position in the United squad, Moyes should have looked to improve areas where United have looked the most vulnerable, across back four and in centre midfield. There is not enough quality in this area, whereas in attacking positions there are too many options, not enough consistency and because of this they have underperformed this year.
Only time, and a signed contract, will tell whether it will be a success story, but what it has done is made the shelf life of a number of players considerably shorter.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)