Well kids, we've reached the penultimate stage of the Women's World Cup. Three of the four nations that have won the tournament (who are ranked 1st, 2nd and 4th in the world) are left, along with an English team that spoiled Canadian hopes.
Of course, Shania Twain decides to go back on tour and play Madison Square Garden the same night as the World Cup semifinal between the United States and Germany. I guess that's why DVRs were invented. It is kind of funny, though, that I've been so into this tournament, yet I won't be able to watch the most important game so far live (and with the Yankees on the West Coast, I'll be lucky if I watch it before the Japan-England game).
Anyway, when the groups were announced, this was the semifinal matchup everyone was hoping to see. The top two teams in the world, the only two to have won the World Cup twice, with the winner earning a shot to (likely) avenge its loss to Japan in 2011. And I think whoever comes out of this game WILL win the World Cup, while the loser will still be on the podium with the bronze.
So who wins? Well, Germany has been arguably the best offensive team in the tournament, while the U.S. has been the best defensive team by far. Hope Solo's had four consecutive shutouts, and when's the last time a team even had a decent scoring chance against the U.S.? That's why people's flipping out over the "lack of offense" has been driving me so nuts! If they don't give up any, does it make a difference if they only get one? They've still gotten to the semifinals, just as expected, so clearly something they've been doing has been working.
With that being said, the Americans will have to play their best game of the tournament in this one. You can't expect the shutout streak to continue for 90 (or 120) minutes against such a potent offense, and you know that you obviously don't want to go to penalty kicks against the Germans, either. So, yes, that means the offense will have to step up and find a way to get two by Angerer, which I think is possible.
The U.S. played its best game of the tournament against China, and they did it without Lauren Holiday, Megan Rapione or Abby Wambach (I'm not counting Wambach's token appearance with five minutes left in the game). That has to give everybody else a huge boost of confidence heading into the semifinals, especially with the two starting midfielders returning after their yellow card suspensions.
Meanwhile, Germany was lucky to survive against France, getting that late penalty kick to tie it before winning in penalties. (That was the game of the tournament for a day until England-Canada.) They showed incredible fight in that game, proving why they're the best team in the world. It also benefits the Germans that their quarterfinal game was in Montreal. The U.S. is only coming from Ottawa, which is 90 minutes away, but Germany didn't have to travel and has already played in the cavernous 65,000-seat stadium. They handled the hostile environment when Olympic Stadium was filled with French fans, so a bunch of flag-waving, red, white and blue-wearing Americans won't faze them either.
Germany will be the team that finally gets a goal against Hope Solo. They're just too strong offensively. But, all those German goals have to be viewed with a grain of salt. They really all came in three games, against Ivory Coast, Thailand and Sweden. Norway and France, the two best teams they've faced, each played them to a 1-1 draw. The Americans, obviously, are more in the Norway-France league than the Ivory Coast-Thailand league. And the opposition the U.S. has faced has been much stronger overall.
This is the fourth time that the United States and Germany are meeting in the Women's World Cup. The Americans have won two of the previous three meetings, but Germany won the last one, in this round in 2003 when the U.S. was defending its title. That loss was on home soil in Portland. This American team traveled North of the Border for one reason. They're finding their groove at just the right time, and they know that they have to bring their A-games to Montreal for Germany. Playing Germany in the World Cup semifinals will be enough. Playing on the 4th of July is the last thing they want to do. They want to get even with Japan for last time. But they've got to get through Germany first, which I think they will. Goals from Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe give the U.S. a 2-1 victory.
In the other semi, we've got Japan taking on England. England spoiled the home crowd's planned Canada Day party by knocking off Canada in that highly entertaining quarterfinal game. They're the only team left in the tournament that has a loss (to France in the opening game), but the English believe they can win the World Cup, even with three of the top four teams in the world taking the other semifinal spots. They've been very impressive in their knockout-round wins over Norway and Canada, but Japan will be a much different task.
Japan is the only one of the four that has won each of its games in Canada. In my opinion, they've been the best team in the tournament, but as the announcers correctly pointed out during their quarterfinal win over Australia, each of Japan's wins has been by one goal. There's two ways to interpret that. The easiest way is to give them credit for finding a way to win all those close games (they held a 1-0 lead for a long time against Ecuador and didn't score until late against Australia). But it could also mean that you're exploiting one Japanese mistake away from beating them.
England was the last team to beat Japan in the Women's World Cup, during group play four years ago. I don't see history repeating itself, though. The Japanese will get a chance to defend their title. As for the score. I smell another one-goal victory. I'm thinking 2-1, setting up a rematch of the 2011 final against the United States.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Going for the Serena Slam
As we enter Wimbledon, which this year for the first time is starting three weeks after the French Open instead of two, there's one overriding story line. With that gutsy performance in Paris, Serena Williams won her third straight Grand Slam title. So, should she win Wimbledon, she'll be the reigning champion at all four, completing the second "Serena Slam" of her career.
Right after the French Open, the talk almost immediately turned to Serena and whether or not a Wimbledon victory would constitute a Grand Slam. A lot of people have argued "No," insisting that it can only be a Grand Slam if it's achieved in a calendar year. I say why should that make a difference? Winning all four in a row is a Grand Slam, no matter what order you do it in. Is it any less of an accomplishment to start with the U.S. Open and end with Wimbledon?
I understand that when the term "Grand Slam" was coined, it was because Don Budge won all four in the same year in 1938, and you're only technically considered to do it if it's in the same year. When Serena did it the first time, she started at Wimbledon in 2002 and ended at the 2003 French Open. Since it was two in one year and two in the next, it was dubbed the "Serena Slam" instead, which is also what we'll call it this time. Meanwhile, Serena's friend Martina Navratilova never won the "Grand Slam" either, despite winning SIX consecutive Grand Slam titles in 1983-84 (three each year when the Australian Open was played in December instead of January, although she cost herself a chance at a calendar year Grand Slam when her 70-match winning streak was snapped in the 1984 Australian Open semifinals).
My point is that it doesn't really matter what we call it. It'll be a pretty damn impressive feat if Serena Williams wins her fourth straight Grand Slam title at Wimbledon, where she'll be the heavy favorite. And if she does, it really won't matter. Because if she wins Wimbledon, she's winning the U.S. Open. There's no doubt in my mind.
Her 2014-15 Serena Slam and 2015 Grand Slam are most at risk here. Serena's last Grand Slam loss, after all, was here a year ago, when she was upset by Alize Cornet in the third round, and she lost in round of 16 to Sabine Lisicki in 2013. In fact, you have to go back to the 2012 Olympic gold medal match to find Serena's last championship moment on Centre Court.
The biggest contender for the ladies' title who doesn't have the last name Williams has got to be defending champion Petra Kvitova, who's seeded second. If any other woman is going to win this championship, Kvitova would be my choice. I see her in the finals against Serena, but not standing in the way of history.
Others to watch out for include Venus Williams, who could end up meeting Little Sister in a must-see round of 16 match. Maria Sharapova, of course, is a former Wimbledon champion, while Lucie Safarova beat her at the French en route to the finals. I actually like Vika Azarenka to make a deep run too, although she'll run into Serena in the quarters. Caroline Wozniacki is in a pretty tough section of the draw. Third-seeded Simona Halep was a semifinalist last year, but I really like the two Germans in that part of the draw, Angelique Kerber and Sabine Lisicki. Another fun little side note is that their could be a rematch of last year's final between Kvitova and Genie Bouchard in the quarters.
We were also expecting Novak Djokovic to be halfway to a Grand Slam right now, too, but, after doing the World a favor and knocking Rafael Nadal out of the French Open, he was upset in the finals by Stan Wawrinka. This is Wawrinka's weakest Slam, though, so I don't expect him to be a challenger. But that doesn't mean a Swiss guy won't be among the favorites. At this point in his career, I think we can all agree that this is Roger's best (perhaps only) to lift another Grand Slam trophy.
Roger's Grand Slam foil, Tomas Berdych, is hanging around in his quarter, though, and the winner of that one gets the survivor of Murray-Nadal. After letting somebody else win the French Open for a change, Nadal's ranking is the lowest it's been in years, and he's seeded 10th here. However, he caught a break with the draw, staying away from the other three until the quarters (a round of 16 meeting was possible). David Ferrer was the highest seed in Nadal's section of the draw, but he withdrew today, so 10th-seeded Nadal has become the high seed in that section.
Nadal has two Wimbledon titles, but he's also become notorious for losing early here. With the draw he has, I don't see it happening this year. Murray, meanwhile, has to play Tsonga before the potential Nadal matchup, and I think that can go either way. I do have Murray winning, though, and beating Nadal to get back to the semis. I'd just automatically pencil Roger opposite him if he wasn't playing Berdych, who has his number in Grand Slams. In the Murray-Berdych semi, I've got the hometown hero advancing to the final Sunday one more time.
Fun fact: Andy Murray has only ever played Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic in Grand Slam finals (kinda like how Andy Roddick only won one Grand Slam title because he always played Federer in the finals). Since he can't play Roger, I guess that means defending champion Djokovic, who beat Roger in that classic final last year, will meet Murray in the finals. I don't see any issues for Djokovic early in the tournament. He gets the chance to avenge his U.S. Open loss to Kei Nishikori (provided he wins the rematch of the U.S. Open final with Marin Cilic) in the quarters, then could meet Grigor Dimitrov or Milos Raonic, both of whom have a game that translates well to grass, in the semis. Either way, Djokovic's half of the draw is much easier. I expect him to cruise to the finals, where he beats Murray to defend his title.
Before we go, this year's Wimbledon is a special anniversary. It's been five years since the John Isner-Nicolas Mahut epic. Isner is seeded 17th here and is always a threat because of his serve, but has underwhelmed at Wimbledon since those historic three days. Even still, he could easily be a Djokovic quarterfinal opponent. Mahut, meanwhile, needed a wild card for entry (I'm not sure if he was given one because of the match or the deal between the British and French Tennis Federations). He should win his first round match against Filip Krajinovic before a possible showdown with Berdych.
We waited an extra week for the start of this year's Wimbledon, which I think was a good thing. With that extra week to rest and make the adjustment from clay to grass, the players will be in much better shape for the tournament, and the result should be a much more competitive event. But, that extended break was the same for everybody, including Serena Williams and Novak Djokovic. The favorites will come out on top, and for Serena, that means she'll be three-quarters of the way to history.
Right after the French Open, the talk almost immediately turned to Serena and whether or not a Wimbledon victory would constitute a Grand Slam. A lot of people have argued "No," insisting that it can only be a Grand Slam if it's achieved in a calendar year. I say why should that make a difference? Winning all four in a row is a Grand Slam, no matter what order you do it in. Is it any less of an accomplishment to start with the U.S. Open and end with Wimbledon?
I understand that when the term "Grand Slam" was coined, it was because Don Budge won all four in the same year in 1938, and you're only technically considered to do it if it's in the same year. When Serena did it the first time, she started at Wimbledon in 2002 and ended at the 2003 French Open. Since it was two in one year and two in the next, it was dubbed the "Serena Slam" instead, which is also what we'll call it this time. Meanwhile, Serena's friend Martina Navratilova never won the "Grand Slam" either, despite winning SIX consecutive Grand Slam titles in 1983-84 (three each year when the Australian Open was played in December instead of January, although she cost herself a chance at a calendar year Grand Slam when her 70-match winning streak was snapped in the 1984 Australian Open semifinals).
My point is that it doesn't really matter what we call it. It'll be a pretty damn impressive feat if Serena Williams wins her fourth straight Grand Slam title at Wimbledon, where she'll be the heavy favorite. And if she does, it really won't matter. Because if she wins Wimbledon, she's winning the U.S. Open. There's no doubt in my mind.
Her 2014-15 Serena Slam and 2015 Grand Slam are most at risk here. Serena's last Grand Slam loss, after all, was here a year ago, when she was upset by Alize Cornet in the third round, and she lost in round of 16 to Sabine Lisicki in 2013. In fact, you have to go back to the 2012 Olympic gold medal match to find Serena's last championship moment on Centre Court.
The biggest contender for the ladies' title who doesn't have the last name Williams has got to be defending champion Petra Kvitova, who's seeded second. If any other woman is going to win this championship, Kvitova would be my choice. I see her in the finals against Serena, but not standing in the way of history.
Others to watch out for include Venus Williams, who could end up meeting Little Sister in a must-see round of 16 match. Maria Sharapova, of course, is a former Wimbledon champion, while Lucie Safarova beat her at the French en route to the finals. I actually like Vika Azarenka to make a deep run too, although she'll run into Serena in the quarters. Caroline Wozniacki is in a pretty tough section of the draw. Third-seeded Simona Halep was a semifinalist last year, but I really like the two Germans in that part of the draw, Angelique Kerber and Sabine Lisicki. Another fun little side note is that their could be a rematch of last year's final between Kvitova and Genie Bouchard in the quarters.
We were also expecting Novak Djokovic to be halfway to a Grand Slam right now, too, but, after doing the World a favor and knocking Rafael Nadal out of the French Open, he was upset in the finals by Stan Wawrinka. This is Wawrinka's weakest Slam, though, so I don't expect him to be a challenger. But that doesn't mean a Swiss guy won't be among the favorites. At this point in his career, I think we can all agree that this is Roger's best (perhaps only) to lift another Grand Slam trophy.
Roger's Grand Slam foil, Tomas Berdych, is hanging around in his quarter, though, and the winner of that one gets the survivor of Murray-Nadal. After letting somebody else win the French Open for a change, Nadal's ranking is the lowest it's been in years, and he's seeded 10th here. However, he caught a break with the draw, staying away from the other three until the quarters (a round of 16 meeting was possible). David Ferrer was the highest seed in Nadal's section of the draw, but he withdrew today, so 10th-seeded Nadal has become the high seed in that section.
Nadal has two Wimbledon titles, but he's also become notorious for losing early here. With the draw he has, I don't see it happening this year. Murray, meanwhile, has to play Tsonga before the potential Nadal matchup, and I think that can go either way. I do have Murray winning, though, and beating Nadal to get back to the semis. I'd just automatically pencil Roger opposite him if he wasn't playing Berdych, who has his number in Grand Slams. In the Murray-Berdych semi, I've got the hometown hero advancing to the final Sunday one more time.
Fun fact: Andy Murray has only ever played Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic in Grand Slam finals (kinda like how Andy Roddick only won one Grand Slam title because he always played Federer in the finals). Since he can't play Roger, I guess that means defending champion Djokovic, who beat Roger in that classic final last year, will meet Murray in the finals. I don't see any issues for Djokovic early in the tournament. He gets the chance to avenge his U.S. Open loss to Kei Nishikori (provided he wins the rematch of the U.S. Open final with Marin Cilic) in the quarters, then could meet Grigor Dimitrov or Milos Raonic, both of whom have a game that translates well to grass, in the semis. Either way, Djokovic's half of the draw is much easier. I expect him to cruise to the finals, where he beats Murray to defend his title.
Before we go, this year's Wimbledon is a special anniversary. It's been five years since the John Isner-Nicolas Mahut epic. Isner is seeded 17th here and is always a threat because of his serve, but has underwhelmed at Wimbledon since those historic three days. Even still, he could easily be a Djokovic quarterfinal opponent. Mahut, meanwhile, needed a wild card for entry (I'm not sure if he was given one because of the match or the deal between the British and French Tennis Federations). He should win his first round match against Filip Krajinovic before a possible showdown with Berdych.
We waited an extra week for the start of this year's Wimbledon, which I think was a good thing. With that extra week to rest and make the adjustment from clay to grass, the players will be in much better shape for the tournament, and the result should be a much more competitive event. But, that extended break was the same for everybody, including Serena Williams and Novak Djokovic. The favorites will come out on top, and for Serena, that means she'll be three-quarters of the way to history.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Quarterfinal Time In Canada
Before we embark upon the quarterfinal round of the Women's World Cup, a few observations about the tournament so far. In my opinion, Japan has clearly been the best team in the tournament to this point. The defending champs are the only team to have won each of its games. France got a wake-up call from Colombia and is definitely peaking at the right time. Germany and the U.S. haven't played anywhere near their best soccer yet, but they've both gotten to the quarters as expected. Canada will continue to benefit from being the hosts, but I don't think they're good enough to win the World Cup.
As for the U.S., I'm really getting tired of hearing everyone complaining about the fact they aren't scoring. So what! Have they lost a game yet? And it's been how long since they've allowed a goal? I'm pretty sure if you don't give up any goals, you only need to score one. So what exactly is the problem? They'll be the first ones to admit that they can play better. They know they have to step up their game.
But it really is kind of insulting to them to compare them to previous U.S. World Cup teams. Maybe the games are closer because the rest of the world has gotten better. Has anyone ever thought of that? And if we're comparing them to the 1999 team next Sunday night, why does it matter how they got there? By the way, that defense is good enough to win the World Cup.
There was something else in the USA-Colombia game that really bugged me, though. This isn't a complaint about the U.S., but it's really about soccer in general. The Americans had two penalty kicks in the game. The first came after the Colombian goalie got the red card for taking out Alex Morgan's legs on the breakaway. The second was about 10 minutes later when Megan Rapinoe was fouled in the box. Yet Abby Wambach took the first PK and air mailed it (must've been that damn turf), while Carli Lloyd took and made the second one.
I've always thought that the person who earns the penalty kick should be the one to take it, and I'm kind of confused as to why that's NOT the rule. It makes little sense to me. That would be like a basketball team choosing its best free throw shooter to shoot for the guy who got fouled all the time. The person who earns the penalty kick deserves the opportunity to finish what they started. I'm sure there's a reason why the current rule is in place, and if somebody understands why it's like that, please enlighten me, but I don't see my opinion changing on that. It also leads to some inflated scoring totals. How do you think Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo score so many goals with their club teams? It's because they take every freakin' penalty kick, no matter who draws the foul. And as we all know, a goalie's only real chance of stopping a PK is getting lucky.
And with that, time for my quarterfinal predictions. The quarters start in Montreal with the best matchup of the four--No. 3 France vs. No. 1 Germany. Both of these teams have clinched berths in the Olympics, and whoever wins is going to be quite a handful for the U.S. in the semis. Germany had a dominant round of 16 game against an uninspired and underwhelming Swedish team, while the French have looked better and better since their loss to Colombia. This will probably be the game of the tournament so far. Germany is the better team and has an extra day of rest, but that's negated by the fact France has already played in Montreal and didn't have to travel. France has won its last two games by a combined score of 8-0, while Germany has outscored its last two opponents 8-1. This one will be decided by the defense, though, and I think the Germans have a slight edge in that department. It might go to PKs, but I'll say 2-1 Germany.
Quarterfinal number two pits the USA against China for the first World Cup meeting between the two since that memorable afternoon at the Rose Bowl 16 years ago. The big story surrounding the Americans, of course, is that Lauren Holiday and Megan Rapinoe will both have to sit out with yellow card suspensions (and Abby Wambach just sounded like an idiot when she said the referee singled them out because they already had yellows, especially since she gave a red to the GOALIE from Colombia in the game, too). As a result, there will be some lineup changes in the midfield and that vaunted American depth will be tested.
Personally, I'd go from a 4-4-2 to a 4-3-3 for this game. When it was just Holiday out, I had Carli Lloyd as the only center mid, but since she's the only player who can come close to replacing Rapinone's athleticism and playmaking, I'd move her out to the wing instead. Christen Press goes back into the lineup because she's the best player who didn't start against Colombia, and she's technically a forward, but they can play her on the wing, as well. Morgan Brian goes back in at center mid because they need someone to play there and Shannon Boxx can't give you 90 minutes, so she's better coming off the bench. Unless you want to tighten up that defense even more and go with Christie Rampone as a fifth defender (which would move Ali Krieger up into more of a midfield position).
Will the U.S. miss Holiday and Rapinoe? Absolutely. They've been two of their best players in the World Cup. But it's better to have them this game rather than the semi against Germany or France. I'm not saying China's an easy matchup. They know not to overlook the Chinese. But they're good enough to beat China even without two of their most important starters. I smell another 1-0 victory, then Holiday and Rapinoe are back for the semis.
The big upset of the round of 16, obviously, was Australia over Brazil. I'm not sure what the Brazilian coach's problem was in his postgame press conference (he was obviously frustrated, which is probably where most of it was coming from), but it was yet another World Cup disappointment for a squad that will now have even more pressure on it at the Olympics. The Aussie victory was great for Japan. A Japan-Brazil matchup would've been a must-see. Japan-Australia is nowhere near as compelling. Which is good news for Japan. Australia's had a great World Cup, but they're no match for the defending champions. They did Japan a tremendous favor, which will be repaid with a 3-0 Japanese victory.
Then we have Canada and England. I thought England was outplayed for much of the game against Norway, but they scored twice in the second half, including that golden strike by Lucy Bronze. Canada played yet another 1-0 game against a Swiss team that had so many chances that they just couldn't convert. The winner here will be the underdogs against Japan. But you've got the home team playing a real home game. The Canadians train in Vancouver and didn't have to travel after their last game. I think they keep riding that home field advantage into a Canada Day semifinal meeting with the defending champions. Canada 1, England 0.
As for the U.S., I'm really getting tired of hearing everyone complaining about the fact they aren't scoring. So what! Have they lost a game yet? And it's been how long since they've allowed a goal? I'm pretty sure if you don't give up any goals, you only need to score one. So what exactly is the problem? They'll be the first ones to admit that they can play better. They know they have to step up their game.
But it really is kind of insulting to them to compare them to previous U.S. World Cup teams. Maybe the games are closer because the rest of the world has gotten better. Has anyone ever thought of that? And if we're comparing them to the 1999 team next Sunday night, why does it matter how they got there? By the way, that defense is good enough to win the World Cup.
There was something else in the USA-Colombia game that really bugged me, though. This isn't a complaint about the U.S., but it's really about soccer in general. The Americans had two penalty kicks in the game. The first came after the Colombian goalie got the red card for taking out Alex Morgan's legs on the breakaway. The second was about 10 minutes later when Megan Rapinoe was fouled in the box. Yet Abby Wambach took the first PK and air mailed it (must've been that damn turf), while Carli Lloyd took and made the second one.
I've always thought that the person who earns the penalty kick should be the one to take it, and I'm kind of confused as to why that's NOT the rule. It makes little sense to me. That would be like a basketball team choosing its best free throw shooter to shoot for the guy who got fouled all the time. The person who earns the penalty kick deserves the opportunity to finish what they started. I'm sure there's a reason why the current rule is in place, and if somebody understands why it's like that, please enlighten me, but I don't see my opinion changing on that. It also leads to some inflated scoring totals. How do you think Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo score so many goals with their club teams? It's because they take every freakin' penalty kick, no matter who draws the foul. And as we all know, a goalie's only real chance of stopping a PK is getting lucky.
And with that, time for my quarterfinal predictions. The quarters start in Montreal with the best matchup of the four--No. 3 France vs. No. 1 Germany. Both of these teams have clinched berths in the Olympics, and whoever wins is going to be quite a handful for the U.S. in the semis. Germany had a dominant round of 16 game against an uninspired and underwhelming Swedish team, while the French have looked better and better since their loss to Colombia. This will probably be the game of the tournament so far. Germany is the better team and has an extra day of rest, but that's negated by the fact France has already played in Montreal and didn't have to travel. France has won its last two games by a combined score of 8-0, while Germany has outscored its last two opponents 8-1. This one will be decided by the defense, though, and I think the Germans have a slight edge in that department. It might go to PKs, but I'll say 2-1 Germany.
Quarterfinal number two pits the USA against China for the first World Cup meeting between the two since that memorable afternoon at the Rose Bowl 16 years ago. The big story surrounding the Americans, of course, is that Lauren Holiday and Megan Rapinoe will both have to sit out with yellow card suspensions (and Abby Wambach just sounded like an idiot when she said the referee singled them out because they already had yellows, especially since she gave a red to the GOALIE from Colombia in the game, too). As a result, there will be some lineup changes in the midfield and that vaunted American depth will be tested.
Personally, I'd go from a 4-4-2 to a 4-3-3 for this game. When it was just Holiday out, I had Carli Lloyd as the only center mid, but since she's the only player who can come close to replacing Rapinone's athleticism and playmaking, I'd move her out to the wing instead. Christen Press goes back into the lineup because she's the best player who didn't start against Colombia, and she's technically a forward, but they can play her on the wing, as well. Morgan Brian goes back in at center mid because they need someone to play there and Shannon Boxx can't give you 90 minutes, so she's better coming off the bench. Unless you want to tighten up that defense even more and go with Christie Rampone as a fifth defender (which would move Ali Krieger up into more of a midfield position).
Will the U.S. miss Holiday and Rapinoe? Absolutely. They've been two of their best players in the World Cup. But it's better to have them this game rather than the semi against Germany or France. I'm not saying China's an easy matchup. They know not to overlook the Chinese. But they're good enough to beat China even without two of their most important starters. I smell another 1-0 victory, then Holiday and Rapinoe are back for the semis.
The big upset of the round of 16, obviously, was Australia over Brazil. I'm not sure what the Brazilian coach's problem was in his postgame press conference (he was obviously frustrated, which is probably where most of it was coming from), but it was yet another World Cup disappointment for a squad that will now have even more pressure on it at the Olympics. The Aussie victory was great for Japan. A Japan-Brazil matchup would've been a must-see. Japan-Australia is nowhere near as compelling. Which is good news for Japan. Australia's had a great World Cup, but they're no match for the defending champions. They did Japan a tremendous favor, which will be repaid with a 3-0 Japanese victory.
Then we have Canada and England. I thought England was outplayed for much of the game against Norway, but they scored twice in the second half, including that golden strike by Lucy Bronze. Canada played yet another 1-0 game against a Swiss team that had so many chances that they just couldn't convert. The winner here will be the underdogs against Japan. But you've got the home team playing a real home game. The Canadians train in Vancouver and didn't have to travel after their last game. I think they keep riding that home field advantage into a Canada Day semifinal meeting with the defending champions. Canada 1, England 0.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Analyzing the ESPY Nominees
A lot of stuff has been happening in the sports world recently. A lot worth blogging about. That made it difficult to pick just one topic. I could've done one of those bullet-pointed ones where I tackle several topics and put in my two cents on each. But I decided not to do that because I had a feeling if I tried, I'd end up missing something. So I'm sticking with one, but which one?
Well, it's a couple weeks until ESPN's convergence of sports and entertainment. We all know that the ESPYs are incredibly stupid and the show is terrible. It's two and a half hours of ESPN congratulating itself for being so great and the winners acting like the award is actually important. Yet we still all sit there and watch a glorified three-hour "This Is SportsCenter" commercial.
This year's ESPYs have already created more preshow buzz than we usually see, due mainly to the fact that they announced a few weeks ago that Caitlyn Jenner will be receiving the Arthur Ashe Award for Courage. While I agree that Lauryn Hill would've been a great selection, and I thought it was a foregone conclusion the award would go to Hill, I didn't join in the public outrage in the selection of Jenner. And, as many people noted on social media, a lot of the "outrage" came from people who didn't even know the ESPYs were a thing. As one of my friends put it, "Now we can all go back to not caring about the ESPYs."
I don't care that the Arthur Ashe Award is going to Caitlyn Jenner either, but for different reasons. I can see where the powers that be were coming from with the selection. And so what if they did it just because transgenderism is the hot topic in the news right now or they wanted to cash in on the Jenner/Kardashian celebrity? It didn't make Lauryn Hill's story any less courageous or inspirational. (I have a feeling they'll find some way to honor Hill anyway.) Frankly, it makes no difference whether or not that was strictly a headline grab. On ESPY night, I'm sure Caitlyn's going to kill it just like Jimmy V himself at the first-ever ESPYs just weeks before his death or Stuart Scott did last year a few months before his.
The one thing about the ESPYs that is cool, though, is that it brings together all the best players in every sport. Sure, a lot don't show up, and they include a lot of niche sports that aren't familiar to a majority of the audience (I think the only reason they have the "Action Sports Athlete of the Year" category is because ESPN owns the X Games).
Today the nominees came out and they exposed a lot of the things that make the ESPYs so stupid. First of all, you can tell which sports ESPN likes the best. The four finalists for Best Male Athlete, for example, are two NFL players and two NBA players. They also eliminated the Best Team category, which I don't really agree with. Worst of all, though, is that the winners are chosen strictly by fan voting. So, after ESPN whittles down the candidates to only the four sports it cares about, the people who are fans of said sport end up giving every award to the same handful of players/teams, even if there are clearly more-deserving candidates. The vote should really be a mix of the fans and people who actually know what they're talking about. (Seriously, is anybody who casts a vote really qualified to choose the "Bowler of the Year?")
Despite all of this criticism I've levied against ESPN and the ESPYs here, it's still worth taking a look at the nominees in some of the major categories. For "Best Male Athlete," it's Stephen Curry, LeBron James, Aaron Rodgers and J.J. Watt. I'm sure they included LeBron just so he shows up at the ceremony. Because he doesn't deserve to be a finalist over Madison Bumgarner or Clayton Kershaw. Or Carey Price. Or even Novak Djokovic. It's a stretch to include Watt in there, too. So really, this is a showdown between Curry and Rodgers. I voted for Rodgers, but since the NBA tends to dominate the voting in these things, Curry will probably win, which I'd be fine with.
Female Athlete of the Year is always tougher because there are far fewer high-profile female athletes. And it was made tougher this year because there wasn't an Olympics/World Cup to include. I think this should be a runaway Serena Williams win. She's won the last three Grand Slams in dominating fashion. But I have a feeling it's going to be Ronda Rousey simply because she's one of their newest obsessions. Breanna Stewart is a worthy finalist, while Lindsey Vonn's chances on taking home an ESPY lie in the "Best Comeback Athlete" category.
Going against Vonn for "Best Comeback Athlete" are Rob Gronkowski, A-Rod and Derrick Rose. We all know who's going to win here. ESPN considers Rob Gronkowski to be the Second Coming. (It's probably because he plays for the Patriots, but I just can't embrace the guy. I really don't see the appeal.) Whether or not he actually wins, they'll probably rig the results to say he did, just so they can have him go up on stage and act like a frat boy.
"Best Championship Performance" is probably the hardest category to pick. For some reason, they also included LeBron here, even though his team lost the NBA Finals (not sure how you can have a championship performance if you don't win the championship). Florida softball pitcher Lauren Haeger is also nominated, but this is between Madison Bumgarner for single-handedly winning the World Series and American Pharoah for obvious reasons. It's really a toss-up, and neither choice would be wrong. But American Pharoah is fresh in everyone's minds and it's something a majority of us have never seen, so I'm figuring the Triple Crown winner (or at least the people associated) will also win the ESPY.
ESPN's bias is shown very clearly in the "Best Coach/Manager" finalists. Where's Bruce Bochy, who won his third World Series in five years with the team that had the fifth-best record in the National League! He's not even nominated! Yet Steve Kerr (NBA), Urban Meyer (college football) and Bill Belichick (NFL) all are, along with Coach K and Geno Auriemma. I really wouldn't pick any of these five over Bochy, so it really makes no difference to me who wins.
For "Best Breakthrough Performance," it's Odell Beckham, Mo'ne Davis, some guy from the Ohio State football team and Jordan Spieth. Beckham is also the No. 1 seed in the "Best Play" bracket, and I don't see how he doesn't win there. I also voted for him here, but that's much less of a guarantee. ESPN loves Mo'ne Davis and you know they'll be all over the fact that she's there and she's nominated. Spieth, meanwhile, is another name that's hot right now after his Masters and U.S. Open wins. His 2015 so far certainly qualifies as a great "breakthrough performance."
It's not even worth getting into "Best Record-Breaking Performance" because it's so obvious Peyton Manning is going to win for his 509th career touchdown pass. And he should.
Two last categories I want to look at are the closely-related "Best Upset" and "Best Game." The "Best Upset" nominees are Georgia State over Baylor in the NCAA Tournament, the Ole Miss football team's win over Alabama and the Royals' run to the AL pennant. Be careful ESPN. You've seen what can happen when you give Kansas City Royals fans the chance to vote for something. (Although I did vote for the Royals here.)
In "Best Game," I also voted for the Royals and the game that got it all started, that extra-inning classic against the A's in the AL Wild Card Game. The other two nominees are pretty good, too. Game 7 of the Spurs-Clippers playoff series, which, by all accounts from what I've heard, was a classic series, not just a classic game. They also nominated the Super Bowl, which I didn't think was overly exciting. Sure it was close and it was a good game, but I remember the Seahawks blowing it at the end and Katy Perry. That's really about it.
So there you have it. This is probably the most time anyone has ever spent breaking down the ESPY nominees. And I know I say I won't every year, but I always end up watching them. That's why they hold the ceremony on the day after the All*Star Game. There's nothing else going on, so people end up watching the ESPYs by default. And, with Caitlyn Jenner and the move from ESPN to ABC, I'm sure the viewing public will watch the ESPYs more than ever before this year.
Well, it's a couple weeks until ESPN's convergence of sports and entertainment. We all know that the ESPYs are incredibly stupid and the show is terrible. It's two and a half hours of ESPN congratulating itself for being so great and the winners acting like the award is actually important. Yet we still all sit there and watch a glorified three-hour "This Is SportsCenter" commercial.
This year's ESPYs have already created more preshow buzz than we usually see, due mainly to the fact that they announced a few weeks ago that Caitlyn Jenner will be receiving the Arthur Ashe Award for Courage. While I agree that Lauryn Hill would've been a great selection, and I thought it was a foregone conclusion the award would go to Hill, I didn't join in the public outrage in the selection of Jenner. And, as many people noted on social media, a lot of the "outrage" came from people who didn't even know the ESPYs were a thing. As one of my friends put it, "Now we can all go back to not caring about the ESPYs."
I don't care that the Arthur Ashe Award is going to Caitlyn Jenner either, but for different reasons. I can see where the powers that be were coming from with the selection. And so what if they did it just because transgenderism is the hot topic in the news right now or they wanted to cash in on the Jenner/Kardashian celebrity? It didn't make Lauryn Hill's story any less courageous or inspirational. (I have a feeling they'll find some way to honor Hill anyway.) Frankly, it makes no difference whether or not that was strictly a headline grab. On ESPY night, I'm sure Caitlyn's going to kill it just like Jimmy V himself at the first-ever ESPYs just weeks before his death or Stuart Scott did last year a few months before his.
The one thing about the ESPYs that is cool, though, is that it brings together all the best players in every sport. Sure, a lot don't show up, and they include a lot of niche sports that aren't familiar to a majority of the audience (I think the only reason they have the "Action Sports Athlete of the Year" category is because ESPN owns the X Games).
Today the nominees came out and they exposed a lot of the things that make the ESPYs so stupid. First of all, you can tell which sports ESPN likes the best. The four finalists for Best Male Athlete, for example, are two NFL players and two NBA players. They also eliminated the Best Team category, which I don't really agree with. Worst of all, though, is that the winners are chosen strictly by fan voting. So, after ESPN whittles down the candidates to only the four sports it cares about, the people who are fans of said sport end up giving every award to the same handful of players/teams, even if there are clearly more-deserving candidates. The vote should really be a mix of the fans and people who actually know what they're talking about. (Seriously, is anybody who casts a vote really qualified to choose the "Bowler of the Year?")
Despite all of this criticism I've levied against ESPN and the ESPYs here, it's still worth taking a look at the nominees in some of the major categories. For "Best Male Athlete," it's Stephen Curry, LeBron James, Aaron Rodgers and J.J. Watt. I'm sure they included LeBron just so he shows up at the ceremony. Because he doesn't deserve to be a finalist over Madison Bumgarner or Clayton Kershaw. Or Carey Price. Or even Novak Djokovic. It's a stretch to include Watt in there, too. So really, this is a showdown between Curry and Rodgers. I voted for Rodgers, but since the NBA tends to dominate the voting in these things, Curry will probably win, which I'd be fine with.
Female Athlete of the Year is always tougher because there are far fewer high-profile female athletes. And it was made tougher this year because there wasn't an Olympics/World Cup to include. I think this should be a runaway Serena Williams win. She's won the last three Grand Slams in dominating fashion. But I have a feeling it's going to be Ronda Rousey simply because she's one of their newest obsessions. Breanna Stewart is a worthy finalist, while Lindsey Vonn's chances on taking home an ESPY lie in the "Best Comeback Athlete" category.
Going against Vonn for "Best Comeback Athlete" are Rob Gronkowski, A-Rod and Derrick Rose. We all know who's going to win here. ESPN considers Rob Gronkowski to be the Second Coming. (It's probably because he plays for the Patriots, but I just can't embrace the guy. I really don't see the appeal.) Whether or not he actually wins, they'll probably rig the results to say he did, just so they can have him go up on stage and act like a frat boy.
"Best Championship Performance" is probably the hardest category to pick. For some reason, they also included LeBron here, even though his team lost the NBA Finals (not sure how you can have a championship performance if you don't win the championship). Florida softball pitcher Lauren Haeger is also nominated, but this is between Madison Bumgarner for single-handedly winning the World Series and American Pharoah for obvious reasons. It's really a toss-up, and neither choice would be wrong. But American Pharoah is fresh in everyone's minds and it's something a majority of us have never seen, so I'm figuring the Triple Crown winner (or at least the people associated) will also win the ESPY.
ESPN's bias is shown very clearly in the "Best Coach/Manager" finalists. Where's Bruce Bochy, who won his third World Series in five years with the team that had the fifth-best record in the National League! He's not even nominated! Yet Steve Kerr (NBA), Urban Meyer (college football) and Bill Belichick (NFL) all are, along with Coach K and Geno Auriemma. I really wouldn't pick any of these five over Bochy, so it really makes no difference to me who wins.
For "Best Breakthrough Performance," it's Odell Beckham, Mo'ne Davis, some guy from the Ohio State football team and Jordan Spieth. Beckham is also the No. 1 seed in the "Best Play" bracket, and I don't see how he doesn't win there. I also voted for him here, but that's much less of a guarantee. ESPN loves Mo'ne Davis and you know they'll be all over the fact that she's there and she's nominated. Spieth, meanwhile, is another name that's hot right now after his Masters and U.S. Open wins. His 2015 so far certainly qualifies as a great "breakthrough performance."
It's not even worth getting into "Best Record-Breaking Performance" because it's so obvious Peyton Manning is going to win for his 509th career touchdown pass. And he should.
Two last categories I want to look at are the closely-related "Best Upset" and "Best Game." The "Best Upset" nominees are Georgia State over Baylor in the NCAA Tournament, the Ole Miss football team's win over Alabama and the Royals' run to the AL pennant. Be careful ESPN. You've seen what can happen when you give Kansas City Royals fans the chance to vote for something. (Although I did vote for the Royals here.)
In "Best Game," I also voted for the Royals and the game that got it all started, that extra-inning classic against the A's in the AL Wild Card Game. The other two nominees are pretty good, too. Game 7 of the Spurs-Clippers playoff series, which, by all accounts from what I've heard, was a classic series, not just a classic game. They also nominated the Super Bowl, which I didn't think was overly exciting. Sure it was close and it was a good game, but I remember the Seahawks blowing it at the end and Katy Perry. That's really about it.
So there you have it. This is probably the most time anyone has ever spent breaking down the ESPY nominees. And I know I say I won't every year, but I always end up watching them. That's why they hold the ceremony on the day after the All*Star Game. There's nothing else going on, so people end up watching the ESPYs by default. And, with Caitlyn Jenner and the move from ESPN to ABC, I'm sure the viewing public will watch the ESPYs more than ever before this year.
Monday, June 22, 2015
The 2024 Race Heats Up
As the IOC session where the host of the Winter Games no one wants draws closer, more and more candidates for 2024 are emerging. We already knew about a few of them (Boston, Hamburg, Rome), but Paris is on the verge of announcing its bid, with a couple others following closely behind. If nobody wants to host the 2022 Winter Games, the 2024 Summer Games are starting to look like just the opposite. This race could be just as competitive as the 2005 vote that saw London emerge victorious for the 2012 Games (London ended up being a big winner in more ways than one).
Hamburg's bid is still a little up in the air. The Germans are going to put it up to a public referendum. The polls currently show 64 percent for the bid, and IOC President Thomas Bach, of course, is German, so he'd obviously like to see a Hamburg bid move forward. I think it's highly likely that the referendum will pass and Hamburg will definitely stick around.
Rome isn't going anywhere, either. They were the first city to announce their intention to bid, and would probably have to be considered the favorite right now. That is, until Paris enters the race.
Paris hasn't had luck with Olympic bids recently. It finished second to Barcelona for 1992, which was the last year both the Summer and Winter Olympics were held in the same year. The winter vote was held first, so as soon as Albertville was awarded the Winter Games, Paris knew it was doomed. They bid again for 2008, but ran into the Beijing buzz saw that was all but guaranteed of victory before the other bids were even submitted. Then in that loaded 2012 race, Paris was viewed as the favorite the entire time, only to see London emerge victorious 54-50 in the final round. As a result, Paris sat out the bidding for 2016 and 2020.
This time it's different, though. They learned a lot by not participating in two bidding cycles (2016 was never going to be in Europe anyway, so that would've just been a waste of money), and they'll come back with an improved vision for the Olympics. The IOC's Agenda 2020, which is designed to make the bid process more sustainable, will be very good for Paris, a very compact city to begin with. But the use of temporary and existing venues that's now being encouraged is the big thing. And who doesn't want to see beach volleyball at the foot of the Eiffel Tower? They need to pick Paris for that alone.
France is hosting UEFA Euro 2016 and the 2019 Women's World Cup, so they're not shying away from the big events, which is usually viewed as preparation for an Olympic run. Paris is going to put forth a very strong bid, and there's some sense that the IOC owes them one. And to put it in a historical context, Paris would become the second city to host the Olympics three times (joining London), and 2024 marks the 100th anniversary of the last time Paris hosted the Games. Needless to say, it's been a long time.
We're also likely to see some cities that have little to no chance enter the ring. Baku, Azerbaijan is currently hosting the inaugural European Games, which is seen as a precursor to another Olympic bid (they previously bid for 2020). Doha, of course, still thinks it can buy an Olympics. It worked with the World Cup, but the IOC isn't anywhere near as corrupt as FIFA. Besides, they're not going to have four Olympics in a row in Asia. (Moving the Games from the summer to whenever Doha would want to hold them wouldn't work for a lot of influential First World nations, either.)
Istanbul has a "bid until we win" approach that's eventually going to be successful. They haven't said if they're going to bid this time, but it wouldn't surprise anybody if they did. Istanbul almost won for 2020 and would be a serious contender for 2024. Budapest, meanwhile, wants to enter the race with no expectation of winning. They just want to get the experience they can build on for future Olympic bids. No confirmed bids from Africa, but Durban, South Africa (which I think is their most likely bid city) will have a very realistic shot of winning when it decides to bid for the Olympics. There's never been an Olympics in Africa and the IOC wants to change that. It probably won't be in 2024, though.
And that brings me to the elephant in the room. Boston. Everybody knew the U.S. would bid. But you have to question whether the USOC actually wants to host or not. The selection of Boston as the bid city was questionable to begin with, and that choice is looking worse and worse by the day. In an obvious attempt to appease the people of Massachusetts, where support isn't good and is waning, they've completely changed their plan and spread venues all around the state instead of centered in Boston. None of this is making the USOC look good.
Whether or not Boston stays in the race is irrelevant. There's no chance that the 2024 Olympics will be in Boston, so it would be almost better off pulling the plug. Some people want the USOC to switch the bid to Los Angeles, which finished second in the domestic competition, and would be much more appealing internationally. LA would have a shot at winning. Boston doesn't.
The question, though, is which would make the USOC look worse. Remember, the USOC intentionally hasn't bid since the embarrassment of Chicago 2016. Next year will be 20 years since Atlanta, and that streak of consecutive years without a U.S. Olympics will reach at least 28 years. So do you move forward with a Boston bid that has absolutely no public support and has little to no chance of winning? Or do you move on to your second choice, which has already hosted the Olympics twice and is plenty capable of doing it again? Or do you pull the plug on Boston, not submit LA as a backup and move on to 2026 (when a World Cup bid also seems likely)? Frankly, none of those options is really ideal.
Hamburg's bid is still a little up in the air. The Germans are going to put it up to a public referendum. The polls currently show 64 percent for the bid, and IOC President Thomas Bach, of course, is German, so he'd obviously like to see a Hamburg bid move forward. I think it's highly likely that the referendum will pass and Hamburg will definitely stick around.
Rome isn't going anywhere, either. They were the first city to announce their intention to bid, and would probably have to be considered the favorite right now. That is, until Paris enters the race.
Paris hasn't had luck with Olympic bids recently. It finished second to Barcelona for 1992, which was the last year both the Summer and Winter Olympics were held in the same year. The winter vote was held first, so as soon as Albertville was awarded the Winter Games, Paris knew it was doomed. They bid again for 2008, but ran into the Beijing buzz saw that was all but guaranteed of victory before the other bids were even submitted. Then in that loaded 2012 race, Paris was viewed as the favorite the entire time, only to see London emerge victorious 54-50 in the final round. As a result, Paris sat out the bidding for 2016 and 2020.
This time it's different, though. They learned a lot by not participating in two bidding cycles (2016 was never going to be in Europe anyway, so that would've just been a waste of money), and they'll come back with an improved vision for the Olympics. The IOC's Agenda 2020, which is designed to make the bid process more sustainable, will be very good for Paris, a very compact city to begin with. But the use of temporary and existing venues that's now being encouraged is the big thing. And who doesn't want to see beach volleyball at the foot of the Eiffel Tower? They need to pick Paris for that alone.
France is hosting UEFA Euro 2016 and the 2019 Women's World Cup, so they're not shying away from the big events, which is usually viewed as preparation for an Olympic run. Paris is going to put forth a very strong bid, and there's some sense that the IOC owes them one. And to put it in a historical context, Paris would become the second city to host the Olympics three times (joining London), and 2024 marks the 100th anniversary of the last time Paris hosted the Games. Needless to say, it's been a long time.
We're also likely to see some cities that have little to no chance enter the ring. Baku, Azerbaijan is currently hosting the inaugural European Games, which is seen as a precursor to another Olympic bid (they previously bid for 2020). Doha, of course, still thinks it can buy an Olympics. It worked with the World Cup, but the IOC isn't anywhere near as corrupt as FIFA. Besides, they're not going to have four Olympics in a row in Asia. (Moving the Games from the summer to whenever Doha would want to hold them wouldn't work for a lot of influential First World nations, either.)
Istanbul has a "bid until we win" approach that's eventually going to be successful. They haven't said if they're going to bid this time, but it wouldn't surprise anybody if they did. Istanbul almost won for 2020 and would be a serious contender for 2024. Budapest, meanwhile, wants to enter the race with no expectation of winning. They just want to get the experience they can build on for future Olympic bids. No confirmed bids from Africa, but Durban, South Africa (which I think is their most likely bid city) will have a very realistic shot of winning when it decides to bid for the Olympics. There's never been an Olympics in Africa and the IOC wants to change that. It probably won't be in 2024, though.
And that brings me to the elephant in the room. Boston. Everybody knew the U.S. would bid. But you have to question whether the USOC actually wants to host or not. The selection of Boston as the bid city was questionable to begin with, and that choice is looking worse and worse by the day. In an obvious attempt to appease the people of Massachusetts, where support isn't good and is waning, they've completely changed their plan and spread venues all around the state instead of centered in Boston. None of this is making the USOC look good.
Whether or not Boston stays in the race is irrelevant. There's no chance that the 2024 Olympics will be in Boston, so it would be almost better off pulling the plug. Some people want the USOC to switch the bid to Los Angeles, which finished second in the domestic competition, and would be much more appealing internationally. LA would have a shot at winning. Boston doesn't.
The question, though, is which would make the USOC look worse. Remember, the USOC intentionally hasn't bid since the embarrassment of Chicago 2016. Next year will be 20 years since Atlanta, and that streak of consecutive years without a U.S. Olympics will reach at least 28 years. So do you move forward with a Boston bid that has absolutely no public support and has little to no chance of winning? Or do you move on to your second choice, which has already hosted the Olympics twice and is plenty capable of doing it again? Or do you pull the plug on Boston, not submit LA as a backup and move on to 2026 (when a World Cup bid also seems likely)? Frankly, none of those options is really ideal.
Friday, June 19, 2015
Women's World Cup, Round 2
After the first round of the Women's World Cup, there are still a lot of questions about the top teams. The U.S. won the "Group of Death," but didn't look particularly sharp in doing so. Germany advanced as group winners, but as Alexei Lalas said, they've really only played one real game so far, and that was a draw with Norway. Sweden has been so lackluster that they were lucky third-place teams qualified, and even that was in doubt until the end. France lost to Colombia. The only two teams that won all three of their games were Japan and Brazil, but even those come with an asterisk. Japan has probably looked the best of any team so far, but Cameroon came awfully close to earning a point against the reigning champs. Brazil, meanwhile, came out of the weakest group, so they didn't need to play that well to win three games.
It's also clear that while the 24-team field was a good idea and tournament expansion was necessary, not all of the extra eight teams belonged there. Germany vs. Ivory Coast? That was like any first-round game the UConn women play in the NCAA Tournament. And the fact that Thailand and the Ivory Coast were in the same group was an absolute joke! Same thing with Ecuador and pretty much everyone in Brazil's group. There are more than 16 teams good enough to be in the World Cup. Problem is, there aren't 24. Not yet. This was definitely good for the growth of the women's game, though, so I can easily find the positive in teams like Ivory Coast and Thailand getting to play on the world stage, even if it is as Germany or Japan's homecoming opponent.
Speaking of homecoming, it's pretty obvious that the bracket for the knockout round was designed to get Canada as far into the tournament as possible. All of the top teams are on the other side and the Canadians don't even have to travel. Both their round of 16 and quarterfinal games are in Vancouver, which happens to be where the Canadian training camp is. It'll be a shock to pretty much everyone if Canada doesn't make it to at least the semifinals, despite the fact that Canada hasn't been one of the better teams in this tournament so far. Not even close.
Since Canada doesn't have to face any of the top teams until the semis, that means they all have to play each other. Now that the third-place teams have all been filled in and we know what the bracket actually looks like, breaking down the knockout round has become a whole lot easier. Canada and the United States definitely have the easiest roads to the semis, which was obviously on purpose. (At least it was for Canada, the rest of the draw was blind.) Meanwhile, you've got three top five teams (Germany, France and Sweden) in the same quarter, and a potential Japan-Brazil quarterfinal matchup. This is normally when the World Cup starts to get good, and this year shouldn't be an exception.
One of the things that contributed to this bracket being so confusing was that the matches aren't being played in order according to the game numbers, and that the advancing teams won't have the same amount of rest heading into the next round. For example, the U.S. plays on Monday, then meets the winner of China-Cameroon in the quarters, and China-Cameroon is on Saturday! You've also got teams crisscrossing across the country (which is rather large), so the advantage has to lie with teams that have less travel. (One of the analysts made a great point about the Americans' semifinal loss to Germany in 2003, which was played in Portland after the U.S. played a quarterfinal in Boston.)
Rather than going in schedule-order, I think it's less confusing to go in bracket order. First up, we've got China-Cameroon. Cameroon has been one of the biggest surprises of this World Cup, and a pleasant one. They beat up on a weak Ecuador team, then gave Japan all they could handle before knocking off a Swiss team many felt would win, Now they face China in one of the most even matchups of the second round. China didn't look that good in group play, but did what they needed to in order to advance. The game's being played in Edmonton, where they've both already played during this World Cup, so that shouldn't be a factor. Cameroon just played there, though, so they're not traveling. I actually like Cameroon in this game I think.
The winner of that one plays either the USA or Colombia. Colombia was riding high after that win over France, but then lost to England and dropped to third place in Group F. The U.S. has been criticized for not being U.S.-like in group play, but that shouldn't matter yet. They're better than Colombia and should have no trouble in this one. Especially since Colombia's goalie (who's been fantastic) has to miss the game with a yellow-card suspension. That will be too much for Colombia to overcome.
In the next quarter, we've got No. 1 Germany against No. 5 Sweden, with the winner facing No. 3 France. France-South Korea is easier to break down, so we'll start there. The Colombia game was a wake-up call for Les Bleues. At least they got their bad game out of the way in group play. And you saw what they did to Mexico in the next game. South Korea was the "best" of three weak teams in Brazil's group, so I don't envision the French having any trouble in the round of 16.
Germany-Sweden, meanwhile, is the matchup of the second round. The Germans have 15 goals, four more than the next-highest scoring team in the tournament, but 10 of those were against Ivory Coast and they had four against Thailand. In their one game that wasn't a glorified practice, they played a 1-1 draw against Norway. Fortunately for Germany, this Sweden team is not the Sweden you're used to seeing. They haven't lost yet, but they certainly haven't played like the fifth-best team in the world, and they only advanced as the fourth-best third-place team. They'll obviously need to play their best game of the tournament to beat the Germans, and even that might not be enough.
Moving to the bottom half of the draw, Brazil meets surprising Australia in what should also be a highly entertaining game. The Matildas probably gained a bunch of confidence by finishing second in a group that included the U.S. and Sweden, but this is a tough matchup for them. As I said, Brazil hasn't really played that well yet. But they didn't need to. And, by clinching the group after two games, they were able to rest Marta and Cristiane against Costa Rica. That'll pay off later in the tournament. Australia will give them a game, but Brazil is too talented.
Defending champion Japan gets the Netherlands, which, along with Cameroon, was one of only two third-place teams to get four points in group play. Group A was competitive, but none of those three teams are the caliber of the Japanese. If I had to pick the best team in the group round, it would probably be Japan, followed by Germany and Brazil. It's unfortunate that Japan and Brazil will meet in the quarters instead of a later round.
We've got an all-European affair between Norway and England for the right to meet Canada. Norway was on a mission after failing to get out of the group round in 2011, and I think they succeeded. In my opinion, they're probably the strongest of the second-place sides. All credit to England, too, for getting that win over Colombia to grab second place when it looked like they might not even qualify for the second round. I anticipate this being one of the better round of 16 games, but I think Norway is a little stronger. They easily could've beaten Germany if a couple things had gone their way in that game. Norway could also interrupt Canada's plans on an easy road to the semis.
Then there are our friendly Canadian hosts. They won the opener on a controversial late penalty kick, then had a pair of ties against New Zealand and the Netherlands. That was enough for Canada to win the group and get a favorable path, though. The first challenge is Switzerland, which rode that 10-0 victory over Ecuador into the second round. I think the Swiss will present a challenge and Canada will definitely have to bring it. Switzerland had its 10-goal game in Vancouver, which is where this one will take place, but they've also been outscored 3-1 when not playing Ecuador. I think with the home crowd behind them, the Canadians do what they need to do in order to come up with a one-goal win.
So, to recap, my quarterfinal matchups are the USA vs. Cameroon, Germany-France, Japan-Brazil and Canada vs. Norway. If those do end up being the four quarterfinals, I like USA-Germany and Canada-Japan in the semis, but I'd be very surprised if I go 8-for-8 in the round of 16. As I said, this is generally when World Cups get good.
It's also clear that while the 24-team field was a good idea and tournament expansion was necessary, not all of the extra eight teams belonged there. Germany vs. Ivory Coast? That was like any first-round game the UConn women play in the NCAA Tournament. And the fact that Thailand and the Ivory Coast were in the same group was an absolute joke! Same thing with Ecuador and pretty much everyone in Brazil's group. There are more than 16 teams good enough to be in the World Cup. Problem is, there aren't 24. Not yet. This was definitely good for the growth of the women's game, though, so I can easily find the positive in teams like Ivory Coast and Thailand getting to play on the world stage, even if it is as Germany or Japan's homecoming opponent.
Speaking of homecoming, it's pretty obvious that the bracket for the knockout round was designed to get Canada as far into the tournament as possible. All of the top teams are on the other side and the Canadians don't even have to travel. Both their round of 16 and quarterfinal games are in Vancouver, which happens to be where the Canadian training camp is. It'll be a shock to pretty much everyone if Canada doesn't make it to at least the semifinals, despite the fact that Canada hasn't been one of the better teams in this tournament so far. Not even close.
Since Canada doesn't have to face any of the top teams until the semis, that means they all have to play each other. Now that the third-place teams have all been filled in and we know what the bracket actually looks like, breaking down the knockout round has become a whole lot easier. Canada and the United States definitely have the easiest roads to the semis, which was obviously on purpose. (At least it was for Canada, the rest of the draw was blind.) Meanwhile, you've got three top five teams (Germany, France and Sweden) in the same quarter, and a potential Japan-Brazil quarterfinal matchup. This is normally when the World Cup starts to get good, and this year shouldn't be an exception.
One of the things that contributed to this bracket being so confusing was that the matches aren't being played in order according to the game numbers, and that the advancing teams won't have the same amount of rest heading into the next round. For example, the U.S. plays on Monday, then meets the winner of China-Cameroon in the quarters, and China-Cameroon is on Saturday! You've also got teams crisscrossing across the country (which is rather large), so the advantage has to lie with teams that have less travel. (One of the analysts made a great point about the Americans' semifinal loss to Germany in 2003, which was played in Portland after the U.S. played a quarterfinal in Boston.)
Rather than going in schedule-order, I think it's less confusing to go in bracket order. First up, we've got China-Cameroon. Cameroon has been one of the biggest surprises of this World Cup, and a pleasant one. They beat up on a weak Ecuador team, then gave Japan all they could handle before knocking off a Swiss team many felt would win, Now they face China in one of the most even matchups of the second round. China didn't look that good in group play, but did what they needed to in order to advance. The game's being played in Edmonton, where they've both already played during this World Cup, so that shouldn't be a factor. Cameroon just played there, though, so they're not traveling. I actually like Cameroon in this game I think.
The winner of that one plays either the USA or Colombia. Colombia was riding high after that win over France, but then lost to England and dropped to third place in Group F. The U.S. has been criticized for not being U.S.-like in group play, but that shouldn't matter yet. They're better than Colombia and should have no trouble in this one. Especially since Colombia's goalie (who's been fantastic) has to miss the game with a yellow-card suspension. That will be too much for Colombia to overcome.
In the next quarter, we've got No. 1 Germany against No. 5 Sweden, with the winner facing No. 3 France. France-South Korea is easier to break down, so we'll start there. The Colombia game was a wake-up call for Les Bleues. At least they got their bad game out of the way in group play. And you saw what they did to Mexico in the next game. South Korea was the "best" of three weak teams in Brazil's group, so I don't envision the French having any trouble in the round of 16.
Germany-Sweden, meanwhile, is the matchup of the second round. The Germans have 15 goals, four more than the next-highest scoring team in the tournament, but 10 of those were against Ivory Coast and they had four against Thailand. In their one game that wasn't a glorified practice, they played a 1-1 draw against Norway. Fortunately for Germany, this Sweden team is not the Sweden you're used to seeing. They haven't lost yet, but they certainly haven't played like the fifth-best team in the world, and they only advanced as the fourth-best third-place team. They'll obviously need to play their best game of the tournament to beat the Germans, and even that might not be enough.
Moving to the bottom half of the draw, Brazil meets surprising Australia in what should also be a highly entertaining game. The Matildas probably gained a bunch of confidence by finishing second in a group that included the U.S. and Sweden, but this is a tough matchup for them. As I said, Brazil hasn't really played that well yet. But they didn't need to. And, by clinching the group after two games, they were able to rest Marta and Cristiane against Costa Rica. That'll pay off later in the tournament. Australia will give them a game, but Brazil is too talented.
Defending champion Japan gets the Netherlands, which, along with Cameroon, was one of only two third-place teams to get four points in group play. Group A was competitive, but none of those three teams are the caliber of the Japanese. If I had to pick the best team in the group round, it would probably be Japan, followed by Germany and Brazil. It's unfortunate that Japan and Brazil will meet in the quarters instead of a later round.
We've got an all-European affair between Norway and England for the right to meet Canada. Norway was on a mission after failing to get out of the group round in 2011, and I think they succeeded. In my opinion, they're probably the strongest of the second-place sides. All credit to England, too, for getting that win over Colombia to grab second place when it looked like they might not even qualify for the second round. I anticipate this being one of the better round of 16 games, but I think Norway is a little stronger. They easily could've beaten Germany if a couple things had gone their way in that game. Norway could also interrupt Canada's plans on an easy road to the semis.
Then there are our friendly Canadian hosts. They won the opener on a controversial late penalty kick, then had a pair of ties against New Zealand and the Netherlands. That was enough for Canada to win the group and get a favorable path, though. The first challenge is Switzerland, which rode that 10-0 victory over Ecuador into the second round. I think the Swiss will present a challenge and Canada will definitely have to bring it. Switzerland had its 10-goal game in Vancouver, which is where this one will take place, but they've also been outscored 3-1 when not playing Ecuador. I think with the home crowd behind them, the Canadians do what they need to do in order to come up with a one-goal win.
So, to recap, my quarterfinal matchups are the USA vs. Cameroon, Germany-France, Japan-Brazil and Canada vs. Norway. If those do end up being the four quarterfinals, I like USA-Germany and Canada-Japan in the semis, but I'd be very surprised if I go 8-for-8 in the round of 16. As I said, this is generally when World Cups get good.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Getting Weirder By the Day
I'm not sure how many of you have been following this story (my guess is not many), but the drug allegations swirling around Alberto Salazar and his runners just keeps getting stranger. And with each passing day, as more and more people speak out, you get the feeling that these aren't simply accusations. As each new piece of evidence surfaces, it looks more and more that Salazar has to be guilty of something.
Now, how much of what's being said is true is definitely open for debate. The only people who know that for sure are Salazar and the athletes he works with. But when you have runners who used to work with Salazar coming out with detailed stories of how he, at the very least, asked them to bend the rules, you know it's more than just the media digging. At least some of this definitely has to be true.
While I don't know Alberto Salazar personally, I have met him a few times. That's not enough to form a judgment about a man, but it didn't really do anything to change my opinion of him either. I'm not really Salazar's biggest fan. He comes off as somebody who'll do anything to win, even if it means rubbing people the wrong way, and he did nothing to change my impression of him. A number of people I know who know Salazar a lot better than I do have no issues with him, and I'm sure I wouldn't either if I knew him as well as they did. But he definitely strikes me as someone who wants to get his own way and will ruffle whatever feathers he needs to in order to get it.
A perfect example of this was at last year's USA Indoor Championships. Just like next week's U.S. Outdoor Nationals will determine the team for the World Championships in August, the U.S. Indoor Championships is the selection meet for World Indoors in even years. The top two in each event qualified for Worlds and one of Salazar's athletes, Jordan Hasay, finished third in the women's 5000 meters. There was minor contact between Hasay and Gabriele Gruenewald (who made the team by finishing second) early in the last lap, but not enough for a disqualification.
However, shortly after the race, Gruenewald was disqualified, moving Hasay up to second and on the team. More than one observer noticed that Salazar was in the officials' tent as they were discussing his protest, a clear violation of the rules. Salazar's influence was obvious and many found the DQ highly questionable. (I though the contact was initiated by Hasay, so if anyone should've been DQed, in my opinion, it should've been her.) The reaction was harsh, especially since it gave the impression that USA Track & Field was letting Nike, its biggest sponsor and Salazar's employer, pick the team. The end result in all this, by the way, was that Salazar withdrew his protest a couple days later and Gruenewald was reinstated, even though there was no grounds for doing that either.
That story can be interpreted a couple ways. For those (like me) that took Gruenewald's side, it was just another example of Salazar's shadiness. It also showed just how flawed some of USA Track & Field's policies can be and that changes are desperately needed in some areas. The inherent conflict of interest involving Nike, which is USATF's biggest sponsor, but also sponsors a good number of elite athletes, was also brought to the forefront.
Like him or not, there's one thing about Alberto Salazar that can't be denied. He's a hell of a coach. It's because of Salazar that the U.S. has become a major player in the distance events. In recent years, we've seen the Americans become major medal contenders at the World Championships and Olympics, threatening to break the Kenyan/Ethiopian stranglehold in the longer distances. It's not just sprinting and field events anymore. And a lot of the credit for that goes to Alberto Salazar's athletes.
Two of his athletes are the ones that have gotten Salazar into trouble, though. He works with Mo Farah, who became a British national hero with his 5000-10,000 double at the London Olympics. Salazar has also worked with Galen Rupp, Farah's training partner who took second behind him in the 10,000 in London, since Rupp was in high school. Farah evidently missed two drug tests before the Olympics. A third would've gotten him banned. But it's the stuff that's come out about Rupp that has Salazar in some extremely hot water.
According to an investigation by the BBC and the media organization ProPublica, Salazar has been providing Rupp with testosterone since 2002, when Rupp was 16! Testosterone is obviously a banned substance, and WADA rules have stipulated since 2003 that giving it to someone that young could make you subject to a lifetime ban (there's a 10-year statute of limitations and it predates the rules, so Salazar evidently can't get a lifetime ban even if he did give Rupp testosterone back then). Other than both denying any wrongdoing, Salazar and Rupp have been mum on the subject.
Then more stories started coming out from a number of different sources. First there was Kara Goucher, who used to train with Salazar. Her claims could easily be dismissed as a disgruntled runner who's upset she got dropped by Salazar and Nike. But then there was Steve Magness, Salazar's former No. 2 at the Nike Oregon Project, who left Nike after the London Olympics and told his story to USADA (the organization that brought down Lance Armstrong) shortly after. Now Lauren Fleshman, another former Nike Oregon Project runner, has detailed how Salazar encouraged her to take medication she didn't need year-round and how she feels "uncomfortable" he's working with young runners like Mary Cain.
To me, the most damning testimony came from massage therapist John Stiner. Stiner said that Salazar told him to keep unmarked vials of a clear liquid in a refrigerator and then FedEx them to him. In addition to the vials, he found a bag containing anywhere between 25 and 50 hypodermic needles in the bathroom. This was all at a Nike-owned apartment in Utah. Salazar's group, as the name suggests, primarily trains in Oregon.
This isn't even close to the end of this story. I'm sure we'll hear much more before it's finally over. That doesn't even include the inevitable investigation by either WADA or the USADA. But this much I do know, the Salazar story is likely going to overshadow the U.S. Nationals next week. And this is also the last thing a sport that's already dealing with doping claims about Russian and Turkish athletes needs.
Now, how much of what's being said is true is definitely open for debate. The only people who know that for sure are Salazar and the athletes he works with. But when you have runners who used to work with Salazar coming out with detailed stories of how he, at the very least, asked them to bend the rules, you know it's more than just the media digging. At least some of this definitely has to be true.
While I don't know Alberto Salazar personally, I have met him a few times. That's not enough to form a judgment about a man, but it didn't really do anything to change my opinion of him either. I'm not really Salazar's biggest fan. He comes off as somebody who'll do anything to win, even if it means rubbing people the wrong way, and he did nothing to change my impression of him. A number of people I know who know Salazar a lot better than I do have no issues with him, and I'm sure I wouldn't either if I knew him as well as they did. But he definitely strikes me as someone who wants to get his own way and will ruffle whatever feathers he needs to in order to get it.
A perfect example of this was at last year's USA Indoor Championships. Just like next week's U.S. Outdoor Nationals will determine the team for the World Championships in August, the U.S. Indoor Championships is the selection meet for World Indoors in even years. The top two in each event qualified for Worlds and one of Salazar's athletes, Jordan Hasay, finished third in the women's 5000 meters. There was minor contact between Hasay and Gabriele Gruenewald (who made the team by finishing second) early in the last lap, but not enough for a disqualification.
However, shortly after the race, Gruenewald was disqualified, moving Hasay up to second and on the team. More than one observer noticed that Salazar was in the officials' tent as they were discussing his protest, a clear violation of the rules. Salazar's influence was obvious and many found the DQ highly questionable. (I though the contact was initiated by Hasay, so if anyone should've been DQed, in my opinion, it should've been her.) The reaction was harsh, especially since it gave the impression that USA Track & Field was letting Nike, its biggest sponsor and Salazar's employer, pick the team. The end result in all this, by the way, was that Salazar withdrew his protest a couple days later and Gruenewald was reinstated, even though there was no grounds for doing that either.
That story can be interpreted a couple ways. For those (like me) that took Gruenewald's side, it was just another example of Salazar's shadiness. It also showed just how flawed some of USA Track & Field's policies can be and that changes are desperately needed in some areas. The inherent conflict of interest involving Nike, which is USATF's biggest sponsor, but also sponsors a good number of elite athletes, was also brought to the forefront.
Like him or not, there's one thing about Alberto Salazar that can't be denied. He's a hell of a coach. It's because of Salazar that the U.S. has become a major player in the distance events. In recent years, we've seen the Americans become major medal contenders at the World Championships and Olympics, threatening to break the Kenyan/Ethiopian stranglehold in the longer distances. It's not just sprinting and field events anymore. And a lot of the credit for that goes to Alberto Salazar's athletes.
Two of his athletes are the ones that have gotten Salazar into trouble, though. He works with Mo Farah, who became a British national hero with his 5000-10,000 double at the London Olympics. Salazar has also worked with Galen Rupp, Farah's training partner who took second behind him in the 10,000 in London, since Rupp was in high school. Farah evidently missed two drug tests before the Olympics. A third would've gotten him banned. But it's the stuff that's come out about Rupp that has Salazar in some extremely hot water.
According to an investigation by the BBC and the media organization ProPublica, Salazar has been providing Rupp with testosterone since 2002, when Rupp was 16! Testosterone is obviously a banned substance, and WADA rules have stipulated since 2003 that giving it to someone that young could make you subject to a lifetime ban (there's a 10-year statute of limitations and it predates the rules, so Salazar evidently can't get a lifetime ban even if he did give Rupp testosterone back then). Other than both denying any wrongdoing, Salazar and Rupp have been mum on the subject.
Then more stories started coming out from a number of different sources. First there was Kara Goucher, who used to train with Salazar. Her claims could easily be dismissed as a disgruntled runner who's upset she got dropped by Salazar and Nike. But then there was Steve Magness, Salazar's former No. 2 at the Nike Oregon Project, who left Nike after the London Olympics and told his story to USADA (the organization that brought down Lance Armstrong) shortly after. Now Lauren Fleshman, another former Nike Oregon Project runner, has detailed how Salazar encouraged her to take medication she didn't need year-round and how she feels "uncomfortable" he's working with young runners like Mary Cain.
To me, the most damning testimony came from massage therapist John Stiner. Stiner said that Salazar told him to keep unmarked vials of a clear liquid in a refrigerator and then FedEx them to him. In addition to the vials, he found a bag containing anywhere between 25 and 50 hypodermic needles in the bathroom. This was all at a Nike-owned apartment in Utah. Salazar's group, as the name suggests, primarily trains in Oregon.
This isn't even close to the end of this story. I'm sure we'll hear much more before it's finally over. That doesn't even include the inevitable investigation by either WADA or the USADA. But this much I do know, the Salazar story is likely going to overshadow the U.S. Nationals next week. And this is also the last thing a sport that's already dealing with doping claims about Russian and Turkish athletes needs.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
New Format, Mixed Results
This was the first year that the NCAA experimented with a new format for the Outdoor Track & Field Championships, which just wrapped up in Eugene, Ore. Instead of combining the men's and women's meets like they did in years past, this year they split the meet by gender. The men went on Wednesday and Friday, with the women on Thursday and Saturday.
When they first announced the format change a couple months ago, I was a little skeptical. I wasn't sure how it would work out or what my reaction to it would be. I wanted to give it a chance before passing judgment. From what I saw, the new format worked well. There are still some tweaks that need to be made, but all in all, I'd say it would have to be deemed a success. The athletes seemed to be happy, the crowds were great, and ESPN certainly liked it better (although, they really need to get a new announcing team).
The biggest reason the NCAA wanted to tweak the format was because it was too hard to follow. Under the old format, using the 1500 meters as an example, it would be one followed by the other. The men's 1500, then the women's 1500, or vice versa. So, they'd essentially do half of each championship on Friday and the other half on Saturday. A few events (mainly the 10,000 meters and decathlon/heptathlon) took place on the first two days of the Championships, and the field events were scattered across all four days. Trying to figure out the team standings could easily get confusing (a few years ago, Dwight Stones said the Kansas women were "running away with it" entering the last event when they had, in fact, already won).
One area in which this new format definitely succeeded was making the team race easier to follow. Again with a few exceptions (the 10,000 and the decathlon/heptathlon, as well as some field events), the meet was broken down into semifinals and finals. Friday was all finals in men's events, and Saturday was the same on the women's side. There was no going back-and-forth. The streamlined method was a big hit (even though Oregon had already won both team titles before the final event).
Probably because of the format change, ESPN had more coverage than ever before this year. The semifinals on Wednesday and Thursday both got three-hour TV windows on ESPNU (the women were even on ESPN Thursday night), while the finals were both two-and-a-half hour live blocks. ESPN3, meanwhile, had coverage that entire time, too, showing the field events that are never actually on TV. On Wednesday and Thursday, ESPN3 came on hours earlier to show the decathlon and heptathlon.
Obviously, Eugene's location on the West Coast made things a lot easier for ESPN, but the amount of coverage they dedicated to the meet was still impressive. ESPN was one of the strongest advocates for a format change to the gender-specific format because they thought it would let them tell a better story and lead to a better broadcast. While there were still a number of issues with the broadcast (Larry Rawson being the main one), you can't say lack of coverage was one of them.
Part of ESPN's "narrative" was to talk about individual athletes, who, of course, were the ones most affected by the change. And it's on the athlete side where I see both the good and the bad. They got a day off between the semis and the finals, which is something they don't normally have in a big meet and I'm sure was appreciated. It should be noted that they generally already at this day off at NCAAs under the old format, but they would often have another event on their "off" day.
Under the new format, athletes get an entire day off even if they're entered in multiple events. But the down side of that is that those athletes competing in multiple events now have them all on one day, and generally in a narrow window. On Thursday, for example, Oregon's Jenna Prandini ran the 4x100 relay, then went over and long jumped, took a break from that to run the 100, went back to the long jump, then ran the 200--all in little more than two hours. She didn't have to long jump on Saturday, but still had the 4x100, 100 and 200 (and likely the 4x400 if Oregon had made the final). These athletes are used to doing multiple events in a short period of time at conference meets, etc., but it's obviously not ideal.
Because of this, some athletes had to make a decision. Do I run the 1500 and 5000 or just one? And which? Is it worth it to try and double? Will it help the team? All of those questions have to be weighed, and I'm not really sure there is a right answer. But it did lead to some athletes scratching from an event they otherwise could've scored in. Even worse, it led to some expected to produce big points losing their second (or third) race of the day to somebody fresher. I hope the NCAA figures out a way to ease that burden on individual athletes and ensure the strongest fields possible in every event.
For the most part, I think the new format for the NCAA Outdoor Championships was a worthwhile experiment, and one they should definitely try again. The issues with it are minor, and I think the NCAA can easily work on them.
Besides, the most important thing isn't going to change anytime soon. The NCAA Championships will be at Hayward Field until 2021, the same year Eugene hosts the World Championships. There's been some criticism about the "permanent host" status they've been given, but there's no other place for them. And if it gives Oregon a home field advantage, so what? Because as long as they're in track-mad Oregon, the NCAA Outdoor Championships will continue to be successful. No matter what the format.
When they first announced the format change a couple months ago, I was a little skeptical. I wasn't sure how it would work out or what my reaction to it would be. I wanted to give it a chance before passing judgment. From what I saw, the new format worked well. There are still some tweaks that need to be made, but all in all, I'd say it would have to be deemed a success. The athletes seemed to be happy, the crowds were great, and ESPN certainly liked it better (although, they really need to get a new announcing team).
The biggest reason the NCAA wanted to tweak the format was because it was too hard to follow. Under the old format, using the 1500 meters as an example, it would be one followed by the other. The men's 1500, then the women's 1500, or vice versa. So, they'd essentially do half of each championship on Friday and the other half on Saturday. A few events (mainly the 10,000 meters and decathlon/heptathlon) took place on the first two days of the Championships, and the field events were scattered across all four days. Trying to figure out the team standings could easily get confusing (a few years ago, Dwight Stones said the Kansas women were "running away with it" entering the last event when they had, in fact, already won).
One area in which this new format definitely succeeded was making the team race easier to follow. Again with a few exceptions (the 10,000 and the decathlon/heptathlon, as well as some field events), the meet was broken down into semifinals and finals. Friday was all finals in men's events, and Saturday was the same on the women's side. There was no going back-and-forth. The streamlined method was a big hit (even though Oregon had already won both team titles before the final event).
Probably because of the format change, ESPN had more coverage than ever before this year. The semifinals on Wednesday and Thursday both got three-hour TV windows on ESPNU (the women were even on ESPN Thursday night), while the finals were both two-and-a-half hour live blocks. ESPN3, meanwhile, had coverage that entire time, too, showing the field events that are never actually on TV. On Wednesday and Thursday, ESPN3 came on hours earlier to show the decathlon and heptathlon.
Obviously, Eugene's location on the West Coast made things a lot easier for ESPN, but the amount of coverage they dedicated to the meet was still impressive. ESPN was one of the strongest advocates for a format change to the gender-specific format because they thought it would let them tell a better story and lead to a better broadcast. While there were still a number of issues with the broadcast (Larry Rawson being the main one), you can't say lack of coverage was one of them.
Part of ESPN's "narrative" was to talk about individual athletes, who, of course, were the ones most affected by the change. And it's on the athlete side where I see both the good and the bad. They got a day off between the semis and the finals, which is something they don't normally have in a big meet and I'm sure was appreciated. It should be noted that they generally already at this day off at NCAAs under the old format, but they would often have another event on their "off" day.
Under the new format, athletes get an entire day off even if they're entered in multiple events. But the down side of that is that those athletes competing in multiple events now have them all on one day, and generally in a narrow window. On Thursday, for example, Oregon's Jenna Prandini ran the 4x100 relay, then went over and long jumped, took a break from that to run the 100, went back to the long jump, then ran the 200--all in little more than two hours. She didn't have to long jump on Saturday, but still had the 4x100, 100 and 200 (and likely the 4x400 if Oregon had made the final). These athletes are used to doing multiple events in a short period of time at conference meets, etc., but it's obviously not ideal.
Because of this, some athletes had to make a decision. Do I run the 1500 and 5000 or just one? And which? Is it worth it to try and double? Will it help the team? All of those questions have to be weighed, and I'm not really sure there is a right answer. But it did lead to some athletes scratching from an event they otherwise could've scored in. Even worse, it led to some expected to produce big points losing their second (or third) race of the day to somebody fresher. I hope the NCAA figures out a way to ease that burden on individual athletes and ensure the strongest fields possible in every event.
For the most part, I think the new format for the NCAA Outdoor Championships was a worthwhile experiment, and one they should definitely try again. The issues with it are minor, and I think the NCAA can easily work on them.
Besides, the most important thing isn't going to change anytime soon. The NCAA Championships will be at Hayward Field until 2021, the same year Eugene hosts the World Championships. There's been some criticism about the "permanent host" status they've been given, but there's no other place for them. And if it gives Oregon a home field advantage, so what? Because as long as they're in track-mad Oregon, the NCAA Outdoor Championships will continue to be successful. No matter what the format.
Friday, June 12, 2015
New Events For Pyeongchang, Tokyo
With the IOC Session where they'll decide the 2022 host fast approaching, news on the Olympic front will definitely be increasing in the coming weeks. They've already taken care of some administrative issues regarding the sports programs for the upcoming Games where we do know the host.
Earlier this week, they once again expanded the program for the Winter Games, which will feature more than 100 events for the first time in Pyeongchang in 2018. They technically added four new events, but it's really six since two are mixed-gender. They also dropped the snowboarding parallel slalom, which just made its debut in Sochi. Replacing it (after a single Olympic appearance) is big air, another freestyle snowboarding event that the Americans and Canadians are good at and, thus, pushed for. It features snowboarders doing a single trick off a ramp like the ones on the slopestyle course. (I'm picturing something like freestyle aerials or ski jumping on a snowboard.) Naturally, a lot of the competitors in slopestyle will also be in the big air event.
They've also added a mass start event in speed skating. While it's what we've become accustomed to seeing in short track, they've only tried mass starts once in long track, and that was in 1932. The two mixed events, meanwhile, are an Alpine skiing team event and mixed doubles curling. The Alpine skiing team event has been in the World Championships for a while and includes head-to-head races on the same course just like the parallel giant slalom in snowboarding. The only difference between mixed doubles curling and regular curling is that the teams are male-female. Whether that means it's two of each gender or one and one I don't know. It doesn't really matter, though.
I'm not overly enamored with the addition of another freestyle snowboarding event (Sage Kotsenburg was stoned for like three days while giving interviews after his gold medal in Sochi, right?). But that's clearly the direction the IOC is going, so it's not a surprise. They want sports that are going to appeal to young people and will be watched on TV. Since the U.S. is good at freestyle snowboarding, that means medal potential, which also means NBC will show plenty of it (which equals high ratings for the sport).
The other three events are exciting additions, though. The mixed curling doesn't seem completely necessary, but there was no harm in adding it, either. It'll probably be the same athletes that are on the men's/women's teams for whatever country, so they'll have a chance to win a second gold medal. And curling has this cult following where people are glued to the TV every four years, so increasing the amount of time people can spend watching curling makes sense.
But I'm really excited about the other two new events. Especially the mass start speed skating. Speed skating's a great sport, but the one-at-a-time thing can make it somewhat hard to follow at times. That's one of the reasons the team pursuit has become so popular. Everybody starting together will significantly add to the excitement.
As for the Alpine skiing team event, it'll definitely be TV-friendly. And I think people really like the idea of Lindsay Vonn and Maria Reisch going head-to-head. I don't really know how the format works, or if they'd do it the same way at the Olympics, but the mixed-gender events are wildly popular, with the fans and the athletes. Just look at the figure skating team event and the luge team relay if you want examples. It was smart of the IOC to add more mixed events that, since they've already been a hit at World Championships, they know will work.
Meanwhile, now that the door has been opened, it seems incredibly likely that there will be at least one new sport on the program two years later in Tokyo. A total of 26 sports submitted applications, many of which have absolutely no chance of being in the Olympics (football, tug of war, sumo wrestling). Some seem like they would be an odd fit (air sports, underwater sports, ultimate frisbee). Others are featured in various international multi-sport games (lawn bowls, bowling, netball), while still others I had to look up to even find out what they were (floorball, korfball, wushu).
Then there are the ones that have been finalists for Olympic inclusion before and, I think, would make tremendous additions to the Olympic program. That list includes roller sports, sport climbing, bowling and karate. Even waterski/wakeboard and surfing, which I don't think have even a remote chance of making the semifinal list would be cool.
This is a two-horse race, though. It'll either be the baseball/softball joint bid or squash that is contested in Tokyo. Maybe both. I've gone on record as saying that I think baseball and, especially softball, never should've been dropped from the Olympics in the first place, so I'd welcome their return with open arms. Baseball and softball are viewed as the favorites to be added, too, due to their immense popularity in Japan.
However, I do have a slight hesitation with baseball/softball, and it has to do with the way the process of adding sports is set up. The IOC is leaving it up to the host committee which sports they'd like to recommend adding for their given Olympics. Which means it could be a one-Olympic appearance, which I don't think is fair to that sport. When rugby and golf were added for Rio, they were given a two-Olympic guarantee before determining their fate for 2024 and beyond. It's highly unlikely that they won't become permanent, though.
Baseball and softball have far less staying power than rugby and golf. They're immensely popular in Japan, which helps their cause for 2020, but what about 2024? Say those Games end up in Paris. Neither one is popular in France. They could be gone again just as quickly as they were added. In general, I'm opposed to dropping sports from the Olympics (especially when you screw up and vote out a sport that never should've been dropped anyway, so you put it right back in). Once you're in, you're in.
Squash, the other sport I've long advocated for Olympic inclusion, has far more staying power than baseball/softball would. Again, I don't know why squash isn't in the Olympics already. It's a finalist every time adding sports comes up, and it's featured in all of the major international multi-sport competitions. Also, check out the squash world rankings and you'll see players from everywhere.
For all the work baseball and softball have done to return to the Olympics, it would be a blow even more devastating for them to return just for Tokyo before being dropped again that it was when the IOC removed them from the program in the first place. Squash wouldn't have such a problem. If squash were to join the Olympic program in Tokyo, it'll be there for the long haul. But at the very least, I hope we see them both in 2020. For squash's debut and baseball/softball's triumphant return.
Earlier this week, they once again expanded the program for the Winter Games, which will feature more than 100 events for the first time in Pyeongchang in 2018. They technically added four new events, but it's really six since two are mixed-gender. They also dropped the snowboarding parallel slalom, which just made its debut in Sochi. Replacing it (after a single Olympic appearance) is big air, another freestyle snowboarding event that the Americans and Canadians are good at and, thus, pushed for. It features snowboarders doing a single trick off a ramp like the ones on the slopestyle course. (I'm picturing something like freestyle aerials or ski jumping on a snowboard.) Naturally, a lot of the competitors in slopestyle will also be in the big air event.
They've also added a mass start event in speed skating. While it's what we've become accustomed to seeing in short track, they've only tried mass starts once in long track, and that was in 1932. The two mixed events, meanwhile, are an Alpine skiing team event and mixed doubles curling. The Alpine skiing team event has been in the World Championships for a while and includes head-to-head races on the same course just like the parallel giant slalom in snowboarding. The only difference between mixed doubles curling and regular curling is that the teams are male-female. Whether that means it's two of each gender or one and one I don't know. It doesn't really matter, though.
I'm not overly enamored with the addition of another freestyle snowboarding event (Sage Kotsenburg was stoned for like three days while giving interviews after his gold medal in Sochi, right?). But that's clearly the direction the IOC is going, so it's not a surprise. They want sports that are going to appeal to young people and will be watched on TV. Since the U.S. is good at freestyle snowboarding, that means medal potential, which also means NBC will show plenty of it (which equals high ratings for the sport).
The other three events are exciting additions, though. The mixed curling doesn't seem completely necessary, but there was no harm in adding it, either. It'll probably be the same athletes that are on the men's/women's teams for whatever country, so they'll have a chance to win a second gold medal. And curling has this cult following where people are glued to the TV every four years, so increasing the amount of time people can spend watching curling makes sense.
But I'm really excited about the other two new events. Especially the mass start speed skating. Speed skating's a great sport, but the one-at-a-time thing can make it somewhat hard to follow at times. That's one of the reasons the team pursuit has become so popular. Everybody starting together will significantly add to the excitement.
As for the Alpine skiing team event, it'll definitely be TV-friendly. And I think people really like the idea of Lindsay Vonn and Maria Reisch going head-to-head. I don't really know how the format works, or if they'd do it the same way at the Olympics, but the mixed-gender events are wildly popular, with the fans and the athletes. Just look at the figure skating team event and the luge team relay if you want examples. It was smart of the IOC to add more mixed events that, since they've already been a hit at World Championships, they know will work.
Meanwhile, now that the door has been opened, it seems incredibly likely that there will be at least one new sport on the program two years later in Tokyo. A total of 26 sports submitted applications, many of which have absolutely no chance of being in the Olympics (football, tug of war, sumo wrestling). Some seem like they would be an odd fit (air sports, underwater sports, ultimate frisbee). Others are featured in various international multi-sport games (lawn bowls, bowling, netball), while still others I had to look up to even find out what they were (floorball, korfball, wushu).
Then there are the ones that have been finalists for Olympic inclusion before and, I think, would make tremendous additions to the Olympic program. That list includes roller sports, sport climbing, bowling and karate. Even waterski/wakeboard and surfing, which I don't think have even a remote chance of making the semifinal list would be cool.
This is a two-horse race, though. It'll either be the baseball/softball joint bid or squash that is contested in Tokyo. Maybe both. I've gone on record as saying that I think baseball and, especially softball, never should've been dropped from the Olympics in the first place, so I'd welcome their return with open arms. Baseball and softball are viewed as the favorites to be added, too, due to their immense popularity in Japan.
However, I do have a slight hesitation with baseball/softball, and it has to do with the way the process of adding sports is set up. The IOC is leaving it up to the host committee which sports they'd like to recommend adding for their given Olympics. Which means it could be a one-Olympic appearance, which I don't think is fair to that sport. When rugby and golf were added for Rio, they were given a two-Olympic guarantee before determining their fate for 2024 and beyond. It's highly unlikely that they won't become permanent, though.
Baseball and softball have far less staying power than rugby and golf. They're immensely popular in Japan, which helps their cause for 2020, but what about 2024? Say those Games end up in Paris. Neither one is popular in France. They could be gone again just as quickly as they were added. In general, I'm opposed to dropping sports from the Olympics (especially when you screw up and vote out a sport that never should've been dropped anyway, so you put it right back in). Once you're in, you're in.
Squash, the other sport I've long advocated for Olympic inclusion, has far more staying power than baseball/softball would. Again, I don't know why squash isn't in the Olympics already. It's a finalist every time adding sports comes up, and it's featured in all of the major international multi-sport competitions. Also, check out the squash world rankings and you'll see players from everywhere.
For all the work baseball and softball have done to return to the Olympics, it would be a blow even more devastating for them to return just for Tokyo before being dropped again that it was when the IOC removed them from the program in the first place. Squash wouldn't have such a problem. If squash were to join the Olympic program in Tokyo, it'll be there for the long haul. But at the very least, I hope we see them both in 2020. For squash's debut and baseball/softball's triumphant return.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
You Don't Win, You Don't Get a Star!
As I was watching the Brazil-South Korea Women's World Cup game tonight, something kept bothering me. I mean really bothering me. Brazil had five stars above the crest on its jersey. The five stars represent Brazil's five World Cup wins. That's five wins in the men's World Cup. The Brazilian women have won a total of ZERO World Cups, so why are they wearing championship stars?
It's become something of a soccer tradition to put a star on your jersey for winning a major championship. For example, Germany wore three stars on its jerseys during the 2014 World Cup. Since they won the World Cup, the German men now have four stars. Even better, Spain wore its away uniforms in the 2010 World Cup final. After they won, they switched to their familiar red jerseys for the trophy presentation, and they already had the championship star on them.
This tradition extends to club soccer, too. The famous Italian club, Juventus, is credited with starting the trend in 1958, when they added a star to their jersey after winning their 10th Italian Serie A title. It's also been a tradition in MLS since the league was founded. The LA Galaxy won their fifth MLS Cup last season and now have five stars on their jersey. In fact, the MLS teams take it so seriously that the Montreal Impact removed all of the stars they'd put on their jerseys for previous league championships when they joined MLS.
Only eight different countries have won the men's World Cup, so those are the only eight you'll see wearing stars. (Uruguay has only won the World Cup twice, but counts two Olympic championships, so they have four stars on their jerseys.) While it's not an official award from FIFA and national federations are free to do whatever they want, it's understood what stars on the jersey mean. It's a respect thing recognizing you as a World Cup champion. It's like that thing the NBA did with the little gold tab on the back of the jersey for teams that have won a title. You want a star above the crest on your jersey, you've gotta earn it.
On the women's side, only four countries have won the World Cup. Germany and the United States have each won twice, while Norway and Japan have one title apiece. The Germans are the only team to have won both the men's and women's editions, but the men wear four stars for their World Cup titles and the women wear two for theirs. Neither wears six, which is their combined total. They each wear only their own stars.
Likewise, the U.S. men don't wear two stars on their jerseys (the stars on the soccer ball inside the logo don't count). Norway and Japan's men's teams don't wear any World Cup stars, either. Nor should they. They have no reason to. They didn't win those World Cups!
Which brings me to Brazil. I'm a big fan of Brazilian soccer. Who doesn't respect their history, and they've always been an entertaining team to watch. But I find it incredibly pretentious to put the stars that were earned by the men's team on the women's jersey.
That's like if the Baylor men's basketball team were to wear two stars on their uniforms to celebrate the two national championships won by the Baylor women's team. Or the Duke women adding a star on their uniforms next season because of this year's men's title. That would be completely ridiculous and people would sit there thinking "What are they doing?" if they were to do that. This example is obviously not realistic, but I use it to illustrate my point. If the Brazilian women want stars on their jerseys, they need to earn them themselves.
I'm not completely blaming Brazil here. According to Wikipedia, the stars aren't anything "won" or officially awarded by FIFA. They're generally a unilateral decision made by the national federations. But if you win a major title, you're going to add a star. And everyone knows why. Since Brazil has won five World Cups, the five stars above the federation logo are actually part of the national team crest. Which is fine. Except the women have no reason to be wearing the stars!
To put it another way, imagine if Brazil wins this Women's World Cup, which isn't out of the realm of possibility. Will the federation add a sixth star to the crest celebrating the women's team's win? Most likely not. So if they're not going to add a star to the men's jerseys for the women, why should the women wear stars won by the men's team on their jerseys?
FIFA doesn't have a rule here, but maybe they need one. That would be a solution to this problem. Brazil is the only country to win five World Cups. They deserve to be celebrated. But not by the women's team. Let them win their own stars. Those'll mean something.
It's become something of a soccer tradition to put a star on your jersey for winning a major championship. For example, Germany wore three stars on its jerseys during the 2014 World Cup. Since they won the World Cup, the German men now have four stars. Even better, Spain wore its away uniforms in the 2010 World Cup final. After they won, they switched to their familiar red jerseys for the trophy presentation, and they already had the championship star on them.
This tradition extends to club soccer, too. The famous Italian club, Juventus, is credited with starting the trend in 1958, when they added a star to their jersey after winning their 10th Italian Serie A title. It's also been a tradition in MLS since the league was founded. The LA Galaxy won their fifth MLS Cup last season and now have five stars on their jersey. In fact, the MLS teams take it so seriously that the Montreal Impact removed all of the stars they'd put on their jerseys for previous league championships when they joined MLS.
Only eight different countries have won the men's World Cup, so those are the only eight you'll see wearing stars. (Uruguay has only won the World Cup twice, but counts two Olympic championships, so they have four stars on their jerseys.) While it's not an official award from FIFA and national federations are free to do whatever they want, it's understood what stars on the jersey mean. It's a respect thing recognizing you as a World Cup champion. It's like that thing the NBA did with the little gold tab on the back of the jersey for teams that have won a title. You want a star above the crest on your jersey, you've gotta earn it.
On the women's side, only four countries have won the World Cup. Germany and the United States have each won twice, while Norway and Japan have one title apiece. The Germans are the only team to have won both the men's and women's editions, but the men wear four stars for their World Cup titles and the women wear two for theirs. Neither wears six, which is their combined total. They each wear only their own stars.
Likewise, the U.S. men don't wear two stars on their jerseys (the stars on the soccer ball inside the logo don't count). Norway and Japan's men's teams don't wear any World Cup stars, either. Nor should they. They have no reason to. They didn't win those World Cups!
Which brings me to Brazil. I'm a big fan of Brazilian soccer. Who doesn't respect their history, and they've always been an entertaining team to watch. But I find it incredibly pretentious to put the stars that were earned by the men's team on the women's jersey.
That's like if the Baylor men's basketball team were to wear two stars on their uniforms to celebrate the two national championships won by the Baylor women's team. Or the Duke women adding a star on their uniforms next season because of this year's men's title. That would be completely ridiculous and people would sit there thinking "What are they doing?" if they were to do that. This example is obviously not realistic, but I use it to illustrate my point. If the Brazilian women want stars on their jerseys, they need to earn them themselves.
I'm not completely blaming Brazil here. According to Wikipedia, the stars aren't anything "won" or officially awarded by FIFA. They're generally a unilateral decision made by the national federations. But if you win a major title, you're going to add a star. And everyone knows why. Since Brazil has won five World Cups, the five stars above the federation logo are actually part of the national team crest. Which is fine. Except the women have no reason to be wearing the stars!
To put it another way, imagine if Brazil wins this Women's World Cup, which isn't out of the realm of possibility. Will the federation add a sixth star to the crest celebrating the women's team's win? Most likely not. So if they're not going to add a star to the men's jerseys for the women, why should the women wear stars won by the men's team on their jerseys?
FIFA doesn't have a rule here, but maybe they need one. That would be a solution to this problem. Brazil is the only country to win five World Cups. They deserve to be celebrated. But not by the women's team. Let them win their own stars. Those'll mean something.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
The Pharoah Is Crowned
I finally saw something I thought I'd never see. After 37 years, horse racing has another Triple Crown winner! We've had so many near-misses in recent years, that I was really starting to believe it would never happen again. Fortunately, I was wrong. We just needed that special horse. We needed American Pharoah.
There have been so many horses that went to the Belmont with a chance to end the Triple Crown drought, getting our collective hopes up only to fall short each time. From Silver Charm getting edged by Touch Gold in 1997 to Real Quiet losing to Victory Gallop by a nose a year later. Or Smarty Jones finishing second to 36-to-1 shot Birdstone in 2004 or I'll Have Another being scratched in 2012 or California Chrome's fourth-place finish last year, each Belmont had a different story.
It was 25 years between Triple Crown wins for Citation in 1948 and Secreteriat in 1973, who I think are the two greatest racehorses ever. Then there were three Triple Crowns in six years, including Seattle Slew (1977) and Affirmed (1978) back-to-back. Then Spectacular Bid raced for another in 1979. Little did anybody know that when Spectacular Bid lost the Belmont, it would be the start of what ended up becoming the longest drought in history.
No one could've guessed that from Spectacular Bid to California Chrome, there would be 13 failed attempts before we finally saw a Triple Crown winner. It looked more and more like it wasn't going to happen, for a variety of reasons. Obviously the horses are oblivious to all the attention that's suddenly around them, but the three weeks of constant media buzz can't go unnoticed by all the people involved. And the crowd at Belmont is always significantly larger when there's a Triple Crown on the line. (So are the TV ratings.) That massive crowd the horses DO notice. Just like all the flashes from people taking pictures can easily disrupt horses that are used to calm surroundings.
Then there's Belmont's distance. At a mile and a half, it's not just the longest Triple Crown race, it's the longest any of these horses have ever run. Period. In addition, the Derby/Preakness winner is racing for the third time in five weeks. Against competition that's likely much fresher.
Last year, California Chrome's owner, Steve Coburn, who was obviously speaking out of frustration, made some legitimate points while criticizing the entry system for the Belmont Stakes. After the Kentucky Derby, there's only one horse that has a chance to win the Triple Crown. That horse becomes the hunted. Even more so if it also wins the Preakness. As a result, the other owners take their best shot at the Belmont, which usually involves skipping the Preakness. Want proof? Until American Pharoah, it had been 10 years since a horse that had run in the Preakness won the Belmont. (In 2005, Afleet Alex also won both, but had finished third at the Derby, so there was no Triple Crown on the line.)
While Coburn came off as a sore loser, most experts didn't completely disagree with his general stance that there would be another Triple Crown winner in his lifetime, with that being the primary reason why they thought so. They actually discussed that at length on NBC during the prerace show. Everyone agreed that there was no need to change the system. To do so would diminish the achievement for the 11 horses that came before, as well as American Pharoah and any others that might come along in the future (now that we've seen it, we know it's not impossible).
In the immortal words of Jimmy Dugan, "It's supposed to be hard. It's the hard that makes it great." Winning the Triple Crown is one of the hardest things to do in sports. That's why it's only happened 12 times in the 96 years since the term was coined when Sir Barton won all three races in 1919. One of the things that makes it hard is that one horse has to take on all comers, each of which has one singular goal. American Pharoah's people were up for the challenge. They were looking forward to it. And, most importantly, their horse was ready for it.
Horse racing is likely never going to regain the place it once held in the American sporting landscape. There are a number of people who probably won't watch another race until next year's Kentucky Derby (Guilty!). But, for better or worse, people pay attention to the Triple Crown, especially when there's the chance we'll get to see one of the rarest achievements in all of sports. Now we've seen it.
So many times we've had that horse we thought would be the one to finally do it, only to be disappointed when it didn't happen. (Then quickly get over it.) This year, we weren't disappointed.
At the end of the Preakness, we all saw how much American Pharoah (it will be spelled wrong in the history books forever) had left in the tank and really believed this might be the year. And it wasn't just our optimistic hearts talking. Then when they started the stretch run at Belmont, we knew. This was the year. The wait was over. American Pharoah was running away with it. There would be no nail-biting finish. Just celebration. And a coronation. For a Pharoah that needed to be fitted for his Crown.
There have been so many horses that went to the Belmont with a chance to end the Triple Crown drought, getting our collective hopes up only to fall short each time. From Silver Charm getting edged by Touch Gold in 1997 to Real Quiet losing to Victory Gallop by a nose a year later. Or Smarty Jones finishing second to 36-to-1 shot Birdstone in 2004 or I'll Have Another being scratched in 2012 or California Chrome's fourth-place finish last year, each Belmont had a different story.
It was 25 years between Triple Crown wins for Citation in 1948 and Secreteriat in 1973, who I think are the two greatest racehorses ever. Then there were three Triple Crowns in six years, including Seattle Slew (1977) and Affirmed (1978) back-to-back. Then Spectacular Bid raced for another in 1979. Little did anybody know that when Spectacular Bid lost the Belmont, it would be the start of what ended up becoming the longest drought in history.
No one could've guessed that from Spectacular Bid to California Chrome, there would be 13 failed attempts before we finally saw a Triple Crown winner. It looked more and more like it wasn't going to happen, for a variety of reasons. Obviously the horses are oblivious to all the attention that's suddenly around them, but the three weeks of constant media buzz can't go unnoticed by all the people involved. And the crowd at Belmont is always significantly larger when there's a Triple Crown on the line. (So are the TV ratings.) That massive crowd the horses DO notice. Just like all the flashes from people taking pictures can easily disrupt horses that are used to calm surroundings.
Then there's Belmont's distance. At a mile and a half, it's not just the longest Triple Crown race, it's the longest any of these horses have ever run. Period. In addition, the Derby/Preakness winner is racing for the third time in five weeks. Against competition that's likely much fresher.
Last year, California Chrome's owner, Steve Coburn, who was obviously speaking out of frustration, made some legitimate points while criticizing the entry system for the Belmont Stakes. After the Kentucky Derby, there's only one horse that has a chance to win the Triple Crown. That horse becomes the hunted. Even more so if it also wins the Preakness. As a result, the other owners take their best shot at the Belmont, which usually involves skipping the Preakness. Want proof? Until American Pharoah, it had been 10 years since a horse that had run in the Preakness won the Belmont. (In 2005, Afleet Alex also won both, but had finished third at the Derby, so there was no Triple Crown on the line.)
While Coburn came off as a sore loser, most experts didn't completely disagree with his general stance that there would be another Triple Crown winner in his lifetime, with that being the primary reason why they thought so. They actually discussed that at length on NBC during the prerace show. Everyone agreed that there was no need to change the system. To do so would diminish the achievement for the 11 horses that came before, as well as American Pharoah and any others that might come along in the future (now that we've seen it, we know it's not impossible).
In the immortal words of Jimmy Dugan, "It's supposed to be hard. It's the hard that makes it great." Winning the Triple Crown is one of the hardest things to do in sports. That's why it's only happened 12 times in the 96 years since the term was coined when Sir Barton won all three races in 1919. One of the things that makes it hard is that one horse has to take on all comers, each of which has one singular goal. American Pharoah's people were up for the challenge. They were looking forward to it. And, most importantly, their horse was ready for it.
Horse racing is likely never going to regain the place it once held in the American sporting landscape. There are a number of people who probably won't watch another race until next year's Kentucky Derby (Guilty!). But, for better or worse, people pay attention to the Triple Crown, especially when there's the chance we'll get to see one of the rarest achievements in all of sports. Now we've seen it.
So many times we've had that horse we thought would be the one to finally do it, only to be disappointed when it didn't happen. (Then quickly get over it.) This year, we weren't disappointed.
At the end of the Preakness, we all saw how much American Pharoah (it will be spelled wrong in the history books forever) had left in the tank and really believed this might be the year. And it wasn't just our optimistic hearts talking. Then when they started the stretch run at Belmont, we knew. This was the year. The wait was over. American Pharoah was running away with it. There would be no nail-biting finish. Just celebration. And a coronation. For a Pharoah that needed to be fitted for his Crown.
Saturday, June 6, 2015
2015 Women's World Cup Preview
It's safe to say that all of the news we've heard about FIFA so far in 2015 hasn't been good. Of course there was the corruption scandal that led to the arrest of multiple FIFA officials, some of whom have even admitted to taking bribes. Amid all this, Sepp Blatter was re-elected as president, only to resign days later when he saw the walls are clearly closing in on him. And the talk of moving the two tainted World Cups has again emerged. (In my opinion, it's too late to do anything about 2018. Russia's already building stadiums and three years is not enough time for another country to properly prepare.)
What FIFA needs is people's attention back on the field. Fortunately, that's going to happen over the next month, as the Women's World Cup takes center stage. There was some controversy over the use of artificial turf instead of natural grass, but that's all in the past. The top players from around the world have arrived in Canada for the largest Women's World Cup ever.
They added eight teams to the field this year, going from 16 to 24. That was a necessary step which shows the development of the women's game. And as a result of the expansion, eight countries will be making their World Cup debuts. Unfortunately, it also means that there are some weaker teams that will probably get blown out three times (Ivory Coast, for example, is ranked 67th in the world). However, that doesn't mean the expanded tournament will be any less competitive. Because the number of top teams has grown, and the later rounds of this tournament are going to be very good.
Group A: Canada, China, Netherlands, New Zealand
Canada will obviously benefit from its home field advantage. They finished last in Germany four years ago, but won the bronze at the London Olympics and are ranked eighth in the world. They'll play the first game of the tournament against a Chinese team that used to be a world power (remember the 1999 final at the Rose Bowl?), but didn't qualify for the World Cup in 2011. New Zealand and the Netherlands will join them, with the Dutch making their first appearance in the Women's World Cup. While Canada should easily win the group, the battle for the second and third spots will be very competitive. That New Zealand-Netherlands opener could determine a lot, although China can't be counted out. By the slightest of margins, I'm going to give the Netherlands the nod for the second place spot, with China finishing third and getting one of those wild card spots to the round of 16.
Group B: Germany, Ivory Coast, Norway, Thailand
This group should be a breeze for the Germans. They're ranked No. 1 in the world and won't have to face another team in the top 10 until the knockout stage. They've also got a chip on their shoulder. After winning the previous two World Cups, they were eliminated in the quarterfinals as hosts four years ago, then didn't even qualify for the Olympics. As for the second team that will automatically advance, I've gotta go with Norway. The Norwegians are one of seven teams to have been in every Women's World Cup and are clearly the second-best team in this group. It's not even close. The two European teams will easily advance. I've also got this group pegged as one of the two that won't have its third-place team advance. Ivory Coast and Thailand, both making their debuts, are simply over-matched against these two European heavyweights.
Group C: Cameroon, Ecuador, Japan, Switzerland
The defending champs were also blessed with an easy group. Japan has been in every Women's World Cup, while none of the other three has played in one previously. The Japanese, of course, had that memorable run to the title in 2011, and have to be considered one of the favorites entering this year's tournament. They won't be challenged in group play, which could be good or bad depending on how their knockout draw sorts out. Switzerland got incredibly lucky by avoiding another European team, and they're better than both Ecuador and Cameroon, two of the three weakest teams in the field. Like Group B, I don't see the third place team advancing to the round of 16. Switzerland will join Japan in the knockout stage.
Group D: Australia, Nigeria, Sweden, United States
Women's World Cup fun fact: the United States and Sweden have been in the same group three straight times, and the United States has been in the same group as Nigeria three times in the last four World Cups. North Korea is usually the fourth team in the USA, Sweden, Nigeria group, but they were ineligible for this year's tournament, so the honors go to Australia instead. Just like the men's team last year, the American women were drawn into the proverbial "Group of Death." Although, since it's highly likely three teams will advance out of this group, a win over Australia in the opener should be enough to ensure qualification. Of course, Team USA is thinking bigger than that. For all their Olympic success (three straight gold medals), it's been 16 years since they won the World Cup. They'd obviously like that to change. And I think being in the most difficult group will benefit the Americans in the long run. Sweden arguably could've been seeded and actually won the group over the U.S. four years ago. They're one of the stronger sides in the tournament. This was a bad draw for Nigeria. They're the most talented African side, but are no match for these three heavyweights. Australia will finish third and be the team no group winner wants to face in the round of 16.
Group E: Brazil, Costa Rica, South Korea, Spain
Brazil has an incredible amount of pressure on it going into this year's Women's World Cup. This is the golden generation of Brazilian women's soccer, but they have nothing to show for it. Two Olympic silvers, one World Cup final and another third place finish. The pressure's not as great as it will be when they host the Olympics next year (ask the Brazilian men how they handled the pressure last year), but they know their window of opportunity is closing. It should be easy advancement for the Brazilians, but the battle for second place probably won't be decided until the final day of group play, when Spain meets South Korea in Ottawa. The Koreans' only previous appearance was in 2003, while the Spanish have never before played in the Women's World Cup. I think they'll both move on, but finishing second and avoiding a team from Group D is all the motivation necessary to go for the win in that final game. For some reason, I like South Korea in that game.
Group F: Colombia, England, France, Mexico
Group F sets up for two great battles, both of which could be decided in the opening games. Rivals France and England, numbers three and six in the world, meet in the first game, while Mexico and Colombia, both ranked in the 20s, play in the nightcap. France and England actually played in the quarterfinals at the last Women's World Cup, with the French advancing on penalty kicks en route to a fourth-place finish, their best-ever showing. They're technically the third-best team in the world, which got them seeded over Sweden, so they're not going to surprise anyone this time. They're not the French men's team (which always seems to choke in the World Cup), but for some reason, I see them losing to England and finishing second in the group. As for the third-place qualifier, I've gotta say I like Colombia. They finished second in South American qualifying, knocking out Argentina in the process, while Mexico barely qualified finishing third (behind Costa Rica) in the CONCACAF qualifying tournament.
Round of 16: Netherlands vs. Switzerland, United States vs. South Korea, Germany vs. China, England vs. Spain, Brazil vs. Sweden, Japan vs. Colombia, Norway vs. France, Canada vs. Australia
Because we don't know which four third-place teams will advance to the knockout round, not all of the pairings are predetermined like they are on the men's side. But the ones that are are unfortunate. For example, E1 vs. D2 means Brazil will have to beat most likely either the United States or Sweden just to get to the quarters. Same thing with Norway vs. the England/France loser. But just like the groups that are weaker, that creates opportunities for others.
If the tournament plays out the way I think it will and these are the eight round of 16 matchups, I'll take Switzerland advancing to meet the USA and Germany vs. England. Brazil-Sweden would obviously be the most compelling matchup, and things obviously won't get any easier for the winner with Japan awaiting in the quarters. That's by far the toughest game to make a pick on. I'll say Brazil takes it in penalty kicks. Meanwhile, France beats Norway to set up a quarterfinal matchup with Canada. (Because UEFA's being lazy and not having an Olympic qualifying tournament, that would also secure berths in Rio for Switzerland, Germany and France.)
And that's where things will get good. Outside of Switzerland, all of my quarterfinalists are legitimate threats to win the tournament. The Americans beat the Swiss and Germany beats England to set up a semifinal between the top two teams in the world (if they both win their group, there's no possible way for the U.S. and Germany to play in the final). In the other semi, I'll take Japan vs. Canada.
With Germany and Japan the only teams standing in the way of an all-North American final, the semis should be incredible. This U.S. team is on a mission and that semifinal game in Montreal will have an awful lot of American fans in attendance. That, and Hope Solo, should be enough to make a difference. As for Team Canada, they'll be playing in the semifinals at home on Canada Day. They felt like they got cheated out of a chance at Olympic gold with that controversial semifinal loss to the U.S. in London. Three years later, they'll get a chance to avenge that defeat in the World Cup Final at Vancouver's Olympic Stadium. Except the Americans are too strong. If they get back to the final, they're not losing it again.
Sixteen years is long enough. Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan and Co. get their World Cup to go along with all those Olympic gold medals.
What FIFA needs is people's attention back on the field. Fortunately, that's going to happen over the next month, as the Women's World Cup takes center stage. There was some controversy over the use of artificial turf instead of natural grass, but that's all in the past. The top players from around the world have arrived in Canada for the largest Women's World Cup ever.
They added eight teams to the field this year, going from 16 to 24. That was a necessary step which shows the development of the women's game. And as a result of the expansion, eight countries will be making their World Cup debuts. Unfortunately, it also means that there are some weaker teams that will probably get blown out three times (Ivory Coast, for example, is ranked 67th in the world). However, that doesn't mean the expanded tournament will be any less competitive. Because the number of top teams has grown, and the later rounds of this tournament are going to be very good.
Group A: Canada, China, Netherlands, New Zealand
Canada will obviously benefit from its home field advantage. They finished last in Germany four years ago, but won the bronze at the London Olympics and are ranked eighth in the world. They'll play the first game of the tournament against a Chinese team that used to be a world power (remember the 1999 final at the Rose Bowl?), but didn't qualify for the World Cup in 2011. New Zealand and the Netherlands will join them, with the Dutch making their first appearance in the Women's World Cup. While Canada should easily win the group, the battle for the second and third spots will be very competitive. That New Zealand-Netherlands opener could determine a lot, although China can't be counted out. By the slightest of margins, I'm going to give the Netherlands the nod for the second place spot, with China finishing third and getting one of those wild card spots to the round of 16.
Group B: Germany, Ivory Coast, Norway, Thailand
This group should be a breeze for the Germans. They're ranked No. 1 in the world and won't have to face another team in the top 10 until the knockout stage. They've also got a chip on their shoulder. After winning the previous two World Cups, they were eliminated in the quarterfinals as hosts four years ago, then didn't even qualify for the Olympics. As for the second team that will automatically advance, I've gotta go with Norway. The Norwegians are one of seven teams to have been in every Women's World Cup and are clearly the second-best team in this group. It's not even close. The two European teams will easily advance. I've also got this group pegged as one of the two that won't have its third-place team advance. Ivory Coast and Thailand, both making their debuts, are simply over-matched against these two European heavyweights.
Group C: Cameroon, Ecuador, Japan, Switzerland
The defending champs were also blessed with an easy group. Japan has been in every Women's World Cup, while none of the other three has played in one previously. The Japanese, of course, had that memorable run to the title in 2011, and have to be considered one of the favorites entering this year's tournament. They won't be challenged in group play, which could be good or bad depending on how their knockout draw sorts out. Switzerland got incredibly lucky by avoiding another European team, and they're better than both Ecuador and Cameroon, two of the three weakest teams in the field. Like Group B, I don't see the third place team advancing to the round of 16. Switzerland will join Japan in the knockout stage.
Group D: Australia, Nigeria, Sweden, United States
Women's World Cup fun fact: the United States and Sweden have been in the same group three straight times, and the United States has been in the same group as Nigeria three times in the last four World Cups. North Korea is usually the fourth team in the USA, Sweden, Nigeria group, but they were ineligible for this year's tournament, so the honors go to Australia instead. Just like the men's team last year, the American women were drawn into the proverbial "Group of Death." Although, since it's highly likely three teams will advance out of this group, a win over Australia in the opener should be enough to ensure qualification. Of course, Team USA is thinking bigger than that. For all their Olympic success (three straight gold medals), it's been 16 years since they won the World Cup. They'd obviously like that to change. And I think being in the most difficult group will benefit the Americans in the long run. Sweden arguably could've been seeded and actually won the group over the U.S. four years ago. They're one of the stronger sides in the tournament. This was a bad draw for Nigeria. They're the most talented African side, but are no match for these three heavyweights. Australia will finish third and be the team no group winner wants to face in the round of 16.
Group E: Brazil, Costa Rica, South Korea, Spain
Brazil has an incredible amount of pressure on it going into this year's Women's World Cup. This is the golden generation of Brazilian women's soccer, but they have nothing to show for it. Two Olympic silvers, one World Cup final and another third place finish. The pressure's not as great as it will be when they host the Olympics next year (ask the Brazilian men how they handled the pressure last year), but they know their window of opportunity is closing. It should be easy advancement for the Brazilians, but the battle for second place probably won't be decided until the final day of group play, when Spain meets South Korea in Ottawa. The Koreans' only previous appearance was in 2003, while the Spanish have never before played in the Women's World Cup. I think they'll both move on, but finishing second and avoiding a team from Group D is all the motivation necessary to go for the win in that final game. For some reason, I like South Korea in that game.
Group F: Colombia, England, France, Mexico
Group F sets up for two great battles, both of which could be decided in the opening games. Rivals France and England, numbers three and six in the world, meet in the first game, while Mexico and Colombia, both ranked in the 20s, play in the nightcap. France and England actually played in the quarterfinals at the last Women's World Cup, with the French advancing on penalty kicks en route to a fourth-place finish, their best-ever showing. They're technically the third-best team in the world, which got them seeded over Sweden, so they're not going to surprise anyone this time. They're not the French men's team (which always seems to choke in the World Cup), but for some reason, I see them losing to England and finishing second in the group. As for the third-place qualifier, I've gotta say I like Colombia. They finished second in South American qualifying, knocking out Argentina in the process, while Mexico barely qualified finishing third (behind Costa Rica) in the CONCACAF qualifying tournament.
Round of 16: Netherlands vs. Switzerland, United States vs. South Korea, Germany vs. China, England vs. Spain, Brazil vs. Sweden, Japan vs. Colombia, Norway vs. France, Canada vs. Australia
Because we don't know which four third-place teams will advance to the knockout round, not all of the pairings are predetermined like they are on the men's side. But the ones that are are unfortunate. For example, E1 vs. D2 means Brazil will have to beat most likely either the United States or Sweden just to get to the quarters. Same thing with Norway vs. the England/France loser. But just like the groups that are weaker, that creates opportunities for others.
If the tournament plays out the way I think it will and these are the eight round of 16 matchups, I'll take Switzerland advancing to meet the USA and Germany vs. England. Brazil-Sweden would obviously be the most compelling matchup, and things obviously won't get any easier for the winner with Japan awaiting in the quarters. That's by far the toughest game to make a pick on. I'll say Brazil takes it in penalty kicks. Meanwhile, France beats Norway to set up a quarterfinal matchup with Canada. (Because UEFA's being lazy and not having an Olympic qualifying tournament, that would also secure berths in Rio for Switzerland, Germany and France.)
And that's where things will get good. Outside of Switzerland, all of my quarterfinalists are legitimate threats to win the tournament. The Americans beat the Swiss and Germany beats England to set up a semifinal between the top two teams in the world (if they both win their group, there's no possible way for the U.S. and Germany to play in the final). In the other semi, I'll take Japan vs. Canada.
With Germany and Japan the only teams standing in the way of an all-North American final, the semis should be incredible. This U.S. team is on a mission and that semifinal game in Montreal will have an awful lot of American fans in attendance. That, and Hope Solo, should be enough to make a difference. As for Team Canada, they'll be playing in the semifinals at home on Canada Day. They felt like they got cheated out of a chance at Olympic gold with that controversial semifinal loss to the U.S. in London. Three years later, they'll get a chance to avenge that defeat in the World Cup Final at Vancouver's Olympic Stadium. Except the Americans are too strong. If they get back to the final, they're not losing it again.
Sixteen years is long enough. Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan and Co. get their World Cup to go along with all those Olympic gold medals.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Chicago vs. Tampa Bay: Let's Do This
Who said Blackhawks-Lighting when the playoffs started six weeks ago? Oh, that's right. This guy! While the route here wasn't quite what I expected, this was the matchup I envisioned back in mid-April. Chicago is always a safe pick. They're built for the postseason (and it is their turn in the rotation). Tampa Bay, meanwhile, was a nightmare matchup for all of the top teams in the East. And, sure enough, the Lighting went and knocked off both the Canadiens and Rangers to get to the Stanley Cup Final for the second time in franchise history.
I was, of course, rooting for the Rangers against the Lightning, but I knew it would be tough for them to beat Tampa Bay four times in seven games. In fact, I'm surprised it went the full seven. Henrik Lundqvist can't score, so the skaters needed to help him out just a little bit. And it came out after the series that like half the team was injured. Ryan McDonogh was playing with a broken foot for the last four games. That, and the Lightning have completely owned the Rangers for like the last three seasons.
What surprised me more than the fact it went seven, though, was how it went seven. The Rangers won Game 1 by the official New York Rangers playoff score of 2-1, then gave up six goals in each of the next two games. Tampa Bay likes to outscore teams, and I said after Game 3 that the Rangers weren't going to win playing the Lightning's game. Then they go and score five goals while winning Game 4, only to get shut out 2-0 in Game 5. Back in Tampa, the Rangers score seven, then the Lightning clinch the series with another 2-0 shutout. The series was the exact opposite of what you would've expected. The Rangers scored a bunch and the Lightning won the low-scoring, grind-it-out, defensive battles. That new-found strong defense could serve Tampa Bay well against Chicago.
Speaking of Chicago, how entertaining were the Western Conference Finals? A back-and-forth series between two good, evenly-matched teams. You had a couple overtime games, including the longest game in Blackhawks history, big comebacks, clutch goaltending. The series really had it all. But in the end, the Blackhawks proved why they go deep into the playoffs every year. Down 3-2 in the series, they dominated Game 6 at home before getting that early lead in Game 7 and cruising to another date with Lord Stanley's Cup. Anaheim lost another home Game 7, but you can't really say the Ducks choked or could've done anything differently. That's a compliment to the Blackhawks, who are turning into the New England Patriots of hockey.
So now we have a matchup between two teams that are remarkably similar. They've both got the star players and are capable of scoring in bunches. Tampa Bay was the highest-scoring team in the league this season, and you'd have to think that Tyler Johnson is probably their leading candidate for the Conn Smythe right now (although Ben Bishop is making a pretty good case, too). The key for the Lightning is keeping all of the forwards involved. In the four games they won against the Rangers, everyone contributed. When the Rangers were able to shut down Stamkos or Filpulla or Callahan or whoever, that's when they were able to win.
For the Blackhawks, the usual suspects are all doing what we normally see them do. Toews had the series-winner in Game 7. Kane looks fine after missing the last two months of the regular season. Sharp, Saad and Hossa are all doing their part. Shaw has more soccer headers than anyone else in the playoffs. And, most importantly, Brad Richards has worked himself in perfectly. If there's one thing the Blackhawks were missing last season, it's what Brad Richards has given them this year. (It's worth noting here that Richards won the Conn Smyte Trophy during Tampa Bay's Cup run in 2004.)
Chicago's also got that incredibly strong defense, but will playing only four defensemen for the last six weeks (they've played four multiple-overtime games this playoffs) eventually come back to bite them? The Lightning play seven defensemen and had two shutouts over the final three games against the Rangers. But how much of that was the defense and how much was the Rangers' ineptitude on offense? I think it was a combination of both, but I think someone else deserves a lot of credit for that, too.
Ben Bishop has been the X-factor for the Lightning this year. Last season, they had the No. 2 seed in the Atlantic Division, but Bishop was injured and they were swept by Montreal in the first round. What a difference a year, and a healthy goalie, can make! Bishop has been beyond clutch this entire postseason. He has two Game 7 shutouts in the playoffs and was the best player on the ice for a good portion of the Rangers series. The team with the hot goalie is generally the one that goes the furthest, if not all the way, and Ben Bishop is definitely a hot goalie right now.
Corey Crawford has won two Cups in Chicago, but the Blackhawks don't really seem to have that much confidence in him. He got pulled twice and temporarily lost his starting job against Nashville, but Crawford has settled himself since then. The games they lost to Anaheim weren't his fault, and he came up big when they needed him to. Most importantly, Crawford has that experience and has shown he can get the job done, so I think going back to him was the right call. While it's entirely possible they might lose games because of him, the Blackhawks won't win the series without Crawford in net.
So who has the edge? Normally I'd say that having home ice is a slight advantage for Tampa, but Chicago's the one team that's shown they don't care whatsoever where their playoff games are taking place. I actually think the Blackhawks might prefer it on the road. Although, 18,000 screaming, towel-waving, red-clad fans in the Madhouse On Madison (home of the best goal song in hockey) is pretty freaking cool.
These two are incredibly evenly-matched, which means we should be in for a great series. I think Chicago's defense will hold the Lightning forwards in check, so it'll be up to the Tampa Bay defense to do the same. If it comes down to which goalie performs better, I'd say advantage Lightning. I don't think it'll come to that, though. The Blackhawks are one of the best teams I've ever seen at making adjustments within a series. And that's where I think Chicago's got the big edge. These players have all won the Cup before. That experience will pay off, but Joel Quenneville will be the real reason Gary Bettman hands Jonathan Toews the Stanley Cup for the third time in six years. Blackhawks in six.
I was, of course, rooting for the Rangers against the Lightning, but I knew it would be tough for them to beat Tampa Bay four times in seven games. In fact, I'm surprised it went the full seven. Henrik Lundqvist can't score, so the skaters needed to help him out just a little bit. And it came out after the series that like half the team was injured. Ryan McDonogh was playing with a broken foot for the last four games. That, and the Lightning have completely owned the Rangers for like the last three seasons.
What surprised me more than the fact it went seven, though, was how it went seven. The Rangers won Game 1 by the official New York Rangers playoff score of 2-1, then gave up six goals in each of the next two games. Tampa Bay likes to outscore teams, and I said after Game 3 that the Rangers weren't going to win playing the Lightning's game. Then they go and score five goals while winning Game 4, only to get shut out 2-0 in Game 5. Back in Tampa, the Rangers score seven, then the Lightning clinch the series with another 2-0 shutout. The series was the exact opposite of what you would've expected. The Rangers scored a bunch and the Lightning won the low-scoring, grind-it-out, defensive battles. That new-found strong defense could serve Tampa Bay well against Chicago.
Speaking of Chicago, how entertaining were the Western Conference Finals? A back-and-forth series between two good, evenly-matched teams. You had a couple overtime games, including the longest game in Blackhawks history, big comebacks, clutch goaltending. The series really had it all. But in the end, the Blackhawks proved why they go deep into the playoffs every year. Down 3-2 in the series, they dominated Game 6 at home before getting that early lead in Game 7 and cruising to another date with Lord Stanley's Cup. Anaheim lost another home Game 7, but you can't really say the Ducks choked or could've done anything differently. That's a compliment to the Blackhawks, who are turning into the New England Patriots of hockey.
So now we have a matchup between two teams that are remarkably similar. They've both got the star players and are capable of scoring in bunches. Tampa Bay was the highest-scoring team in the league this season, and you'd have to think that Tyler Johnson is probably their leading candidate for the Conn Smythe right now (although Ben Bishop is making a pretty good case, too). The key for the Lightning is keeping all of the forwards involved. In the four games they won against the Rangers, everyone contributed. When the Rangers were able to shut down Stamkos or Filpulla or Callahan or whoever, that's when they were able to win.
For the Blackhawks, the usual suspects are all doing what we normally see them do. Toews had the series-winner in Game 7. Kane looks fine after missing the last two months of the regular season. Sharp, Saad and Hossa are all doing their part. Shaw has more soccer headers than anyone else in the playoffs. And, most importantly, Brad Richards has worked himself in perfectly. If there's one thing the Blackhawks were missing last season, it's what Brad Richards has given them this year. (It's worth noting here that Richards won the Conn Smyte Trophy during Tampa Bay's Cup run in 2004.)
Chicago's also got that incredibly strong defense, but will playing only four defensemen for the last six weeks (they've played four multiple-overtime games this playoffs) eventually come back to bite them? The Lightning play seven defensemen and had two shutouts over the final three games against the Rangers. But how much of that was the defense and how much was the Rangers' ineptitude on offense? I think it was a combination of both, but I think someone else deserves a lot of credit for that, too.
Ben Bishop has been the X-factor for the Lightning this year. Last season, they had the No. 2 seed in the Atlantic Division, but Bishop was injured and they were swept by Montreal in the first round. What a difference a year, and a healthy goalie, can make! Bishop has been beyond clutch this entire postseason. He has two Game 7 shutouts in the playoffs and was the best player on the ice for a good portion of the Rangers series. The team with the hot goalie is generally the one that goes the furthest, if not all the way, and Ben Bishop is definitely a hot goalie right now.
Corey Crawford has won two Cups in Chicago, but the Blackhawks don't really seem to have that much confidence in him. He got pulled twice and temporarily lost his starting job against Nashville, but Crawford has settled himself since then. The games they lost to Anaheim weren't his fault, and he came up big when they needed him to. Most importantly, Crawford has that experience and has shown he can get the job done, so I think going back to him was the right call. While it's entirely possible they might lose games because of him, the Blackhawks won't win the series without Crawford in net.
So who has the edge? Normally I'd say that having home ice is a slight advantage for Tampa, but Chicago's the one team that's shown they don't care whatsoever where their playoff games are taking place. I actually think the Blackhawks might prefer it on the road. Although, 18,000 screaming, towel-waving, red-clad fans in the Madhouse On Madison (home of the best goal song in hockey) is pretty freaking cool.
These two are incredibly evenly-matched, which means we should be in for a great series. I think Chicago's defense will hold the Lightning forwards in check, so it'll be up to the Tampa Bay defense to do the same. If it comes down to which goalie performs better, I'd say advantage Lightning. I don't think it'll come to that, though. The Blackhawks are one of the best teams I've ever seen at making adjustments within a series. And that's where I think Chicago's got the big edge. These players have all won the Cup before. That experience will pay off, but Joel Quenneville will be the real reason Gary Bettman hands Jonathan Toews the Stanley Cup for the third time in six years. Blackhawks in six.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
The 2022 Dilemma Returns
It's no secret that the "race" to host the 2022 Winter Olympics has been nothing short of an embarrassment for the IOC. All we've heard about is the cities that dropped out of the race, leaving them with two unappealing options to choose from. And if that wasn't already clear, the release of the IOC's Evaluation Commission report further hammers that point home.
The IOC really, really wanted these Games to be in Oslo. That was obvious to just about everyone. That's the main reason why the IOC was so upset when Oslo cancelled its bid. Oslo blew the competition out of the water in every technical report that was released while it was still a candidate.
But, in lieu of a picturesque Games in Norway, a winter sports mecca, we're stuck with either Almaty, Kazakhstan or Beijing. And as the report showed, the IOC isn't enamored with its choices. The report is designed to highlight the technical strengths of each bid, but in this case, it showed the glaring weaknesses attached to both potential host cities. The IOC's not going to have an easy choice on its hands, and I don't mean that in a good way.
Beijing is considered a marginal favorite right now, but their biggest problem is a pretty serious one. There's no snow! This is an actual picture of Beijing's proposed alpine skiing venue that was taken in January:
The IOC really, really wanted these Games to be in Oslo. That was obvious to just about everyone. That's the main reason why the IOC was so upset when Oslo cancelled its bid. Oslo blew the competition out of the water in every technical report that was released while it was still a candidate.
But, in lieu of a picturesque Games in Norway, a winter sports mecca, we're stuck with either Almaty, Kazakhstan or Beijing. And as the report showed, the IOC isn't enamored with its choices. The report is designed to highlight the technical strengths of each bid, but in this case, it showed the glaring weaknesses attached to both potential host cities. The IOC's not going to have an easy choice on its hands, and I don't mean that in a good way.
Beijing is considered a marginal favorite right now, but their biggest problem is a pretty serious one. There's no snow! This is an actual picture of Beijing's proposed alpine skiing venue that was taken in January:
As you can see, there isn't any of that white stuff that's kinda necessary to hold outdoor events. They've proposed to handle said issue by making artificial snow, which is actually a pretty common practice. However, artificial snow is usually used to add more to what's already there. Not to BE the snow! And they'd only put the fake stuff down for the actual field of play. How terrible will it look on TV that there's no snow on the ground during the "Winter" Olympics?! It could be even worse during the Paralympics, which are always in March and the temperatures are going to be higher.
Another concern they noted about Beijing, which I found very interesting, was the fact that China doesn't have much of a history with winter sports. That, the report concluded, could have a negative impact on the athlete experience. Not to mention severely affecting attendance. They had trouble selling tickets to some events during the 2008 Beijing Games, and China is one of the dominant nations in the Summer Olympics. How many of those billion people would actually care enough to go out and watch cross country skiers from Norway and Germany in the middle of February?
While the IOC didn't seem to have a problem with the 125-mile distance between the mountain venues in Zhangjiakou and the ice venues in Beijing, they did express some worry about the travel time between the two areas.
One of the biggest things noted, though, which I think is a huge red flag, is Beijing's proposal to have three athletes' villages. Ask any athlete who's been to an Olympics, and they'll tell you some of the best moments from the experience take place in the village. Three separate villages would take away some of that camaraderie and potentially make the athletes at those distant mountain venues feel very isolated from not just the rest of the athletes, but the Olympics themselves. The Albertville Games were heavily criticized for this. Their goal in 1992 was to spread the Olympics throughout all of those Alpine villages in the Savoie region and it backfired. The athletes felt like they were competing in all different World Championships instead of the Olympics.
My preference has long been Almaty, which has nothing to do with the technical aspects of either bid. It's because I don't think a city should be awarded the Olympics twice only 14 years apart. Especially since it would be one of each 14 years apart. Also, with Korea and Japan already hosting in 2018 and 2020, Beijing 2022 would be three straight in the Far East. Have the Olympics somewhere else in the world! Please!
Almaty's bid has plenty of potential issues, too, but theirs seem a bit more manageable. There aren't enough hotel rooms. Almaty's hosting the 2017 Winter Universiade, so they're already working on that. There are also concerns about the economy, which is very oil-dependent, and some venue construction. Specifically, the proposed bobsled/luge track might not be ready until November 2020. That's only 16 months before the Games, which might not be enough time to sufficiently test the venue and make any necessary improvements.
There are also some strengths of the Almaty bid that did stand out in the report. The biggest one, in direct contrast to Beijing, is that natural snow won't be a problem. Ditto about the winter sports history. Some of Kazakhstan's greatest athletes were Winter Olympians for the Soviet Union. They also have an incredibly compact bid, so there won't be the crazy travel time to get from one venue to the other, improving the experience for both the athletes and the fans. It would also serve Almaty's post-Olympic legacy well.
Public support for both bids is high, which is perhaps the biggest takeaway we can get from the IOC Evaluation Commission report. The bid has 88 percent support in Beijing, while Almaty's bid has 85 percent support. So, we're not going to see one of these cities win the Games by default. But when it comes to actually choosing a winner, it looks like instead of the best candidate, the IOC members will be deciding between the lesser of two evils when it comes time to vote on July 31.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)