|
|
 |
 |   |
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE | |
In defense of Formula One Posted: Thursday October 18, 2001 8:19 PMUpdated: Wednesday November 21, 2001 6:48 PM
CNN/Sports Illustrated World Sport anchor Phil Jones will answer a few of your questions every week. All of your comments are read and appreciated. After the question in my last mailbag about Formula One and its popularity, I asked for some input from you, the readers, as to why. Flynn Hagerty from San Francisco got the ball rolling -- or should that be got the wheel turning? -- with this argument against one reader's belief that F1 is boring. I have some ideas as to the popularity of Formula One. 1. It's the pinnacle of motor sports. It's an oft-used saying, but these are the most technologically advanced cars anywhere. They make Indy cars look like the Stone Age. 2. They do race in some spectacular venues. Spa, Monaco, Melbourne, Monza, Nurburgring, Montreal, Indy. 3. Formula One rarely brings out a full yellow. Why? Well, logic. This isn't like NASCAR where a driver crashing poses a danger on the track. If they crash well off the road, who cares? They also pander less to TV ratings... "yellows for debris" in NASCAR are, in my opinion, pretty fake and often used to excite the fans by bringing the cars closer together. Also, Daytona is a race with virtually no passing and the winners have the best pit stops. What about that? Indy was just particularly unexciting this year, and that wasn't really F1's fault. Stuff happens. Mr. Roseling brings up the point that only six drivers really have a chance to win, but this is the same in a lot of series. There's the elite in NASCAR and CART, and then maybe a few other guys pick up a win here and there. That would happen in F1 too if they raced 22-36 times a year like these guys do. "No passing, no crashing, no surprises on the podium." Well, mate, it just doesn't sound like you've been watching F1, because I've seen them all this year. Road courses don't invite 36 passes a race. NASCAR can't get around each other at Sears Point, and a fair few CART races are snoring boring. I've seen a few surprises on the podium this year, but this wasn't the most exciting year for F1, with Michael Schumacher being far and away better than anyone else. However if you look at 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996 and 1995, you notice there are a few surprise winners such as Hill, Panis and Herbert. I hope Mr. Roseling takes these into account about F1, and realizes them before he believes F1 is truly boring. We recently had the big event of Australian Motor racing, the Bathurst 1000. Do you think there is a world-wide audience for such an event or is it just isolated to Australia? I have heard of the Bathurst 1000 and know how prestigious it is in Australia, but I can't say I've seen much footage or coverage of it here in the United States or in Europe. With Formula One, Indy cars, NASCAR, rallying, superbikes, 500cc motorcycling and touring cars competing for airtime around the world, the Bathurst may have to remain an event enjoyed primarily by Australian motor sports enthusiasts.
I have heard a very sad rumor that the United States is going to pull its artistic gymnastics teams from the World Championships scheduled for the end of this month in Ghent, Belgium. Also, the U.S. Figure Skating Association has pulled all of its competitors from the Junior Grand Prix circuit as well as some senior events. Yet professional sports that have international events (i.e., tennis) have more or less stuck to their schedule. What accounts for this discrepancy? Is it a function of the athlete's age or is there a threat to someone competing for the U.S. that may not be as serious for someone competing for themselves? Are liability concerns driving some U.S. sports federations to make these decisions that others find unnecessary? These decisions have been made on a case-by-case basis by different federations and governing bodies, individuals and organizers. There have been withdrawals in some sports by some athletes, at the junior and senior levels, for fear of safety in light of the recent terrorist attacks. Others have decided to compete regardless. It doesn't have anything to do with direct threats or liability concerns, as far as I know. Huge tennis names like Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi have decided to travel and compete at this time, but have special security in place. Tiger Woods was missing from the golf circuit for many weeks until the Walt Disney event and returned amid heightened security. The Ryder Cup was postponed for a year after the attack on America. American golfers have, by and large, chosen not to travel to tournaments abroad. John Daly was a recent exception. But even then he flew in a private jet to Germany because he didn't want to fly on a commercial airliner. Other golfers have done the same even within the United States. Some, like Scott Hoch, who I interviewed on this subject recently, have a kind of time-share scheme working when it comes to flying on a privately owned plane. Australia's rugby league tour to Britain was called off as some players voiced concerns over travelling and wanting to stay with their families. It has since been resurrected with a limited schedule, but there are players still loath to travel and who refuse to travel. Several Austrian footballers didn't want to make the World Cup qualifying trip to Israel, ditto for some Chelsea players for their UEFA Cup tie in Tel Aviv. That was down purely to personal choice. No one was forced to travel against their will. So there are many different examples and scenarios, Caitlin, in this current political climate.
Fegurson has been pairing Scholes with Nistelroy. I think in my own opinion this has been wrong pairing. Do you also agree that Scholes is better than Andy Cole or the other way round? Another controversial issue is Zidane vs Figo. Until now, I am still convinced that Figo is the FIFA footballer of the year. Don't you think this was wrongly awarded to Zidane? To answer your first question, I would play Roy Keane in central defense for United (which he has done with success in the past) and play Scholes alongside Veron in midfield. That would free a place for Cole or Solksjaer alongside Van Nistlerooy. Scholes is more valuable than Cole, but why not field them both? As for the second part of your question, I've said it in this mailbag before and will say it again: Zidane was a fair choice considering he was the inspiration behind the French Euro 2000 success. Figo's Portugal went out in the semis. Both are tremendous players, worthy of the highest honors -- but only one could win.
Why are smaller zones such as Oceania (i.e. Australia, New Zealand) treated differently when it comes to qualifying for the soccer World Cup? I know they may not be as strong as traditional areas but the current system is a real "dog's breakfast." It consists of the teams in Oceania playing each other and then the winner (usually Australia) playing a mid-ranked team in either Asia or South America. What you get is Australia and New Zealand flogging the other Pacific nations (32-0 comes to mind) and then playing each other for the right to have a single crack at beating a team that has been playing a series of tough matches against quality opposition. Surely it would be better if the Oceania group was attached solely to a single qualifying region (Asia seems the most sensible to me) and that the top nation in Oceania qualifies to compete within the zone proper in the same way that regular nations (i.e., China, Japan, etc.) do. It's ludicrous, Michael, and so unfair. Yes, the system is in need of change. It is silly for Australia to play all these sub-standard nations, have a couple of somewhat more competitive matches against New Zealand and then wait an age for a play-off against a South American team. The competitive edge could so easily disappear -- or not surface when most needed. Friendlies don't provide the same kind of intensity and pressure as playing Uruguay home and away over two legs with the 2002 World Cup finals at stake. Your plan seems workable. Have the Oceania winner join the final Asian qualifying phase, giving the Australians more competitive matches and a fair chance to rectify a painful slip (i.e., throwing away a two-goal lead to Iran in the second leg of the last playoffs for 1998). The way the qualifying system stands now, it was glaringly obvious Australia's World Cup fate was always going to come down to a two-legged play-off against the fifth-placed South American country. I'm a huge Galatasaray fan and I wonder what do you think is going to happen with the team this season and in the near future since they have lost a lot of their skillful players? Now that most of the fans are even expecting more success, do you see it any harder for the club to cope with the media pressure? Success for clubs like Galatasaray can be a double-edged sword. Their players are showcased in Europe. Big-spending clubs from across the continent swoop for the talent that has brought your club success at home and in European competition. Then what? You're left to pick up the pieces, bring in new talent yourselves and nurture youth. This is the way the football world goes round. Only the richest of the rich, the most glamorous and historic of clubs, appear immune to change against their will. If you need some consolation or inspiration, look at Ajax in the Netherlands. Over the years, with the help of their impressive youth academy, Ajax have had a conveyor belt of talent. The domestic and European highs have been followed by dips on the success curve as their star players have been sold to bigger, more glamorous clubs in Italy and Spain. In Patrick Kluivert's case, the Bosman ruling meant Ajax couldn't even get a penny for him when he left for Barcelona as a free agent. He had been with the club from the age of 12. But the four-time European champions still manage to rebound time-and-again. This season, they look like championship material again after Feyenoord and PSV put them in the Dutch shade in recent seasons. Next season, I wouldn't put it past them to put on a good showing in the Champions League. But, of course, that will showcase their new breed of talent once more. And so the cycle continues. Galatasaray will have their successes, no question. However, keeping all their star players for the long-term won't be one of them. And so to more on the most difficult single act in sport.... Hitting a fastball for a home run is nothing compared to hitting a six outside the stadium people like Kapil Dev has done nor is anything compared to catching the ball after being hit of a loose ball with bare hands. Incidentally baseballs do not bounce before reaching the batter... so that removes variations possible you have in cricket. Slugging a homer is the hardest feat in sports? Not sure I agree, Phil. That's not to say it's easy, but with a good eye, a quick swing and plenty of practice, I feel it's only a matter of time before you connect. Remember, too, that even Bonds, Sosa, McGwire and the like are expected to manage it only once every game (approximately), with plenty of chances to swing. Sending one home "on demand," now that's a different story, but that's not expected in a game. So what is the hardest play? I won't claim it's the hardest thing to do in any sport, period, but, as a wicketkeeper myself, I am amazed when I watch Gilchrist affect a stumping off a bowler like Warne -- the ball moves a mile (and none too slowly) and his hands are a blur, but he never seems hurried -- it's like something out of The Matrix! I'd also like to vote for a 147-break in snooker, even though it was specifically disallowed. To me, a break in snooker is a single play and the skill is in the forethought as well as the execution. Agree or not? I only said I was leaning towards the home run, Matt, so don't hold me to it until I've heard all the readers' suggestions. As I said at the outset, I have the luxury of letting you guys come up with ideas and me judge them from afar. As you've bent the rules, the 147 in snooker is phenomenal and has to be right up there. But it's not one swoosh of the baseball bat or the wicketkeeper's gloves, so I'm not going to pick that. There's gotta be something in golf. Perhaps a mind-blowing iron shot from the deep rough from 182 yards to within two feet of the pin from Tiger Woods. That has us all staggered and bewildered. He often does the extraordinary. That kind of single shot, so impossible to so many, could be rising to the top of my list. What do you think of England's 5-1 victory over Germany and do you think that Michael Owen is the hottest striker since Pele? It was a wonderful England display and Owen was magnificent. He's a special player, but let's not go down that Pele road shall we. No comparison please Martina -- it's hardly fair on young Michael. Let's also not forget the crucial save made by David Seaman just moments before Steven Gerrard made it 2-1 England on the stroke of halftime. On such moments are magical memories made. There ends another mailbag. I will be out of the office for the next month or so, during which time you can still drop me a question or opinion. The mailbag will then return on my return. Thanks for all your interest. Until the next time...
| |||||||||||||||||
