Rugby League: Hey Channel 9, why do you refuse to play the Raiders?

I am a Canberra Raiders fan of some 28 years standing and, if you follow my twitter feed, you will know my absolute disgust with the way this mighty club is being treated by the funder of the competition: Channel 9. For those who have missed it, the Canberra Raiders will be shown once this year on Free to Air Television by Channel 9. That is right: from 22 possible games this season the Raiders will be shown in 4.17% of those games on Channel 9. Now many fans out there are probably thinking: “who cares, the Raiders are crap anyway!” but that thinking belies the fact that with 6 rounds to go the Raiders presently sitting in 7th spot and have a real chance of making the finals.

For those wondering how their team fairs by comparison to the Raiders, the table is instructive:

NRL 2

Some very interesting trends flow from the table:

1. The games on Channel 9 that include a team in bottom 3 of the draw (33) account for more games than those of Sea Eagles, Sharks, Raiders and Knights (all of whom are in the top 8) combined.
2. The Eels may, depending on results, end up playing as many games shown on free to air TV as the number of points they win during the course of the season.
3. Statistically, if your team has historically hailed from the Sydney (Rabbitohs, Roosters, Dragons), Western Sydney (Bulldogs, Wests Tigers, Eels) or Brisbane (Broncos) areas you have a statistical probability of seeing your team play 52% of the time on Channel 9 (88 showings out of a possible 168 games) versus a probability of 29% if your team hails from areas outside of those historical geographic locations.

Now, the apologists for Channel 9 will say two things:

1. They have paid for the rights and they can show whomever they wish on their channel; and
2. They chose at the start of the year the teams that they thought would go well this season but they were wrong so stop whingeing.

The first argument shows the difficult conundrum that arises when the influences of commercial imperatives collide with the trusteeship of the game that goes with being the rights holder. I accept that there are commercial benefits to Channel 9 in showing the teams that they are showing however surely that commercial benefit outweighs the importance to the standing of the game and the future of said game that is secured by showing all of the teams that play it rather than just the chosen few that currently get airtime.

The second argument is a fallacy. That is because, whilst the Channel 9 had to set the schedule for games to be televised for the first 20 weeks of the season in October 2012, they have recently, with the knowledge of position of the teams on the ladder and their form had the ability to set the schedule for the last 6 rounds of the competition. It is that setting of the schedule armed with that knowledge that raises the question in the title to this post and the hackles of fans of the Raiders (and some other teams).

For the six games that Channel 9 got to choose who they showed on their station armed with factors such as position on the table and form line this is who they chose:

NRL 3

Can anyone explain to me why Channel 9 would decide to show the bottom dwelling Eels in 4 of 6 games on their channel? It just beggars belief that they would chose to show such a team instead of the Raiders who are in the top 8 or the Cronulla Sharks for that matter who are also in the top 8. The Broncos have received six games out of six on free to air television despite their woeful form and position on the ladder but that is understandable given the parlous state of the Queensland teams in this competition at the moment and the fact that Channel 9 have to show something watchable for Queensland fans (they can not all be fans of their original team still like me).

Some will argue that the Eels are being shown on Channel 9 because they are playing teams from the top 8 and thus Channel 9 showing the top teams despite their lowly position. That argument does not wash though when you consider the road to the finals that the Raiders face. Again, in case you missed it, the Raiders will play the Storm, Roosters, Sea Eagles and Bulldogs in the space of four consecutive weeks.

I know I am a strident Raiders fan, but can any fair minded NRL fan like me in the eye and say that the allocation of the games by Channel 9 on free to air is good for the game or, even, fair?

So with all of the facts above, I will finish by posing the question in the title again: Channel 9 … why do you refuse to play the Canberra Raiders on your channel? I, as a fan of the Raiders and the game, would love to know … and I am sure many others would like to know too!

The Ashes: England Squad named

England have named a squad of 14 players for the 3rd test of Old Trafford as follows:

Cook (c) Anderson Bairstow Bell Bresnan Broad Panesar Pietersen Prior Root Swann Taylor Tremlett Trott

Steven Finn has been left out and is replaced by Chris Tremlett. Kevin Pietersen looks like being given as much time as possible to prove his fitness.

Panesar’s inclusion is interesting and given that 11 of Australia’s 20 wickets were taken by spinners at Lords does anyone else think the pitch is going to be an fashioned “bunsen” at Old Trafford?

1 August can not come quickly enough!

The Ashes: Memo to Australian Selectors (and Fans) … keep calm and don’t do anything stupid!

Australia’s touring XI at Hove had a very good day overnight scoring 5/354 off 92 overs. All of the batsmen were in the runs save for the man many thought most likely, though not including me, to be an inclusion for the next test, Matthew Wade, who scored an 8 ball duck.

At the top of the order, stand in captain Ed Cowan scored 66 and current number four in the test line up Phil Hughes scored 84. Steve Smith is presently not out on 98.

Of course, Phil Hughes’ innings coupled with the form of David Warner on his sojourn in Africa, has led for some to renew their vehement call for Shane Watson or Chris Rogers (or both) to be dropped in favour of a return by Warner or a move to the top of the order for Hughes.

I sincerely hope that the Australian selectors take a moment and think before doing anything so stupid! And here is why:

* I concede that Phil Hughes was the form opener in the Sheffield Shield competition last season, along with Chris Rogers, averaging over 50 runs per innings in the games he played. Are people forgetting that he is coming into the third test off the back of a performance that saw him reap 2 runs (in total) as well as wrongly use 2 reviews?

* Any runs against Sussex by the Australians need to be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to the form implications that may flow from them. Monty Panesar aside, the bowling attack of Jordan, Hatchett and Liddle is hardly a bowling line up that is likely to send shock waves through any first class cricket line up let alone a Australian touring XI. Jimmy Anderson these blokes are not.

* I have written about my thoughts on a return to the fold for David Warner on this blog and remain vehement in my view that he needs to undertake an apprenticeship in first class cricket and to wait his turn on form. One innings does not make a summer and, frankly, given the score that the South African’s have put up overnight it looks like the pitch that has been trotted out in Pretoria is an absolute road. Warner needs to stay in Africa.

Frankly: the main thing cricket in Australia and the cricketers that represent this country need right now is stability. Toying with the batting order and bringing back a player who presents as a toxic influence at worst or who remains out of form at best would be the antithesis of such stability and just a stupid decision!

I love that people are passionate about cricket and are desperate for Australia to succeed but I think we all need to take a deep breath. The Australian team for the 3rd test is probably already set, particularly so given Wade’s duck at Hove, and those who have been rested from this game will be there. That means those advocating the removal of Watson or Rogers (or both) are likely to be sorely disappointed come 1 August!

Golf Course Review: St Lucia Golf Links

Once again I found myself at this gem of a golf course some 3 kms from the CBD this morning for close to my 30th round of golf there. If you are in Brisbane and, particularly, around the western suburbs and are keen for a round of golf on a public course then St Lucia is the place for you.

Every golf course has its strengths and weaknesses so here are some thoughts on the course if you are weighing up a hit there.

Strengths:

1. The course is in excellent shape and is well looked after. I have read many reviews that bag it on occasion for having the greens cored but when the greens have been maintained which is most of the year they are very true and easy to read.

2. The course does not require you to hit a 270 metre drive off every par 4 hole to be in play. Indeed golfers who hit their 3 wood anything over 190 metres will not need to put the driver in the bag here.

3. It is a forgiving layout and if you are tight with your golf balls you have very limited opportunities to lose them at this place.

Weaknesses:

1. It is a public course and that has with it a lowering of standards when it comes to course etiquette. If that is likely to irritate you do not play there. It is as simple as that.

2. There is a course marshal on weekends but he never seems to find his way past the 10th hole. Many an occasion groups I have been with have been held up on the 14th through 17th holes by slow play.

3. Only one par 5: big hitters will not like the course all that much because it only has one par 5 in the layout and it is reachable in two if you get your drive in play.

4. The Hundred Acre Bar which is the only place to get a feed is more interested in catering to non golfers and lycra wearers than those on the course. See my review here: https://shumpty77.com/2013/07/27/shumpty-eats-hundred-acre-bar/

Signature hole:

The par 4 14th is the signature hole on the course. At 371 metres it is a the longest part 4 on the course and with a creek running through it at 228 metres that is 241 metres to carry. 13 years ago I hit one over the creek but a bigger fence and the trees having grown makes that prospect next to impossible. A hybrid off the tee and then again for the second shot make this a difficult proposition.

Other stuff:

Par: 69
Distance: 5405 metres
Cost: Reasonable given its closeness to the city
Pro Shop: is part of the Golf World chain and is one of the nest stocked in the city.

Final Word:

A round at St Lucia is a must for any golfer in Brisbane in my opinion. It is cheap enough and close to town to be easy to get on. The course is forgiving for the genuine 27 handicapper but challenging enough for someone in single figures to enjoy.

Shumpty’s Punt: weekend multi and racing

Another weekend and another massive amount of sport to enjoy. Here are this weeks tips:

Horse Racing:

Doomben Race 1: Number 2 Bribie (win) ($3.80)

Doomben Race 6: Number 3 Clangor (each way) ($8.00/$2.90)

Randwick Race 3: Number 4 Prettyfamous (win) ($4.00)

Caulfield Race 3: Number 11 Text’n Hurley (win) ($4.00)

Sport’s Multi:

Leg 1: Washington Nationals to cover the line against the New York Yankees (-1.5 runs) in the MLB. ($2.08)

Leg 2: Crusaders to cover the line against the Chiefs (-3.5 points) in Super Rugby. ($1.92)

Leg 3: Canberra Raiders to cover the line against the St George Dragons (-1.5 points) in the NRL. ($1.92)

Leg 4: Fremantle Dockers to defeat the Adelaide Crows by 1-39 points in the AFL. ($1.95)

Leg 5: Brumbies to cover the line against the Bulls (+8.5 points) in Super Rugby. ($1.92)

This multi will pay $28.70 for ever dollar invested and I have invested $25.

As always: please gamble responsibly and only bet what you can afford to lose.