Comeback and reincarnations

Bouncing back: The return of Powell, Fed, and... Lance...!

It's been a week or two of comebacks, and re-incarnations in the world of sport. We look at three of them:

Asafa Powell: Bouncing back from Beijing and entrenching his reputation

First, Asafa Powell bounced back from his disapointing Olympic 5th place to run a scorching series of races. He first ran 9.85 in the pouring rain in England, then won in Lausanne in a PB of 9.72s, and then narrowly lost to Usain Bolt in Brussels (9.83s), before capping it off with a 9.77s and a 9.82s in Rieti, Italy.

Every single one of those times would have won Powell a silver medal in Beijng, where it was probably an even faster track in even better conditions (many of the above times were into head-winds). Yet Powell choked on the biggest stage, and will once again receive the "Choker of the year award" at the end of 2008. How he didn't at least medal in Beijing is incredible, and the problem for Powell is that every single time he steps out onto the track and blasts a sub 9.80s time, he only serves to consolidate this label. His own words were something to the extent that he may not be a Championship runner, which is the first step to defeat - admitting it. There's no reason why he would not be able to produce these performances in the Championships, though he cites fatigue as a reason.

But then, last last week, he ran Brussels on Friday, two races in Rieti on Sunday, and ran them all in 9.83 or faster. At the end of a long season - there's no fatigue there. So Powell has a block and will be the fastest man to NEVER win a major title, unless he figures it out. As it is, he may have missed his chance, because it's not as though a certain Usain Bolt is going to get any slower in the future.

Bounce back number 2: Roger Federer

On the hard-courts of New York, the "Fed-Express" returned to winning ways to "save" a season that would otherwise have seen him miss out on a Grand Slam title for the first time in many years. He won the US Open beating Andy Murray in the final.

As for Rafa Nadal, the number 1 man in the world, he was taken out by Murray in the semi-finals. And when I say "taken out", I mean it in the truest sense. From the first point of the match, through the rain break, and after, Murray demolished Nadal. The reality is that anyone other than Nadal would likely have won about 5 games in the match. It was one of the most lopsided contests I've seen, and how Nadal took it to four sets beats me. Murray was either ridiculously brilliant, or Nadal was very ordinary as an attacking force.

His defence was brilliant, and he was digging a trench about 5 m behind the baseline, chasing from left to right while Murray stood there enjoying target practice. But on attack, Nadal seemed almost impotent. I have to say, even at the Olympic Games, he looked the same - I couldn't believe he beat Djokovic in the semi-finals, because his attacking game was non-existent. It was not the same Nadal as at Wimbledon, who cut off angles, took balls early and dominated play. Nadal seems to be a lot more "conservative" on the hard courts, and I suspect that he needs to learn to flatten out his groundstrokes a little if he wants to challenge on this surface in the future. Because Murray, Djokovic and especially Federer all have more firepower in their arsenal and Nadal's defence, brilliant as it is, won't stand up to that throughout a two-week tournament.

Then again, perhaps it's just fatigue - who could blame him, he's won just about every tournament bar two since April, and so the end of a long season might account for his apparent lack of "potency".

As for Federer, he'll be relieved to have regained some form of ascendancy. Federer has responded brilliantly to the challenges thrown down this year. He's been beaten by "ordinary" opponents (Blake, Stepanek, Karlovic etc.), and annihilated by the top players (Nadal, who crushed him in three sets in Paris, including a 6-0 smashing). Yet he's managed to end on a high note, and should now go on to win another couple on the indoor circuit.

Perhaps. There are still chinks in his armour, and I think the top players recognize this. He'll have his work cut out and unless he learns from this success (which is a very difficult thing to do), he'll find that the gap continues to narrow (and maybe even grows the other way - Nadal is already ahead, Djokovic and Murray are closing). It should make for an interesting 2009, because now there are FOUR great players at the top, assuming Murray can sustain his current level.

The comeback: Lance Armstrong in 2009?

Finally, perhaps the most radical announcment, which, if it had happened five months ago, would have been dismissed as an April Fool's Joke (and not even a good one)! Lance Armstrong is coming out of retirement and will race in the 2009 Tour de France.

I was going to write about this when the story first broke on Tuesday, but resisted the urge out of a nervousness that we'd be falling for what was an elaborate publicity stunt! However, it seems not to be that, although facts have been a little slow to emerge until much more recently.

You can read the news article here and here and and more tongue-in-cheek (quite funny) report here, so we won't give you the details of the plan, but rather give a couple of comments on it.

Firstly, the big question is can he return in good enough condition to WIN the race? Age is of course the big thing against him - the oldest ever winner of the Tour de France was Firmin Lambot, aged 36 - Armstrong will beat that by a year IF he can win the Tour. However, that kind of talk is far too premature, considering a three-year break from the sport entirely. More than likely, he'll return in the spring of 2009 and test his legs and then see if he's in the kind of shape to challenge. One thing I think is sure is that he'll either ride it as a procession (to raise awareness of cancer) or he'll compete at the front - no half measure. And the first two months of 2009 will determine which it is, regardless of the speculation going on now.

The nice thing for Armstrong is that he's in a no-lose situation - if he "fails", then it's fine because no one really expects him to win after that long a break, at that age. He can also say it was never intended to be a winning return, but a crusade to raise cancer awareness. If he wins, well, then his legend is even more established. So it's all about managing expectations, which I suspect he'll do better than most.

The three-year break from cycling, plus the fact that Armstrong missed out two seasons for cancer treatment back in the late 1990's are possible factors that suggest that 37 is not really 37 - his career has been five years "shorter" than it would be for a similarly aged rider without those breaks. That may count in his favour slightly. Then again, if he does return in competitive shape, it will mean that he has managed to stretch a competitive Tour career out over 10 years, which is incredible longevity, regardless of the break. The biggest factor is still that with age, one does lose muscle mass, and the ability to recover after training (which is perhaps the key to success in the Tour - single day races don't have quite the same problem).

Then of course, there is the doping issue, which can't be ommitted from a discussion on Armstrong. Christian Prudhomme, Tour de France Race Director has already emphasized that Armstrong will be subject to exactly the same tests and requirements as any other rider - no surprise there, I'm surprised that the media even reported on it, it would seem that obvious. What will be interesting is to see how it plays out, because there's no doubt that the testing processes and control from authorities is now much tighter than it has ever been, certainly since Armstrong rode off into the sunset after his last triumph in 2005. What impact with that have?

Who knows, it's rank speculation at this stage...it doesn't seem to have affected Astana and Johan Bruyneel, who is the man with the Midas touch when it comes to producing world class cyclists and champions, and the team Armstrong has been linked with. That in itself is cause for suspicion - I dare say it would be possible to build an entire team out of riders who tested positive only AFTER leaving a team managed by Johan Bruyneel. Many were Armstrong's former team-mates, whose performances suffered despite the use of doping products...

All these kinds of debates will start anew as a result of Armstrong's return. He's already pushed the Vuelta Espana off the news pages, and come July 2009, he'll be the big story of the Tour, if he takes to the line. Good for cycling? From a marketing, media, and exposure point of view, yes, absolutely, though one can see how the issue will polarize people who follow the sport, and possibly the peloton.

More comments to follow, I'm sure...

Ross

Sports news: Athletics and Paralympics

Post-Olympic sports news as the Paralympics takes centre stage

Apologies for the break, it's been a busy time at work and the world of sport has taken a backseat, unfortunately. Only in our pages, because it's actually been a very busy time in the world of sport.

Athletics - Golden delight and heartache in the fallout from Beijing

The world's best athletes headed straight out of Beijing and into the final month of the international track season, with two Golden League meetings in Zurich and Brussels. It was more gold for Pamela Jelimo of Kenya, the 19-year old (officially, most people in Africa suspect that's not entirely accurate, but anyway) phenom who has won every 800m race of the year by about 20m.

She did the same in Zurich and in Brussels, running an incredible time of 1:54.01, the third fastest in history. A "slower" 1:55.16 was enough to secure her six out of six in the Golden League series. She is probably, along with Yelena Isinbayeva, the most dominant female athlete in the world today, and it's difficult to believe that this time last year, there was not even a hint that she was on the horizon. There can be few more spectacular debut seasons, especially in a middle distance event for women - the record books, if you look at them, are dominated by Eastern European performances from the 1980's, and Jelimo has record keepers scrambling to update them. It's spectacular, and it earned Jelimo her share of the $1 million jackpot.

It turned out to be a pretty big share - all of it. Blanka Vlasic, Croatia's high jump champion, has seen her superb season fall away badly since the Olympic Games. She was surprised in Beijing by Tia Hellebaut of Belgium, despite clearing 2.05m, and in Brussels, she lacked any edge at all, going out at 2.01m, and losing (on countback, again) to Germany's Arianne Friedrich. The $500,000 she would have won would have gone some way to softening the blow of the Olympic silver, because she had been one of the red hot favourites for Beijing Gold. However, she'll now end the season with not one, but two near misses, both on countback, but such are the margins for error in pro sports.

The Paralympic Games in Beijing

Speaking of professional sports, the Paralympics continues to grow, and certainly here in South Africa, it has received more media exposure than has previously been the case, which is excellent. It's not yet up to the level of the Olympic Games, but it's growing. 4000 athletes in Beijing, up from Athens, and Sydney. It's still "immature" in the sense that it's not accessible to the whole world's population - the "gene pool" in the Games is narrow and so you're not seeing the best naturally talented athletes just yet - no Caribbean athletes in the top 8 of the sprint events, for example. No Ethiopians in the distance events, very few Kenyans, etc. That's an "access" problem. But it will change, and the technology balance and equal opportunities for all disabled athletes is something that will hopefully develop out of this Paralympic growth.

Apart from the increased media exposure, another sign of the growth is that the Paralympics are now producing more frequent positive drug tests. That's an indication that the "Olympic spirit", traditionally defined as courage, determination, inspiration and equality, are now giving way to "higher, faster, stronger...at all costs", and winning is starting to becoming the only thing. That's a shame, but perhaps is an inevitable consequence of the heightened exposure and importance of the Games. The Paralympics remain closer to the true vision of the Games than the able-bodied Games do, but that won't last long - more media means more prestige, which means more sponsorship, and more money, and that invites people to do whatever is necessary to win. One thing it will do is raise the depth of competition, which is a good thing - one of the 200m swimming events was won by 11 seconds. A track final had only four competitors. In time, those margins will narrow, which is good for the growth of the Games.

South Africa will have a good Paralympic Games, far better than the able-bodied Games. The media will compare them, which is unfair for the reasons described above, but all will be forgotten and SA will move onto its next disaster Olympics as a result. On a positive note, South Africa does boast Natalie du Toit, who is the "Phelps" of the Paralympic Games - she'll try to win 5 medals, possibly all gold, and it may have been 6 if the SA administrators hadn't bungled an entry for the sixth event (seriously...). She's a superstar of either Games, having competed in the 10km event at last month's Olympic Games as well.

As for Oscar Pistorius, he's back in the Paralympics which he insists is not a "consolation prize" (his words) after failing to reach the Olympic Games. It's contradictory to the messages of six months ago, where he said he wanted to run in the Olympics to have a "decent level of competition" (his words again). Readers of this site will know my opinion on this one, but for someone else's (which also captures a big part of the problem), this is the best article written on it so far: Pistorius article - Daily Telegraph

For the rest, the media has continued to spew forth garbage about it - "the only one with a double amputation", they say, not recognizing that this is in fact the reason he should NOT be running against single leg amputees - that's a point we made, along with Marlon Shirley (who fell in the 100m final yesterday) and a number of other people during the debate. I've no issue with him competing in the Paralympics (obviously), but he's denying single leg amputees gold medals when he really should be in a separate category. You watch that 100m race and tell me it's possible for one guy to be that much faster over the last 50m than everyone else. Not even Usain Bolt had that kind of advantage...

The Paralympics continues into next week, and should throw up some incredible inspirational stories. Do yourself a favour and watch, and you'll be amazed at how some athletes overcome their disadvantages - a Chinese swimmer, double-leg amputee, and with only one arm, winning the backstroke, for example. But let's hope the Games don't head the same way as the Olympics, where the guy with the most money or least scruples can win - in some respects, it's already happened!

Join us later for a look at some comebacks and "bounce-backs" from the world of sport over the last two weeks...did someone say Lance Armstrong...?

Ross

The Olympic Games Medals analysis

302 golds: The Olympic Medal table analysis

302 gold medals were handed out in Beijing. Add to that 303 silvers, and 353 bronze medals, and you get a total of 958 medals won during the 16-days of Olympic competition.

When you consider that 10,500 athletes were in Beijing, then it's actually quite interesting to calculate that on average, one in 11 athletes leaves the Games with a medal!

Of course, that's not necessarily true, for two reasons. The first is that there are many multiple medal winners, like Michael Phelps, who won 8 all by himself. I guess one might say that his achievements account for 77 people who suddenly fall out of the calculation pool! On the other hand, team medals are counted as one, even though 20 athletes might win one. So, a German hockey team consisting of 20 guys each has a medal, but it's reflected as a single medal, which might eventually cancel out the multiple-medal winners like Phelps, Bolt and co. So it's interesting to note just how many medals there are on offer, once you make it to the Games, of course!

Today's post is a look at where those medals went (not to individuals, but to nations), and to figure out just who the real Olympic champions are. China topped the medal table, by virtue of its 51 golds. That's 17% of the gold medals on offer. But then China has 20% of the world's population, so what does it mean? The USA top the charts in terms of TOTAL medals won (110 compared to China's 100). But they are also the wealthiest nation, so should that be expected? And how do we evaluate Jamaica, Kenya, Ethiopia - smaller countries, with limited resources, who stole the show in Beijing in specific areas? That's what this post is all about.

The Gold-rush: China's remarkable rise

As mentioned, China was always going to be a superpower once it invested in sport. With a population of 1.3 billion to choose from, finding 100 medallists would not seem a mission impossible. But making it happen is no mean feat. For one thing, not all those 1.3 billion are in the "selection pool", and massive talent ID is required to tease out those athletes, train them and prepare them for competition. And this is what China has done so well. An investigating into China's sporting system in 1994 revealed that they have 4000 Coaches at the elite level! In a sport like rowing, for example, they have 1,200 full-time rowers, divided into squads of 60 to 70. That's an amazing system, at a huge cost of course, but it's partly responsible for producing the success they achieved.

But there's something more to China's success - it is not simply a numbers game. Take a look at the following table showing China's medal hauls at the last 3 Games:

Two things jump out:

First of all, China's ascent to the top of the charts has been achieved entirely by winning more GOLD medals. Their silver and bronze medal haul has remained unchanged since 2000. But they've almost doubled the number of golds.

Second, when you sum up the last 3 Games, China wins more golds than it does silvers and bronzes COMBINED! That's quite extra-ordinary, given the number of medals won. In terms of pure statistics, you'd expect some kind of "normal" distribution of golds-silvers and bronzes. The table and graph below shows the USA and Australia's returns, compared to the Chinese:


So it's quite clear that the Chinese have figured out how to get straight to the top, win the Gold, and not win any silvers or bronzes! Of course, home-ground advantage might be a factor, because an athlete in contention may find that extra 2% that pushes them from second or third into first.

But I suspect there's more to it than this. It's still a vague idea in my own mind, but I think this is an indication of massive investment into specific events. There is no half-measure, no stone unturned. The Chinese identify their potential medal winner and invest so heavily in that person or team that they become a clear favourite. That kind of targeted approach produces people with clear gold medal chances, and is testament to massive investment in individuals. Second or third are not options, given the preparation that must go into creating a vastly superior athlete. That's the only reason I can think of - the target is set, to win gold, and then they hit it. Pretty simple in principle, obviously very difficult in practice.

The underdogs: The small nations have their say

One of the more interesting means to analyse Olympic success is to convert the medals into a population per medal value. That is, compare the medals won PER PERSON, rather than an absolute number. This gives the "minnows" a chance to shine, because it's quite clear that unless something is very wrong, a nation of 200 million SHOULD win more medals than a nation of 200,000! So let's have a look at medals won as a function of the nation's population (note: the population figures are up for debate, I suppose, but this is not a census, it's just to make a point, so they're accurate enough!)


The Bahamas, then, are the undisputed champions of population per medal. They regularly win 2 medals per Games, and with a tiny population, have a remarkable ratio. The USA and China suddenly fall off the top perch, and win only 1 medal per 2.7 million people or 13 million people, respectively. That places them outside the top 40 on the population adjusted table. South Africa, meanwhile, fare poorly in Beijing, thanks to the lonely silver we won. Previous Games were much better, and it's understandable why fans are so disappointed.

Australia are the best of the "big" nations. It can be a little misleading doing this analysis, because the relationship between medals and size is not necessarily a straight line. So the Aussies, thanks to their intelligent investment in sport, make the most of what they have and do incredibly well given their relatively small size.

Just a note on this table - strictly speaking, one should try to "weight" the medals by awarding three points to gold, two to silver and one to bronze, and then work out a score. If you do this, then Jamaica come out on top, ahead of the Bahamas, courtesy their sprint domination and 6 gold medals in Beijing.

The source of big returns for small numbers?

So, to generalize slightly, the Caribbean islands tend to dominate this list. They are small, and yet regularly win a handful of medals, mostly in the sprint events (in Beijing, both the Bahamas and Jamaica won all their events in athletics). That is testament to the genetic potential of the atheltes in those countries. That's a debate that was had in the comments section of one our recent posts, and it's worth discussing again in the future - the genes for speed.

But for today, we'll stick to management-related issues. I believe the key to making the most of this genetic potential (which I'll assume exists, though I appreciate that it's not clear-cut) is to facilitate competition with a focus on specific sports. Your emails have informed us that the school athletics system in the Caribbean islands is enormously strong, and this is the big driver of these medals.

Add to this a culture of the sport (which is why the school system is so strong), plus the existence of "aspirational heroes and role models", and you have a mix that will ensure that talent comes through, despite relatively small investment and a small population. If anything, the smaller population helps the athlete come through. Lastly, the focus is not too broad - there is no swimming team, no fencing, no table-tennis to detract from limited resources. The eggs are placed in the basket that will produce results, and that means a much simpler system to run.

There is of course much more to it than this, but the post is running away with me now! So to spare some of your reading time, I'll cut the discussion on the "minnows" short, and also say that we'll pick up the Olympic Medal Analysis in a second post tomorrow. There, we'll discuss medals won per dollar GDP, and figure out which countries get the best returns given their financial resources. We'll also dissect the big failures (South Africa, mostly, since I'm here and biased that way!)

Join us then!
Ross

Olympic Oscars Part 2

Olympic Oscars Part 2: The less serious awards

Yesterday we did the first our Olympic recap "awards" post, which we continue today, in our look back on the Games and some of the stories we might not have covered during the actual Games.

The distance award

Since we have a preference for the distance events, we can’t let this go without giving special mention to the best of the distance events. Beijing ended up being one of the greatest Games ever for distance running. It produced two 5000m-10000m doubles, with three of those four golds won in Olympic Record time.

We also had an Olympic record in the Marathon, and the emergence of Kenya’s women in the middle-distance races. They won the 800m and 1500m titles, and the 800m champion, Jelimo, is probably the most dominant athletes in the world today, yet is still a little under-rated, in my opinion. Last week, in the first meeting post-Beijing, she ran the third fastest time in history in winning Zurich in 1:54.01, and Kratochvilova's world record, almost without doubt a doped record, seems under threat. For that reason, Jelimo will also not escape some cynicism over her own performance, particularly given her age. Nevertheless, the margins of victory in her races is quite astounding, and she is the most dominant female athlete around today.

But the BEST distance athlete of the Games, in our opinion, goes to Tirunesh Dibaba, for her double. The 5000m-10000m double was only introduced in 1996, so it’s not surprising that hers is the first of its kind. But her 10,000m win, in the second fast time in history (and perhaps fastest legal time, given what we all suspect of the Chinese of 1993), followed by a spectacular 5000 m (where the final 1500m was covered in the same time as the 1500m final) give her the nod. But really, it could just as easily have gone to Bekele. Or Sammy Wanjiru, who gave Kenya its first gold in the marathon, with a front running performance in the heat that defied physiological belief.

Biggest “no-show” of the Games

Which athlete threatened greatness and didn’t show up? Well, perhaps the biggest “no-show” was the impact of the pollution on the distance athletes. It was one of the big talking points leading up to Beijing, and no one knew what impact it would have on performances. Many experts had predicted disaster, but in the end, we got 4 Olympic records in 6 distance races, and no athletes were noticeably incapacitated by the famous Beijing smog. Of course, it may have had some impact, time will allow those stories to emerge, but watching the Africans dominate on the track, you got the feeling the body is far more impressive than most give it credit for!

In terms of athletes, difficult to say. We obviously focus only on swimming, cycling and athletics, so our picks come from there. Katie Hoff was expected to be the Michael Phelps in the female division, but she was heavily overshadowed by Stephanie Rice and Kirsty Coventry. So she’s a candidate, and perhaps the US trials were a little too close to the Games to allow their swimmers to hold their form or regain that peak. Hoff did, after all, set world records in the US Trials in June, but wasn’t the same in Beijing. The same could be said of many of the US swimmers, with the noticeable exception of Phelps. They still dominated the swimming medal table, of course, so perhaps this is overly critical...

On the track, Sanya Richards has dominated the women's 400m event for years, apart from at major championships, and she’ll have to try again for her first major title. And then Asafa Powell came, saw, and ran a final that was slower than his semi-final…again. It’s the second major Games where he’s looked good in the semi-final, and then tied up in the final. Not that he would have won gold, but he certainly should have won a medal. He got consolation by anchoring the Jamaicans to the world record.

And then the final one, perhaps the biggest, was pointed out by Erik in the comments below (I forgot about him because I'd commented on the event in yesterday's post), was Liu Xiang. That was maybe the biggest disappointment of the games - we were denied the race between Xiang and Robles (who was discussed yesterday). But Liu was the pin-up boy for the Games, the face of Beijing 2008 since 2001 when the Games were awarded. In the end, he didn't even clear a hurdle...

The Four-years of redemption award

This one goes to Blanka Vlasic, who has been unbeatable in the high jump since about 2 years ago. Yet in Beijing, she was suddenly matched and then beaten by Tia Hellebaut, who has shown nothing of that kind of form all year. Vlasic might be considered a little unlucky – it’s not as though she under-performed. After all, she cleared 2.05m, which is pretty much her norm for the year, but she was unable to raise it higher on the day, and lost on count-back. People have suggested that she was over-jumped, and had competed too much leading into the Games. This may be true, but again, she didn’t come to Beijing and jump anything less than what she typically does. She did, however, fail to jump a season’s best and as any athlete knows, you have to be in the shape to jump your best when it counts on the day, and she couldn’t do it. She’s young enough that in four years, she’ll have another shot at it.

Also in this category is LoLo Jones, who had gold in her sights, within her grasp even, but hit hurdle 9 to do a “Gail Devers” and lose out. She’s since bounced back, and seems quite upbeat about it. But the images of her coming to terms with that result were among the most dramatic of the Games. She’ll also have a chance in four years’ time, health-willing, to set the Olympic record straight.

Biggest surprise of the Games

You'd have been hard pressed to pick that Constantina Dita would win the women's marathon. We're showing our distance bias again, but watching the women's marathon, I had this "expectation" that any momen, one of Ndereba or Chunxiu would take the initiative and chase the Romanian down, and that surely she wouldn't stay out in front for a full 22 km. Yet she survived, and the chasing two settled for silver, in what was perhaps the biggest surprise.

Not that there were others - someone posted yesterday on Rebecca Adlington's triumph in the women's 400m freestyle event, which she followed up with a world record victory in the 800m freestyle. That was an unexpected medal.

Maybe the biggest surprise of all, which we touched on in yesterday's post, was the USA's failure to win a single gold in the short sprints and relays. They were completely outrun by Jamaica, with the Russian women providing the only "variety" by winning the relay. The USA sprint dominance was well and truly broken, and many suggested it's because the stricter anti-doping controls have slowed them down. I don't think that is the case - the truth is everyone else got faster. They were, after all, beaten by two world records, one Olympic record, and two performances that were the fastest in ten years (and of course, two dropped batons). So that's not a weakening, it's just that they've been outrun, and it will be interesting to see whether they return to form in the next few years.

Next up as we look back, a discussion of the medal table!

Until then!
Ross