The X-Factor is supposed to be that popular light entertainment show on ITV, but you would hardly believe it is light entertainment given the high-pressure press coverage. It is better known for its reported controversies, meltdowns, angry exchanges and fuming judges. On top of that, trying to forecast the result is becoming increasingly difficult. This makes for betting hell.
The elimination on Sunday November 7th ought to have been straightforward. Contestant Katie Waissel had been the favourite with the bookies all week to be eliminated, and with good reason. She had been in the bottom two sing-off twice already, and looked a sure bet to be in the drop-zone for a third time. She did remain odds-against with many bookies though with evens being typically on offer. So, more or less a fifty-fifty chance of elimination, but no means a certainty.
No doubt the backers and the layers had already taken into account the influence of the judges at the early stages of The X-Factor live finals, hence the seemingly generous odds on display. While two candidates for elimination are put up by the public, it is the judges that have the eventual say which one goes. What followed that night however could not be predicted, or scripted any more bizarrely.
The bottom two sing-off ended up being between the vocally inept but multi-charactered figure of Katie versus the reasonably talented but apparently characterless figure of Tracey Cohen (or Treyc, or however it is spelt). They were two artists mentored by Cheryl Cole (not Tweedy!). It was not difficult to predict the scenario since, as Louis Walsh would say, 'they have made that bottom two their own' this series.
And even more predictably, it was the more colourful Katie who won the vote 2-1. Fantastic for those who could see it coming a mile off. Betting hell for those who had already backed Katie to be eliminated by using the most logical form of judgement in a music contest - their ears. It was Cheryl's refusal to nominate with the score Katie 1-0 up that raised the most eyebrows. Amidst claims that she betrayed her duty as a judge, the manner of which the drama unfolded suggests a plausible process in the creation of the result which is not entirely fair, but probably well within the rules.
1. As already established, it was highly likely who were going to be the bottom two candidates. The judges would surely discuss how they were likely to vote you would assume, and it is also fair to assume that Cheryl would not want to choose between the two girls.
2. This would be fine if the other three judges decided to make it easy by eliminating Tracey for her. In this respect, Simon Cowell and Louis did vote to keep Katie after the sing-off.
3. The problem however would have been Dannii Minogue. She has been fairly independent this series, and been the most critically honest to the contestants, while Simon has been showing a rather softer side which somehow manages to be more obnoxious than his originally nasty image. So if there was a danger that Dannii was going to put Cheryl on the spot, there needed to be a plan B.
4. That plan was to have Cheryl vote unusually early (earlier in the series Simon was spared having to choose between two of his acts as three judges voted in unison prior to him). Cheryl declares her 'no vote', which opens the way for the other two judges to settle it as intended.
5. The evidence fits. Though Cheryl stated "come back to me and I will take it to deadlock," the show's theme tune kicked in the moment Louis cast his vote. Job done. And though time was running out for the show, Louis (when decided) and then Dermot O'Leary seemed to drone on for an eternity prior to the closing credits. Simon's judgement that Katie was the more interesting character that he thought the public would want to see did seem to confirm that this was the overall feeling about the two contestants.
This is of course only one suggestion, and one which also demonstrates no impropriety, just that between the other three judges they were able to keep their favoured choice in. You cannot help but wonder who received the least votes from the public though.
Current betting and comments - 2010 winner
Prices correct at time of posting on www.betfair.com
MATT CARDLE (2.66)
Has the look of an X-Factor winner, but comes across as bland to me.
REBECCA FERGUSON (3.45)
Has been outstanding so far, but another female winner and another win for mentor Cheryl?
ONE DIRECTION (5.8)
Well loved and has a great chance of winning because Simon Cowell said so. The young redial vote probably helps as well.
CHER LLOYD (14.5)
Most likely of the 'Marmite' acts to win. Less likely unless she drops the rapping.
AIDEN GRIMSHAW (21)
A bit of a disappointment. Audition showed his capabilities, but his performances in the live shows have been inconsistent.
MARY BYRNE (50)
Looked good in the audition, and must be liked by the public. Not the next Susan Boyle though.
WAGNER (55)
Joke act who is lucky it is not a 'vote to eliminate' contest. Ironic voting should see him last a couple more weeks at least.
PAIJE RICHARDSON (95)
Has done well so far with minimum hype and some unfavourable singing slots. While an unlikely winner, should the odds be so long?
KATIE WAISSEL (140)
Doomed when the judges either no longer have the casting vote or get the hint, or Katie herself decides she cannot take anymore.
Tuesday 9 November 2010
Monday 12 July 2010
Spain's Skill Sees Off Luck and Thuggery to Win the World Cup
I remember when England "scored" two goals against Japan in a pre-World Cup friendly and thinking "that's it - we've used up all of our luck already, before the tournament even begins."
Of course, there is no mathematical logic for that position, in the same way there is no mathematical logic for arguing that because the last coin-toss landed on heads, the next coin-toss is bound to land on tails. In theory, we could have lucked our way to the prize, much in the way that Uruguay almost did.
Eventually, the coin will land on tails though if tossed away for long enough. Just like it did for England before the World Cup really got going. Just like it eventually did for Uruguay. At that juncture, Uruguay had been the tournament villains due to the flexibility in which they interpreted the rules to see off Ghana.
Come the final, and a new collective villain had emerged in the shape of Holland. They were industrious rather than dazzling throughout the World Cup, characterised by the aggressive play by Mark van Bommel. By the final, however, the virus of aggression appeared to have spread through the entire team, with the overall strategy relying on borderline violent tactics and seemingly doing their best to ruin the match.
They would have succeeded in their aim were it not for two factors. One, that Spain managed to fend off the brutal attempts to stop them with their more elegant style of play. Two, that the referee, Howard Webb, chose pragmatism over the letter of the law, in an attempt to make an event of the fixture.
He showed a high tolerance, and should have shown a red card in the first 45 minutes in the face of unacceptable Dutch tactics. It might have ended the match as a contest sooner, but he would had more control over it. My blood pressure will not allow me to elaborate further on the disgraceful and unsporting behaviour of the Dutch after the final whistle. Given the generosity of Webb throughout the match, they had a nerve complaining about his officiating. Hopefully a team with this attitude never makes it to a World Cup final again. Alan Hansen was (half) right when he said that "there is no place in football" for a team like this Dutch one. He was referring to the first 45 minutes. In truth, they were a disgrace throughout the tie.
Thankfully, Spain proved that skill, rather than luck or gamesmanship, is required in abundance to win World Cups. And that is the trouble with England. For all the talk of dependency on Rooney before the tournament, Lady Luck is generally the player we rely on most. And when she has an off day, England generally lose. Spain did not need assistance from a player so fickle.
Luck deserted England the moment Rob Green conspired to throw the ball into his own net in the opening game against the United States. It would be a setback that England would never fully recover from, setting off a sequence of events that resulted in England's eventual elimination at the hands of free-scoring Germany.
Luck was nowhere to be seen when England needed to rescue the group campaign against Algeria. She would even prove to have the final say during the finest hour of the campaign, when England emphatically and comprehensively defeated the mighty Slovenia 1-0, and she did that by handing the USA the late goal they needed to avoid the Germans (who really were quite mighty this World Cup and would have been more worthy finalists than the Dutch).
For all the while we continue to rely on a little good fortune, and bemoaning the bad luck -- untimely red cards, penalty shoot-out defeats and unlucky own goals -- we will continue to fail on the main stage. The Dutch will continue to believe that kicking the opposition is 'the way forward'. The truth is, to win the World Cup, all you need to do is play the way Spain did.
Of course, there is no mathematical logic for that position, in the same way there is no mathematical logic for arguing that because the last coin-toss landed on heads, the next coin-toss is bound to land on tails. In theory, we could have lucked our way to the prize, much in the way that Uruguay almost did.
Eventually, the coin will land on tails though if tossed away for long enough. Just like it did for England before the World Cup really got going. Just like it eventually did for Uruguay. At that juncture, Uruguay had been the tournament villains due to the flexibility in which they interpreted the rules to see off Ghana.
Come the final, and a new collective villain had emerged in the shape of Holland. They were industrious rather than dazzling throughout the World Cup, characterised by the aggressive play by Mark van Bommel. By the final, however, the virus of aggression appeared to have spread through the entire team, with the overall strategy relying on borderline violent tactics and seemingly doing their best to ruin the match.
They would have succeeded in their aim were it not for two factors. One, that Spain managed to fend off the brutal attempts to stop them with their more elegant style of play. Two, that the referee, Howard Webb, chose pragmatism over the letter of the law, in an attempt to make an event of the fixture.
He showed a high tolerance, and should have shown a red card in the first 45 minutes in the face of unacceptable Dutch tactics. It might have ended the match as a contest sooner, but he would had more control over it. My blood pressure will not allow me to elaborate further on the disgraceful and unsporting behaviour of the Dutch after the final whistle. Given the generosity of Webb throughout the match, they had a nerve complaining about his officiating. Hopefully a team with this attitude never makes it to a World Cup final again. Alan Hansen was (half) right when he said that "there is no place in football" for a team like this Dutch one. He was referring to the first 45 minutes. In truth, they were a disgrace throughout the tie.
Thankfully, Spain proved that skill, rather than luck or gamesmanship, is required in abundance to win World Cups. And that is the trouble with England. For all the talk of dependency on Rooney before the tournament, Lady Luck is generally the player we rely on most. And when she has an off day, England generally lose. Spain did not need assistance from a player so fickle.
Luck deserted England the moment Rob Green conspired to throw the ball into his own net in the opening game against the United States. It would be a setback that England would never fully recover from, setting off a sequence of events that resulted in England's eventual elimination at the hands of free-scoring Germany.
Luck was nowhere to be seen when England needed to rescue the group campaign against Algeria. She would even prove to have the final say during the finest hour of the campaign, when England emphatically and comprehensively defeated the mighty Slovenia 1-0, and she did that by handing the USA the late goal they needed to avoid the Germans (who really were quite mighty this World Cup and would have been more worthy finalists than the Dutch).
For all the while we continue to rely on a little good fortune, and bemoaning the bad luck -- untimely red cards, penalty shoot-out defeats and unlucky own goals -- we will continue to fail on the main stage. The Dutch will continue to believe that kicking the opposition is 'the way forward'. The truth is, to win the World Cup, all you need to do is play the way Spain did.
Wednesday 30 June 2010
Fabio Still Fab - Look Elsewhere for the Losers
So the World Cup has reached its natural conclusion. No, not just the inevitable dismal England exit - written from the same script as the one in France 1998. But the predictable press indulging in their usual game of sack the manager on behalf of the FA.
This is not a game of devil's advocate. Let me make it clear that I have previous on this. A more infantile version of me me sang the same tune as the rest of the media during the dying days of Graham Taylor's tenure in the hotseat.
And there was consensus that Sven Eriksson had taken England as far as he could before handing over to Steve McClaren. Oh yes, McClaren, what became of him? Having been dismissed as the 'wally with the brolley' he left England on the first plane to manage an unfashionable Dutch club called FC Twente and learned the local accent in record time. This was much to the hilarity of everyone back home, who understandably thought their judgement of him had been vindicated. Then he went and filled up their trophy cabinet as giants such as Ajax could only watch helplessly.
So among the wreckage of three England managers who have failed to get the best out of this amusingly perceived 'golden generation' of players, is it not time to shine the light solely on the main suspects of England's downfall - the players themselves?
When they cross that white line and enter the field of play, there is only so much the manager can do. He cannot go out there and kick the ball for them.
Once again, too many of the 'stars' failed to shine, and unlike the admittedly better informed journalists out there, I simply cannot buy into the nonsense that the Fabio Capello boot camp was a significant contributing factor to this latest failure.
Perennial under-achievers on the world stage, sadly including the talented Wayne Rooney, complained of being "bored." Why is that? Bored because the beer was not endlessly on tap? Bored because they were not allowed to 'get their leg over'? Surely they had televisions in their rooms, so here is a suggestion: Perhaps they could have used some of their ample downtime to watch some football, perhaps.
At the same time that the feckless micro-scale player protest was gathering steam (or maybe a gentle plume), there were three football matches per day taking place in South Africa. If the lads tuned in, and we all hope they did, then maybe they would have been a little more aware of the challenges they faced. Indeed, they may have witnessed how football was played elsewhere in the world and what was required to succeed. Sadly, apart from some opportunistic photography showing certain England players smirking, the popular press have limited their front page and back page vitriol to the easiest of targets - as usual.
Get rid of the gaffer and all will be well, we are told. The problem is, we have already dumped two managers with this set of players and nothing has changed. We are in danger of becoming the old Manchester City of world football by constantly changing our managers, feeding back into a cycle of inconsistency and underachievement.
And while the players, who apart from the one or two Champions' League winners in the side boast little success outside of our island are being shielded from the blame, here are a few reasons why disposing of Capello would be futile.
Firstly, before the World Cup he signed a £12 million two year-deal with the FA. At the time, he had taken England to the World Cup finals with the minimum of fuss. Five competitive matches ago he was the best thing since sliced bread.
Secondly, in a desperate attempt to direct the blame to Capello, his decisions regarding the use of certain players and formations have been used as ammunition against him. But what manager has not frustrated his supporters at some point with puzzling squad decisions? Even the great Sir Alex Ferguson must have infuriated Manchester United supporters from time to time with the use of players and formations. Just like some may ask why Walcott was not playing for England over the past few weeks, others may ask why the likes of Diego Forlan and Carlos Tevez are not still at Old Trafford. All managers make rash judgements on players, whether based on form or financial prudence.
Thirdly, does a manager really need to be that good anyway? (If not, why are our managers remunerated so handsomely?) Six months ago, Diego Maradona was considered a managerial joke, his antics generating more of that smirking and smugness in the media. Maradona's approach has not changed. He remains erratic and volatile, but also as entertaining as ever. But the results have changed. The difference is that he has players such as Lionel Messi at his disposal.
And that last point takes this debate full circle. If you have a decent enough squad of players, a group which can also play as a team, the job becomes easy. The problem is we do not have the team. We may not even have the quality of individual players we previously thought.
These players have now failed on too many occasions. Taking the easy option of wasting up to £12m paying off a manager, who before turning up to this hellhole boasted a bloated trophy-laden CV, will not change that.
This is not a game of devil's advocate. Let me make it clear that I have previous on this. A more infantile version of me me sang the same tune as the rest of the media during the dying days of Graham Taylor's tenure in the hotseat.
And there was consensus that Sven Eriksson had taken England as far as he could before handing over to Steve McClaren. Oh yes, McClaren, what became of him? Having been dismissed as the 'wally with the brolley' he left England on the first plane to manage an unfashionable Dutch club called FC Twente and learned the local accent in record time. This was much to the hilarity of everyone back home, who understandably thought their judgement of him had been vindicated. Then he went and filled up their trophy cabinet as giants such as Ajax could only watch helplessly.
So among the wreckage of three England managers who have failed to get the best out of this amusingly perceived 'golden generation' of players, is it not time to shine the light solely on the main suspects of England's downfall - the players themselves?
When they cross that white line and enter the field of play, there is only so much the manager can do. He cannot go out there and kick the ball for them.
Once again, too many of the 'stars' failed to shine, and unlike the admittedly better informed journalists out there, I simply cannot buy into the nonsense that the Fabio Capello boot camp was a significant contributing factor to this latest failure.
Perennial under-achievers on the world stage, sadly including the talented Wayne Rooney, complained of being "bored." Why is that? Bored because the beer was not endlessly on tap? Bored because they were not allowed to 'get their leg over'? Surely they had televisions in their rooms, so here is a suggestion: Perhaps they could have used some of their ample downtime to watch some football, perhaps.
At the same time that the feckless micro-scale player protest was gathering steam (or maybe a gentle plume), there were three football matches per day taking place in South Africa. If the lads tuned in, and we all hope they did, then maybe they would have been a little more aware of the challenges they faced. Indeed, they may have witnessed how football was played elsewhere in the world and what was required to succeed. Sadly, apart from some opportunistic photography showing certain England players smirking, the popular press have limited their front page and back page vitriol to the easiest of targets - as usual.
Get rid of the gaffer and all will be well, we are told. The problem is, we have already dumped two managers with this set of players and nothing has changed. We are in danger of becoming the old Manchester City of world football by constantly changing our managers, feeding back into a cycle of inconsistency and underachievement.
And while the players, who apart from the one or two Champions' League winners in the side boast little success outside of our island are being shielded from the blame, here are a few reasons why disposing of Capello would be futile.
Firstly, before the World Cup he signed a £12 million two year-deal with the FA. At the time, he had taken England to the World Cup finals with the minimum of fuss. Five competitive matches ago he was the best thing since sliced bread.
Secondly, in a desperate attempt to direct the blame to Capello, his decisions regarding the use of certain players and formations have been used as ammunition against him. But what manager has not frustrated his supporters at some point with puzzling squad decisions? Even the great Sir Alex Ferguson must have infuriated Manchester United supporters from time to time with the use of players and formations. Just like some may ask why Walcott was not playing for England over the past few weeks, others may ask why the likes of Diego Forlan and Carlos Tevez are not still at Old Trafford. All managers make rash judgements on players, whether based on form or financial prudence.
Thirdly, does a manager really need to be that good anyway? (If not, why are our managers remunerated so handsomely?) Six months ago, Diego Maradona was considered a managerial joke, his antics generating more of that smirking and smugness in the media. Maradona's approach has not changed. He remains erratic and volatile, but also as entertaining as ever. But the results have changed. The difference is that he has players such as Lionel Messi at his disposal.
And that last point takes this debate full circle. If you have a decent enough squad of players, a group which can also play as a team, the job becomes easy. The problem is we do not have the team. We may not even have the quality of individual players we previously thought.
These players have now failed on too many occasions. Taking the easy option of wasting up to £12m paying off a manager, who before turning up to this hellhole boasted a bloated trophy-laden CV, will not change that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)