Bring on the Scousers?

For only the second time in my life, I think I might actually want those Lucky Scousers to win a game tonight (the previous occasion was a league fixture against the Geordies - the one team I dislike more – when there was an outside chance that they might actually win something for once in their miserable existence). The chance to see Man United beat (hopefully thump) them in the final, thereby shutting their fans up for ever, is just too good an opportunity to miss. Of course the nightmare scenario, where the Scousers have yet another of their lucky European nights, is simply too awful to contemplate. But this is perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sort out the ultimate bragging rights, finally and for ever. So, as much as it pains me to admit it, I think I’ll be hoping that Chelsea slip up tonight. Well, perhaps...

Change the Rules! (No.1 in a regular series)

Having watched the Hopkins v Calzaghe fight again at the weekend, I was once again struck by the number of problems with the current scoring system:
1/ Judges are wrongly being discouraged from scoring rounds even. Many of the rounds in the Hopkins v Calzaghe fight were very difficult to call for either fighter, but the judges apparently felt obliged to score rounds 10-9, rather than 10-10.
2/ Why they use a “10-point must” system - where at least one of the boxers is awarded the maximum 10 points in each round - is beyond me (to give an extreme example, a round where both boxers stare at each other and don’t throw any punches must, presumably, be scored 10-10). This system tends to penalise fighters like Hopkins, who usually have a number of ‘big’ rounds in each fight, and rewards ‘plodders’ like Calzaghe. In their first fight, Hopkins dominated Taylor in a couple of rounds and had him in real trouble, yet, since there were no knockdowns, these were only scored 10-9 – the same score as those rounds which Taylor just edged. And why the heck should fighters be awarded the maximum score for a dull round? It makes no sense. I would advocate a system where each fighter is awarded between 0 and 5 points for each round. A fairly dull round could be scored, say, 2-1, a cracking round 5-5. If one fighter dominates in a particular round, that might be scored, say, 5-1.
3/ Judges (and the majority of people who watch boxing contests) don’t seem to understand that four areas of performance are being assessed - clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship and defence. Many observers gave Calzaghe the fight because he was continually going forward. However, if you move toward your opponent but can't land clean shots – as Calzaghe did for much of the fight - you don't have effective aggressiveness. Hopkins, as usual, excelled in the area of defence – but two of the three judges clearly didn’t reward him for the number of times he made Calzaghe miss. Boxing authorities either need to change the rules of scoring, or make sure the judges apply them correctly. But of course, boxing being boxing, neither of these things is going to happen.

Have Man Utd blown it?

If Barcelona knock United out next week, it will be easy to look at the 2nd minute of the first leg as the turning point. But although Ronaldo's penalty miss was pretty unforgivable, given how important an away goal would have been, I wonder if tactically Ferguson got it wrong. In the 70s and 80s, 0-0 away from home in the first leg of a European tie was a great result - you'd then be confident of going back to your fortress and wrapping up the tie. Nowadays, I'm not so sure that it is such a good result. I think away goals have become far more important these days, and United may rue not having been a bit more adventurous at Camp Nou, especially with Puyol missing (did they have any shots on target?).

Now United have to win at Old Trafford, and should Barca take the lead, or even if United are ahead by a goal with 20 or so minutes to go, things could become very precarious. I actually make Barca slight favourites now - I can see Messi continuing to cause United problems, whilst Henry (should he play) certainly won't need any motivation to try and silence the Theatre of Dreams. It's about time Ronaldo had a big game when it really matters - if he doesn't, I suspect it could well become 'squeaky bum' time on Tuesday night.

Calzaghe v Hopkins - Reflections

Before the fight, my head said Calzaghe by decision, but my heart said that Hopkins, being such a legend, might be able to produce one final quality performance. And I also put £10 on a draw at odds of 18/1. So in some ways, I'd say I was right on all accounts!

But why is it that Hopkins never gets awarded close decisions? This felt like a repeat of the Taylor fights. In fact you could argue that Hopkins hasn't really lost a fight since Jones beat him in 1993 - some record. To fight that well at 43 is a great achievement - he ran out of gas towards the end, which was to be expected, and I suppose that ultimately cost him the decision (although the judge who gave it 9 rounds to Calzaghe, 3 to Hopkins, is a disgrace). The bottom line on the judging is: do you prefer quality or quantity? Did Calzaghe ever hurt, or even really trouble, Bernard? I don't think so (he was unmarked at the end of the fight), whereas Bernard clearly had Calzaghe in trouble in the early rounds.

I'm certainly still not convinced by Calzaghe - he doesn't punch hard, rarely hurts opponents, and is basically a pretty dull fighter. Okay, 22 world title wins at super middle - but who did he beat? And now he's moved to light heavy, at a time when there are no young dangerous guys to fight (Hopkins, Jones, Tarver and Johnson are all well past their best). I think Pavlik would beat him, even though he'd have to move up in weight. But I suspect Calzaghe will take the Roy Jones fight, which is a joke - Jones is shot. Calzaghe's got a great record based on a phenomenal work rate, a decent chin - and not having fought any great fighters at their prime. Had he fought Hopkins 2/3 years ago, Hopkins wins - no doubt about it. 5/6 years ago, when he was in his prime, Hopkins knocks him out. Same goes for Jones too. If Calzaghe fights Pavlik (or even a decent light heavy still in his prime, such as Chad Dawson) and wins, then I'll accept that he's a great fighter. If he just fights Jones and then retires, I'm not buying it. Very good - yes; great - no.