Bowlers have a fighting chance in the 2007 World Cup, and I'm pleased.

Prior to the start of the 2007 World Cup, there was a lot of media speculation about some very high scores being made by the batting sides. There was even talk of 500 being possible. This would seem insane even a few years ago, but in the last 12 months it has been shown that 400+ scores are quite possible.

To score 500 would be very difficult, and a lot of things need to go right for it to happen, but there's so much limited overs cricket being played, and mostly in conditions strongly favouring the batsmen, that it seems that it is bound to happen eventually. However, from the early exchanges this week, it seems most unlikely that it will happen in the 2007 World Cup. As I write, New Zealand are giving England's batsmen a torrid time in their group game in St. Lucia. England will probably be content to get 200 at this rate, never mind 500.

There are plenty of people that think high scoring matches are a good thing- the game where Australia scored 434 and still lost last year was widely acclaimed to be one of the greatest games of all time. However, I think that is nonsense- the bowlers were reduced to mere bowling machines, and it is a form of cricket that is reduced to a mere batathon.

The majority of casual cricket viewers seem to like this form of cricket, but for me, cricket is a contest between bat and ball. So I've been delighted with the early games, where teams that are evenly matched fighting out moderately scoring games. The match between West Indies and Pakistan was a classic match- runs were possible for batsmen of talent, but there was enough in the wicket for bowlers to do well if they were good enough.

And with the scores likely to be more even, there is more chance of getting matches like the thriller between Zimbabwe and Ireland. And it is in the really close games that the real skill and character of the cricketer is revealed. In World Cup matches, this can mean the difference between becoming a part of cricket history and a legend of the game. Just ask Lance Klusener.

It probably doesn't matter for the tournament, but a first exciting match

The two games to conclude today had completely contrasting finishes. Sri Lanka finished off bowling out for 78, to complete a 243 run victory. Top order wickets to Lasith Malinga are encouraging for Sri Lanka - he is an exciting bowler when in form.

The other game was an absolute nailbiter. Set 222 to win, Zimbabwe lost wickets along the way, but looked for most of the time like they would probably ultimately scrape the runs. At 5/133 they were perhaps in a little trouble, but Stuart Matsikenyeri steadily compiled runs. At 5/203 off 43.4 overs they looked to be crusing home, and even at 6/212 off for 47.3 it did not look especially hard. Then, however there were wild swings. From needing 10 off 15 balls with four wickets in hand, three wickets fell for one run in ten balls, and suddenly Ireland were in the box seat, with Zimbabwe needing nine runs off the last over with one wicket in hand. However, Matsikenyeri was still batting and he managed to gain strike and Zimbabwe got eight runs off the first five balls of the over. Matsikenyeri only needed one run off the last ball and it looked Zimbabwe's game again, but he couldn't get it. Rainsford was run out in a suicidal attempt at a run, and Zimbabwe were all out for 221. The match was tied - only the third tie in World Cup history. The last such result was of course the extraordinarily memorable semi-final between Australia and South Africa in 1999. Zimbabwe were disconsolate and the Irish ecstatic, indicating the perceived positions of these sides. Matsikenyeri must have been livid considering all the wickets that fell at the other end - three of them run outs. His partners panicked - it is that simple.

Either of these sides have a clear task to achieve a place in the Super eight - they just have to beat Pakistan. If either side can do so, their three points will be above Pakistan's maximum of two points. It is a very tall order, but Pakistan are the most unpredictable and most vulnerable of the strong sides. It isn't likely, but it is not quite beyond the realms of possibility.

A day when everything went as planned

There were of course two games yesterday. I have written about Australia v Scotland. The other was Kenya versus Canada. Canada scored a fairly respectable 199 - losing their last wicket off the last ball of their 50 overs. I think we are seeing fewer sides collapse terribly than was the case a couple of World Cups ago. Some sides might be a little short on talent, but they are better coached and better trained. This is leading to more solid batting performances, but I think less has changed in the bowling. That is more about raw skill.

However, that was not nearly enough for Kenya, who are better coached and have more talent. Kenya coasted home to 3/203 from 43.2 overs. Captain Stephen Tikolo - who always performs well at World Cup time and it would be interesting to know what he would have done for a stronger nation - scored an unbeated 72 after taking 2/34 with the ball. Kenya are in the same group as England and New Zealand, both of who they will find tough going. A combination of defaults, good performances, and home ground advantage rather amazingly got Kenya to the semi-finals last time, and although they looked solid today they will get nowhere near them this time.

Today we have Sri Lanka v Bermuda and Ireland v Zimbabwe. Sri Lanka scored 6/321 (runs to captain Jayawardene) and as I write Bermuda are being hopelessly outclassed and are 7/46. It has not been a good day for Bermuda. In the third over Kevin Hurdle bowled eight wides and noballs to make it a 24 ball over. Nobody should do that in any class of cricket. In the other game Ireland scored a respectable 9/221 off their 50 overs thanks to a century from opener Jeremy Bray. Zimbabwe are 0/24 off 4.2 overs. Zimbabwe should win this (although I am not convinced they should be playing in the tournament) but a slip or two and this could be the first close game of the tournament.

Everything is very predictable so far, however. We haven't had the remotest sign of an upset. However, England play New Zealand tomorrow. This should be very interesting, as it is our first chance to see if England are genuinely improved or if the Commonwealth Bank series was a walk in the park. Also, South Africa open their campaign against the Netherlands. That game should be a walk in the park for the South Africans.

Ponting is pissed off. Good

Australia opened their campaign yesterday with an easy win against Scotland. Gilchrist and Hayden ticket along at six an over until Gilchrist was out lbw to a messy attempted sweep. Scotland bowled tidily and accurately but without any great menace. (Someday I hope to see Gilchrist bat for a full 50 overs and score a double century. He always gets out in some silly fashion, however). Ponting then came in at three. And the best thing about it was that Ponting looked really annoyed. Annoyed with the criticism of the team going in to the tournament. Annoyed with the losing. Annoyed with Sunil Gavaskar. And the great thing about Ponting is that he likes to get annoyance out of his system by scoring lots and lots of runs. He batted solidly and powerfully, looking in superb form with some cracking hook shots. He was starting to accelerate and hit a few sixes, but unfortunately the players went off due to rain at 3/241 in the 41st over. At that point he was on 91 it looked like he was going to smash the players all over the place and score 150, but he didn't really get into it when the players game back. He got the hundred but got out for 113 not too long after. Australia batted solidly for a bit, and then Brad Hogg hit a quick 40 off 15 balls at the end. (Could someone explain to me why Hogg has been out of the side? He is a key player, and he was always obviously going to be a key player in this potentially low scoring tournament, both with the ball and the bat. He did it in the last World Cup for heaven's sake, and he is just as good a player now). Of the other Australian batsmen, Hayden got a useful 60 and Hodge and Clarke a few runs. (Clarke out bowled to a dreadful rush of blood shot. He still does that a little. He needs a good coach to get him to stop it.

I wish that we had Allan Border in some authority position. The fact that he came back and left again after some ridiculous dispute with the board does not make me happy). Still 6/334 off 50 overs was a good effort. No complaints from me.

Glenn McGrath was too good for the Scottish batsmen, taking 3/14 off six overs and reducing them to 5/42. That was that really. Ponting experimented with his spin attack now, bringing Brad Hodge on for a few overs. While experimenting with the spin attack now is a good idea, what the blazes were the Australians doing messing around with a mediocre all seam attack for the last six month. (Might I ask exactly why Brad Hogg was out of the side?). Hopefully though, some sort of sensible attack will be in place in time for the game against South Africa next Friday. Still, this one was way too good for Scotland, and they were bowled out for 131 off 40.1 overs and Australia won by 203 runs. Australian fams cannot complain about this. It was exactly the right opening to the tournament.

I have two questions though? First, what can we do to keep Ponting pissed off for the entire tournament? If he is really pissed off, he might score seven centuries and win the World Cup single handedly. He is good enough. Perhaps we could pay Sunil Gavaskar to continue making idiotically inflammatory remarks. Second, is Glenn McGrath going to be too good for batsmen from better sides than Scotland. Whether he is still himself or is essentially past it is one of those questions we don't know the answer to, but we probably will in a couple of weeks.

Thoughts on the World Cup format, and the opening match

While this World Cup follows recent tournaments in being too long, I think the present format is a substantial improvement on the previous ones. The last two tournaments divided the teams up into two pools, and played a round robin in each pool. The leading three teams in each group went through to the "Super Six" stage, in which they played the teams they had not played already. Points scored against teams that also went through were carried over, and points against teams that dropped out were not(*). At the end of the Super six, the six teams would have then played each other once in total, and the points table would reflect this.

The advantage of this system is that the relative strength of the two groups would be less of an influence on the semi-finalists than in a system with a longer knock-out stage. (For the ICC, the advantage was that it would make the tournament longer).

However, once the 1999 tournament started, various other issues came to light. For one thing, it meant that the results of very early games were still important quite late in the tournament. Some sides like to start relatively slowly and then raise their form as the important games arise. However, in this format some of the important games were very early. (Although some sides complained about this, in practice, this may have actually improved the tournament. Australia lost two games early, and then discovered that they could not afford to lose another game in the entire tournament. This led to an air of do or die desperation on their part that allowed them to raise their game to a point they might not have been able to in an easier situation, and led to some classic cricket).

Worse, than that, nobody knew which were the important games until later. As there were only six teams in the super six and as then (as now) there were eight strong teams, there was considerable doubt as to who would go through, and therefore from which games the points won would ultimately count. For a side that had qualified, the number of points carried over could be quite different depending on the results of other matches that were entirely out of the control of that side. In 2003, several games were defaulted by sides refusing to play games in Kenya or Zimbabwe, which led to weaker sides going through to the super six, points from these defaults ultimately determining places in the semi-finals as well as the super six, and points from very easy matches being carried over into the super six and points from very difficult ones being dropped.

This time, the format is a "Super Eight". The teams have been divided into four pools of four. Two teams go through to the super eight. Points against other teams that go through are carried over as with the super six, but this will only be points from one game. The lesser teams get to play three games each: enough to give them a taste of the tournament, but not so many games that they become a distraction in the more serious parts of the tournament. It is fairly clear which games will have points carried over in the early stages - those against the other strong teams. If it does not ultimately work out this way, it will be the fault of the side that doesn't carry over the points. Unpredictable events involving third parties are much less likely to come into it. When it comes to decide the semi-finalists, the vast bulk of the points taken into consideration (six sevenths) will have been played in the super eight stage and not the pool stage.

This all means that there are three kinds of matches in the pool stage. Firstly, there are games between two sides that are likely to go through to the super eight - these are important matches for the later stage of the tournament and the competing teams know this. Secondly, there are games between a likely qualifier and a non-likely qualifier. These are important in the sense that the likely qualifiers have to make sure not to lose them in order to make sure that they do in fact make the super eight, but how they manage it does not matter much. (Even if a strong side does lose one of these, they can still go through if they ensure they win their other games convincingly, and if this happens, the results of the upset probably do not cascade through). And there are games between two likely non-qualifiers. These are probably not big games from the perspective of the outcome of the tournament, but they are big games for the teams involved, as they are their best chance to play positive and winning criket in the tournament.

However, the carrying of points over does make at least some of the early round matches more important for the good sides. If there were no points carried over, the games between the two stronger sides would be of virtually no significance at all. As it is, they are games that they must concentrate on winning. One question applying to the first round of the tournament is one of the order of matches. Do strong sides prefer to have their "important" match first, then play the lesser sides, then get back into the series stuff, or do they prefer to play the weaker sides first, and then play the seven stronger sides one after another. Pakistan and the West Indies had the first situation, playing yesterday. South Africa and Australia, and also India and Sri Lanka have the second, playing each other right at the end of the first round. (India and Sri Lanka have the tougher group, as Bangladesh might be able to cause an upset earlier. If that happens, the final game in that group becomes a desperate scrap). England and New Zealand play in the middle of the group.

As it happens, in the first two days of the tournament, the schedule has given us one game of each of the three kinds. Yesterday, the opening game of the tournament was the first kind. Hosts the West Indies took on Pakistan. Pakistan's preparation has been terrible, and of the "big eight" teams, they are the one I was most likely to write off going in to the tournament. They lived up to that yesterday. Pakistan were able to take some early wickets (but not really enough to put them on top), and this was enough to slow the West Indian start, getting to a modest 3/77 off 23.5 overs. Pakistan also prevented any West Indian from getting a big score. However, the West Indians put in a solid team effort, with Lara, Bravo, and Samuels scoring runs, and Smith and Collymore doing the sometimes difficult thing of boosting the run rate when wickets fell at the end. 9/241 looked a decend score, although the question still remains as to what is and isn't a good score in this tournament. In this game, it was plenty. Pakistan just didn't get into it. They didn't try to go for much of a run rate, and lost wickets anyway, fallying to 6/116 off 32.5 overs. After that Shoaib Malik scored 62 off 54 balls, but the match was already lost and he didn't get Pakistan back into it. It was a pretty pathetic effort from them, but a good effort from the West Indies. Smith had a fine game taking 3/36 off his ten overs after scoring 32 off 15 balls. The West Indies completed an easy 54 run win.

Today we have Scotland v Australia and Kenya v Candada. Australia really need to win this one very easily to demonstrate that they are at least something like a little over their recent bad form. Scotland have been making remarks about fancying their chances, but Australia will be much too good. The question is by how much. Kenya v Canada should be more intersting, although Kenya have much more experience of this level of cricket than do Canada. Kenya should easily win this one. If they do not, then they have wasted quite a bit of ICC development money and the development they should have got out of quite a few games against good opposition.


(*) Note to purists. Yes, I am aware this that this was changed slightly in 2003. I am simplifying a little to make a point. For practical purposes the change made no difference.

Musing on the Minnows

Yesterday Michael discussed the prospects of the strong cricketing nations. The winner of the 2007 World Cup will almost certainly come out of those teams. It would be a massive upset if they did not.

However there are eight other participants in the tournament. This is a change for the World Cup- in the past, the minor cricketing countries did not play a great role in these tournaments. As recently as the 1992 tournament, only one participant was not a serious contender.

This more inclusive style of tournament is not to everyone's taste- both Michael Holding and Ricky Ponting have come out against it. Both men have played in winning World Cup sides and may approach the tournament from the point of view of the players- they want the best to go up against the best.

But minnows have been present in every tournament, and the 1975 minnow Sri Lanka grew into the 1996 World Cup Champions. While it is hard to imagine Bermuda or Holland ever becoming a serious contender, it is possible that one day Kenya or even Canada could develop into serious cricketing nations. This is why ICC likes to include them.

And, given their resources, I think that the minnow nations have a good enough record to justify their inclusion. The 1975 Sri Lankans did well, although they didn't win a game in the tournament; in 1983, Zimbabwe won their first ever World Cup game against Australia. In 1992, Zimbabwe were again competitive and won their game against England, who came runners up.

In 1996 came the biggest shock, when Kenya beat West Indies; 1999 brought Bangladesh's victory over Pakistan, and in 2003 there were no end of suprises- Canada beat Bangladesh, and notably, Kenya beat Sri Lanka and manged to make the semi-finals.

In 2007, there is some scope for upsets. Each pool consists of two minnows and two major nations, so there is a total of 16 games between minnows and majors. Of course, some victories would not be as surprising as others. Bangladesh have improved markedly in the past few years and if they beat either India or Sri Lanka it will be more an 'upset' then a 'boilover'.

Group C and Group D have mixes of nations that could cause upsets; both England and Pakistan have the sort of erratic form that leaves them vulnerable if a minnow nation catches them on a bad day.

And if by chance a minnow makes the 'Super 8' there is a chance of more boilovers.

So while the 'big boys' will fight it out for the 2007 World Cup, I think that the presence of the minnow nations is a positive for the tournament, adding to its entertainment value. Tonight, Kenya play Canada, a contest that Kenya should win. But it isn't a sure thing, and it should be more of a contest then Australia's match against Scotland.

But then Australia's form has been bad lately. Scotland beating Australia at cricket seems totally unthinkable, but they'll never get a better chance then tonight. Game on!

Welcome to my World Cup blogging

Here are my brief portraits of the eight "good" sides in the cricket world cup that began today. I have a few more thoughts on Samizdata.

• The West Indies are hosts of the tournament. The English speaking countries of the Carribean have fielded a single cricket team for about 80 years. This team slowly rose through the ranks of cricketing nations for its first decades of existence, and was extremely competitive from around 1960. In the mid 1970s it rose still further, and through having great fast bowlers and spectacular batsmen it dominated international cricket until the early 1990s. Since then it has suffered many defeats, but the team still contains some very impressive players. In full cry, present West Indian captain Brian Lara is one of the most awe inspiring players in world cricket. However, there are questions about his and the team's attitude. One sometimes thinks the players would rather visit nightclubs than cricket grounds. The West Indies will probably flame out at some point, but they may well play some great cricket before doing so. If they make the later stages of the tournament, this may concentrate their minds well enough to do well in those later stages.
• Australia are the defending champions, and are attempting to win the tournament for the third time in succession and the fourth time in total. Australia have lost a number of good players since the last World Cup, and have several injuries to key players. The lost of fast bowler Brett Lee is a big blow. Andrew Symonds and Matthew Hayden are important players, but will be back hopefully fit in time for the later stages of the tournament. Australia's batting is strong regardless of this, with Adam Gilchrist and Hayden destructive at the top of the order, Ricky Ponting in the middle order, and Sydmonds and Michael Hussey as finishers. However the bowling looks weak. Glenn McGrath (playing in his last tournament) was a great player but is not any more. Stuart Clark is a fine test bowler, but is untested in one day internationals. Andrew Symonds is unlikely to bowl much due to his injury. Brad Hogg is an effective spinner (and played a big role four years ago) but is curiously out of favour with the selectors and is low on confidence. Australia have lost their best finishing bowler in Lee. In truth though, Australia's middle over bowlers lost the plot about a year ago. Sides with decent batting can score an outrageous number of runs between the 20 and 45 over marks when Australia are batting. This has been obvious for at least a year, but team management has carried on as if there is no problem. Australia have been thoroughly found out in recent games, and go into the tournament having lost five games straight. They are very vulnerable to smart opposition who can outthink them and take advantage of the conditions. Although Australia are still favourites with bookmakers (although their odds have lengthened considerably over the last couple of months) I do not expect Australia to make the semi-finals. I hope I am wrong, but I do not really believe I am. It is almost beyond description how much I wish Shane Warne were playing.
  
• South Africa are second favourites with bookmakers, and have by far the best form of any team coming into the tournament, having destroyed Pakistan and India at home in their most recent series. Their batting side is very impressive, with players like Jacques Kallis, Graeme Smith, and Herschelle Gibbs having taken them to very large scores in recent games. Their bowling is good, but relatively unimaginative, being based around pace. This may not suit them in the West Indies. Their captain Graeme Smith is rather unimaginative and not a greet tactician. If there is a side that is going to power through the tournament and win it easily, the the South Africans are it. However, they stand to be surprised by a side that out thinks them at some point. If this happens prior to the semi-finals, it does not matter, as they should make the semi-finals easily enough with their present game. If it happens in the semi-final or final, they lose. History does not help. They have often played well at early stages of previous tournaments, but have then been out thought, out sledged, and overwhelmed by the occasion later on. And I am not sure what to make of their ability to be eliminated from previous world cups in truly bizarre circumstances, other than to see it at a tremendous source of amusement. They cannot possibly beat the previous world cup, in which they were eliminated after a rain shortened game was tied on the Duckworth-Lewis rule after the captain got his calculations wrong. Or can they?
  
• New Zealand are a side with a history of making the most of rather limited resources. Cricket is a very poor relation to rugby in New Zealand, which is a small country. None the less, its cricket team has a history of being very well captained and coached. In World Cups it has often played very well early in the tournament, but upon reaching the semi-finals the lack of depth and the lack of really top notch players has showed. The present side fits this description well Captain Stephen Fleming is the best captain in world cricket (and a good batsman). All rounder Jacop Oram has been playing superbly recently, and the middle and lower order have been batting with a wonderful never say die attitude. (New Zealand come into the tournament having beaten Australia 3-0 at home). Shane Bond is one of the great tragedies of modern cricket: a wonderful, technically correct seam bowler who would be one of the best bowlers in the world if injuries had not shortened his career. The conditions in the West Indies will suit him, and he will once or twice take five wickets and win a game for New Zealand. However, he is only allowed to bowl ten overs and the rest of New Zealand's bowling may not be good enough to finish the job. The Australia v New Zealand game from four years ago probably summarises the problem. Bond took 6/23 and reduced Australia to 7/84, but he was not allowed to bowl any more overs and Australia recovered to 208 and won the game easily. That kind of thing may happen again. New Zealand will make the semi-finals, but probably don't quite have the class to win the tournament.
  
• Sri Lanka revolutionised one day cricket with their performance in winning the 1996 World Cup, in which the quality of their batting and their strategy of attacking from the first ball when fielding restrictions in place surprised much of the rest of the cricketing world. (It shouldn't have, because they had been playing the strategy effectively for at least six months going into the tournament). It also marked their transition from the easybeats of world cricket to a powerful, dangerous side. Since then they have beaten and embarassed a lot of other teams, have annoyed and frustrated a lot of opposing players with their ruthless and forceful attitude to the game, and have caused considerable controversy by selecting spin bowler Muttiah Muralithuran, whose bowling action is considered by many to be of questionable legality. Still. they are a smart and canny side who can exploit difficult batting conditions. Whatever the merits of his action, Muralithuran will be a dangerous bowler in these conditions. Jayasuriya is back in the side for one final swing at the World Cup. There is plenty of batting talent in the side such as captain Mahela Jayawardene, Marvan Atapattu, and Kumar Sangakkara. Sri Lanka are going to be very dangerous indeed in this tournament. I wouldn't be very surprised if they won it.
  
• Not much can be said about Pakistan other than that they are Pakistan. They produce a large number of greatly talented and exciting players. However, the players seldom appear united on the field. They have an endless series of match fixing scandals, drug scandals, dressing room rebellions, weird political intrigues involving corrupt government ministers, and goodness knows what. Going into the world cup, the most recent problem is a drug scandal (steroids). Pakistan also lack the bowling strength of a few years back. There is nobody of the talent of Wasim Akram or Waqar Younis. The most exciting bowler than do have is Shoaib Akhtar, who was involved in the doping scandal, was "acquitted" and is now out "injured". In their most recent series Pakistan were horribly beaten by South Africa. The only captain who could ever make Pakistan play as something resembling a united team was Imran Khan, who took them to World Cup glory in 1992. Many of us have fond memories of a very young Inzamam al Haq playing spectacular shots under the MCG lights in that tournament. Inzamam is today captain of Pakistan, and in the years since has been consistently one of the world's finest batsmen. However I cannot sensibly see Pakistan overcoming their problems to get far in this tournament. On the other hand, sense and the Pakistan cricket team seldom seem to go together.
  
• India are the great enigma of world cricket. They won the World cup completely unexpectedly in 1983, when unbackable favourites the West Indies failed in the final . That inspired a huge party in India in response, but that would be nothing compared to what would happen if they did it in these days in which modern media and economic growth has drenched India in cricket to an extent that is hard to describe. India have great batsmen in Sachin Tendulkar, captain Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag, and fine spin bowlers in Harbhajan Singh. Their seam bowling is perhaps a little weaker and I am not sure they are a great tactical side, but if everything comes off they are likely to be extraordinarily likely to beat. They have a frustrating inconsistency about them, however. Some days (particularly in test series against Australia) they can be brilliant. In others deeply disappointing. Their form is mixed going into the tournament: they have recently beaten South Africa and the West Indies, but were badly beaten by South Africa over Christmas. That was in very different conditions though. I think if India get momentum going, they will be hard to stop. but it is very questionable whether they will get momentum going.
  
• And last, England. England are widely being predicted as being a dark horse in the series. after playing utterly terribly for most of the Australian summer, England turned around at the last possible moment in the Commonwealth Bank series, winning four games straight to take the tournament. The return of captain Michael Vaughan appears to make a huge difference to England. With him they believe in themselves. Without him they do not. Generally, though, England are well led, fit, and well coached. They played outstandingly to win the Ashes about 18 months ago.
  
  That is the rub, however. Other than the last four matches, England's good performances in recent years have come in test cricket. In one day cricket, they have generally been terrible. I do not think they have enough tactics, enough game planning, and enough skill in one day games to win the tournament. Perhaps they will make the semi-finals. I think though that strategically better teams will come through in the end.
  
  On the other hand, Vaughan is a very good captain. And the conditions will suit Monty Panesar. So who knows?
  

That is team by team analysis. Who do I think will win? Okay. Predictions.

Semi-finalists: South Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, and India.
Finalists: South Africa and India
Champions: South Africa

However, the tourament is the most open I can remember. In the last five minutes I have changed the side I have predicted to win from Sri Lanka to India to South Africa. I really have no idea.

Korean petrol advertisement

DSCF0917
Originally uploaded by mjj122.

What is there to say. Impressionism. Pretty Korean girl. Petrol. How could I not associate the three already?

Nearly out of here

People who have been reading Samizdata will know that I am presently in Seoul in South Korea. I am on my way home to Australia for Christmas. The reason that I am here is that when I was booking my ticket in January, it turned out that one of the cheapest options was to fly on Korean airlines, and that gave me the option of a stopover in Seoul. As I had never been to Seoul before, and as the idea of coming here had some appeal, I said sure, and booked a five day stopover.

The other advantage of stopping here was that it gave me a chance to fight my jetlag more or less in peace without friends and relatives expecting me to talk to them and/or do other activities at times of day when I was not fully functional. As the jetlag involved a nine hour time shift flying east (to here - ten hours to Brisbane), this was particularly good. That time shift is about the worst possible, as it means that after the journey your body things that you should be going to sleep at pretty much the exact time you have to get up.

There are two ways of dealing with this kind of time shift, and they can loosely be referred to as "forwards" and "backwards". Forwards involves staying up later each day until your personal time is the same as that of the place you are. Backwards involves going to bed earlier. Staying up later is usually physiologically easier, but with a nine hour east shift, it means you have to adjust a total of 24 minus 9 hours - that is a total of 15 hours. Backwards is harder, but you have to adjust nine hours only. Which is great, except that adjusting nine hours in this way is an extremely difficult thing to do.

However, if you only adjust five hours, then you can (say) get up at midday and go to bed at 4am. If you are on a business trip, or if you are visiting family, this is not really practical. On the other hand, if you are on a holiday this can be fine. If you want to sample the local nightlife, it can be actively good. And when you go home at the end of the trip, you only have five hours forwards to adjust, which is an absolute piece of cake.

This is what I did when I went to Shanghai earlier this year, but it is not what I have done on this trip, as on this trip I need to adjust completely in time for a family visit. This is a shame, as Seoul is a city that stays up really late. It is possible to go shopping at four o'clock in the morning. Shops that open at 11am and close at 5am are quite common.

This is no doubt great for a lot of people. However, if you have been leaving your hotel at 7am and then wandering around for the portion of the day where there are few things open, it is not always so good. Particularly when it is winter.

Time to return, I think

This blog has been semi-abandoned for the last year, and it was fairly abandoned before that. People who read Samizdata will know I show up there from time to time, but that is pretty much all the blogging I have done over the last year. The strange thing is that I have been getting the urge to blog in ways that are a little too esoteric for Samizdata, and I am not sure that everything I write belongs there. So, I probably do need my own blog again.

In truth, though, I need a redesign. I think I have conceded Patrick Crozier. And some of the pictures have vanished. (I still have all the originals and could bring them back if I were to make an effort, but I am not sure I am going to make that effort). I think the new blog is likely to be at least 50% a photoblog, too, partly because posting photos is less work, at least it is if you take a lot of photos (as I do).

For the moment, though, I might blog here.

Comments that got out of control

This was intended to be a comment left on this post at Jackie's blog, but it got out of control

If you consider the "World camera market" to be the total market for devices that are capable of taking pictures in some way, then the Motorola V3 RAZR is probably the best selling camera of all time. But that doesn't make Motorola an important player in the world camera market in actual fact, because the camera in the V3 is terrible and few people use that particular phone as a camera other than very occasionally. (It is fine as a phone, however). But if you choose carefully how do define the market, you can produce a market share of anything you want. The "market leader" in the camera industry is most definitely Canon, for the simple reason that amongst people who treat photography with a vague level of seriousnous or better, it is clearly the leading brand. It may be that within a few years time people start using their phones the majority of the time as their main cameras, but it is a good way off. And for the sort of photographers who carry an SLR, it will be "never", because lenses will never get small enough. (The question of "share" is also very important. Are you talking the percentage of the number of cameras in the world by volume, by value, by the number of photos taken, by the number of photos taken that are actually shown to somebody later, or what. All Dave Winer said is that Apple are the "market leader' in music players, which I don't think is necessarily even saying they produce the largest number by volume).

And I actually think that cameras and phones are much better suited to be in the same device than are music players and phones. (Why this is I will get to). Generally I just don't buy the idea that mobile phones are going to evolve into these multi-purpose devices that we use for listening to music, surfing the internet, reading our e-mail, et cetera. There are two reasons for this: one aesthetic and one practical. The aesthetic reason is that the more functions you put into the device the less simple it is to use, the more complicated the controls and the menu system, the more general a lot of its user interface becomes, and the less good the user interface is at any particular task. I think with portable devices we are headed for a world in which devices are going to be focused on doing one thing (or a small number of complementary things) really well, rather than doing a huge variety of things. The two portable devices I own that are the most pleasant to use are my iPod (which is just really good at being a music player) and my Blackberry (really good at doing mobile e-mail). I certainly do own multi-purpose smart phone type devices with everything but the kitchen sink in them, but these are more useful as backup for when something goes wrong with the dedicated devices than the devices that I would generally choose to use. In truth the mobile phone industry doesn't appear to have a clue as to how to get the user interface for a music player or an e-mail reader right (although Sony-Ericsson are doing best), which is why I have no intention of doing either of these things on a phone on a regular basis soon. But still I own phone that do these things.

The practical reason is battery life. The more functions you build into one device and which you use regularly, the more power it uses. Playing music is battery intensive, and if you use a phone for playing music a lot, then you phone is constantly running out of power. For many people this is a great social faux pas. Having separate devices means separate batteries, and individual batteries lasting longer. This is a big deal, and it isn't going to change soon.

And as for the iPod dying in 2006, we did get a lot of stories as to how it was in decline in the first half of the year, now that I think about it. Apple had a great Christmas in 2005 with the 5th generation full sized iPod and the 1st generation iPod nano, which were at the time very competitively priced given their capacities. In the first half of 2006 Apple was preoccupied with moving its computer line to Intel and didn't release any new iPod models and didn't drop the price on the existing models (despite the fact that the cost of flash memory in particular dropped precipitously, so that the iPod looked expensive compared to the competition) and large numbers of analysts and journalists assumed that sales have dried up. Apple didn't say anything until releasing financial results in July, at which point it revealed that sales were in fact extremely good (which is presumably why they hadn't cut the price). They have now released significantly cheaper and somewhat upgraded new models, and are going to clearly have another good Christmas. The iPod to me looks as a product to be in rude health, and is the product that is defining the market.

As for what is happening in Asia, there is actually an interesting story there. The iPod seems as dominant in Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore as it is here. (It is no coincidence that these are probably the three richest and most fashion conscious cities in Asia). It has a significant but not gigantic share in Taipei. It is not a player at all in Seoul, but Korea is in so many ways a world of its own. My recent experiences of China are indeed that the iPod has a fairly low market share. When I have wandered around the electronics arcades of Shenzhen and Shanghai in recent times I have seen large numbers of cabinets full of all kinds of MP3 players that are not iPods, in all kinds of shapes and bright colours. However, these are I still haven't seen many people using their phones to play music. People are still buying MP3 players as dedicated devices. Mobile phone manufacturers (especially Motorola) are designing mobile phone models specifically for the developing world, and the sweet spot seems to be cheap, elegant and stylish (which people do care about everywhere), and work well as a phone. Music players are nowhere in sight. When people in China want a music player, they buy a dedicated music player. (Photograph taken in an electronics shop in some rather remote corner of Shanghai where the locals really found it quite surprising to see a westerner like me).

However, even in Shenzhen, iPods are in pride of place at the front of the store, and they are what the teenagers are staring at longingly in the shop windows. It is clearly just about money. People buy non-iPod players because iPods cost too much. While most people have to ultimately make do with something cheaper, an iPod is clearly what they aspire to. I saw lots of people with iPod shuffles in Shanghai - a model almost completely lacking in useful features if you ask me - but people spend a lot of money on it in local terms because it is an iPod.

However, if there is a threat to the iPod's dominance, and there has to be one at some point, this is where it is. We have a lot of non-iPod MP3 players that are being produced for Asian markets. A lot of effort is going in to their design. It may be that in this highly competitive market someone gets the design of a player for the Chinese market exactly right in an unexpected way and this new product conquers the world. It may be that the parts for a full features MP3 player become so cheap that the (steadily declining for several years now) prices of genuine Apple iPods are forced down to the point where a relatively high overhead company such as Apple can't make money, at which point Apple possibly does lose much of the market. But that's a way off.

Basic point: I think it is much more likely that the electronics artisans of Shenzhen and Taiwan are going to ultimately defeat Apple in this market than are Nokia or Sony.

This will all end. Just not yet.

This description of the completely over the top Moscow nightclub scene reads so totally like descriptions of the Tokyo bubble circa 1988. That ended gradually after the stockmarket and real estate bubbles collapsed. However, Japan's political system was and is something resembling a democracy, and the Japanese economy was real, and modern, and actually made stuff, or at least some portions of the Japanese economy did, whereas Russia is becoming darkly repressive and the "economy" is just high energy prices and nothing else. An economic or political shock could be nasty, one fears.

Somehow, though, one expects Zaphod Beeblebrox to show up at any moment. The unending party on Stalin's boat sounds almost like something that Douglas Adams made up. Adams' work is even funnier now than it was in 1979. He had the ability to parody the future, somehow. Just the other day, an ATM did actually tell me that it was always glad to serve me. Really.

(Link via Arts & Letters Daily).

Is it just me?

Or is there something deeply endearing about the thought of Natalie Solent as a little girl, her kind and sympathetic Miss Marple like Englishness and razor sharp mind already there, (her destiny as a libertarian no doubt in place, but a way to go to get there), hiding behind the sofa from the Daleks, observing the precise details of the sofa carefully, and just generally figuring out the important questions of life (How the hell do they go up a set of steps?) faster than most of us.

I don't mind this answer

Your results:
You are Spider-Man

You are intelligent, witty, a bit geeky and have great power and responsibility. Spider-Man 95% Hulk 75% Iron Man 65% Superman 50% Green Lantern 45% Supergirl 43% Batman 40% Robin 35% The Flash 35% Catwoman 30% Wonder Woman 18%

Click here to take the Superhero Personality Test

Update



create your own visited country map
or check our Venice travel guide

That was just awful

Italy eliminated Australia from the World Cup with a very dubious penalty with five seconds of stoppage time to go. Obviously, I don't care, and the sick feeling I feel in my stomach came for some other reason.

Place dropping, and I am making some attempt to be back

When I last posted to this blog three months ago, I was in China. Since returning to Britain on that trip, I have been to Ireland, Australia, Singapore, Malta, and Switzerland, and I have been quite busy back in London. I think things shall be a little quieter for the next few months, and I am hoping to get back into the swing of blogging a little. But we shall see.

Some problems are common

I am informed by a neutral third party that OxbloggerPatrick Belton is in Pakistan, and that he is able to post to that blog but not read it, as blogspot is blocked but blogger is not. As it happens, I am in exactly the same position, as I am presently in Shanghai in China, and blogspot is blocked by the great firewall of China. Blogger sems to be fine, however.

Yes, there is a problem with the pictures on this blog

I need to move them to a different host site. Hopefully I shall have time to do this in the next few days.

I didn’t go to evil medical school for seven years to be called Mr Evil!

My countryman Patrick Porter over at Oxblog takes slight issue with co-blogger David Adesnik referring to him as "Dr", because although he has done everything he has to do to get his Ph.D. (or actually as this is the other place, I suppose it would be a D.Phil), because he has been informed by his university that he cannot use the title "Dr" until he has been granted "permission to supplicate". I have not heard that phrase before, because although Oxford and Cambridge are very similar instituions, one way in which they are distinguished is by having different weird archaic language for weird, archaic customs that are in fact exactly the same. (I was once told that I could not use the title myself until "I had had the degree conferred upon me by a congregation of the Regent House").

However, it is a truth universally acknowledged by doctoral students (and doctoral graduates) everywhere that one may use the title the moment one has been informed that one has passed, whether or not this information is conveyed officially or unofficially. Another equally well understood convention is that if one has passed, examiners will inform you of this immediately upon completion of the oral exam, whether or not they are supposed to or indeed allowed to. (This leads to a certain amount of euphemism. My oral exam concluded with one of my examiners raising his eybrows at the other, the other examiner nodding, and then the first examiner informing me that "The Board of Graduate Studies forbids me from telling you the result of this examination now. However, you have nothing to worry about". In truth, although I had been nervous at the start of the examination, I wasn't terribly worried by this point, as I was aware that I was handling the questions I was being asked petfectly fine).

So typically, therefore, people start using the "Dr" title, when they have been informed that they may not use the title, and indeed when they have been informed that they may not be informed whether they will be allowed to use the title in future. But they do anyway.

In my case, although I could have had the degree conferred in absentia, I put off having it conferred for a further three years, as it took this long for me to arrange a time when both I and my family could come to England again to attend a graduation ceremony. (Sorry, I mean a Congregation of the Regent House). Although I was technically not supposed to use the title "Dr" for those three years, I did. And nobody cared. I had gone through what Patrick described as the King Hell Road Trip that is a Ph.D. and I had earned it, damn it. (However, the bureaucratic exercise to get from this point to the degree can still take a while, and people know this and therefore ignore it. Don't get me started on how the Board of Graduate studies lost my dissertation). A few months after my exam I received a letter from the university informing me that the degree had been approved (and reiterating that I was still not supposed to call myself Dr), and if anyone (an employer or a professional registration board, generally) wanted proof that I had the degree, this letter was perfectly adequate for them.

So congratulations Dr Porter. Enjoy the blogging.

Of course, it is also generally considered okay to be pompous about the "Dr" for six months or so after starting to use it. After that, we generally only use it professionally, when writing particularly rude letters to organisations that have given us particularly bad customer service, when filling out credit card applications, or when talking to Germans. (And then there is the question of whether one should put "Dr" before one's name or "Ph.D." after when using it professionally). Any use of it in excess of this is considered a bit of a wank. As indeed may be this post.

Update: Actually, thinking about it some more, there is one time when "Dr." is frequently used, and that is when greeting a colleague who you know from your Ph.D. program, particularly when you haven't seen them for a while. ("Dr Jones. Good to see you.". "Dr Jennings. How are you? I am absolutely splendid."). I suspect military types who went through boot camp together have similar rituals.