Your Gut May Know the Score Better than the Scoreboard

Sometimes you have to listen to your gut if you are a football fan. It knows the real score

Did you ever watch a football game where even though your team had the lead you knew their opponent was not “out of the woods just yet?” Or, perhaps on a more positive note, your team was trailing, but your gut instinct knew that they were going to come back? Well, what your gut was probably uncomfortable with was the fact that the team in the lead had scored its points easily – maybe too easily without much effort from the offense – through scores from interceptions, fumble returns, kickoff or punt returns, or even perhaps through a quick strike bomb on offense. Your head doesn’t think this type of scoring matters, but your gut does. These types of scores leave the door open to all sorts of trouble. Let’s explore some games from this season to see this in action. Let’s start with the Bills – Cowboys game in week 5. The Bills scored early and often with two interception returns and a kickoff return. Now, one or two scores accomplished in this manner, may be easily overcome by a “better” opponent, but to overcome three “worthless” scores would require a totally anemic offense by the leading team and a little luck for the losing team. The Cowboys got both, the Bills offense was truly anemic and scored only three points in four quarters, and the “lucky” Cowboys recovered an onsides kick with 20 seconds remaining in order to win. Next let’s look at the week 5 Giants – Jets game. The Jets, like the Bills, led most of this game. The Jets took their lead with a fumble return and later added a kickoff return. The Giants continued to work on offense and had two five-minute touchdown drives and a three- minute touchdown drive in the second and third quarters. The Giants ended up winning the game 35-24. The Giants’ scoring was capped by a “worthless” score of their own, an interception return that sealed the Jets fate. This is the second time this year the Giants did this their second half 24-17 win over the Redskins in week 3 told a similar tale. Conversely, there are times when an opposing team holds a small lead that feels insurmountable even though it is very early in the game, and your gut is saying, ”This is trouble and we may not pull this one out.” Why? Because chances are you have watched this enemy methodically execute flawless drives that have culminated in scores. Consider the Jaguars-Broncos game in week 3. The Jags’ second drive of the game resulted in seven points off an 11-minute offensive drive. This “statement” drive set them up, and they never trailed. The Jaguars went on to win the game 23-14. Also, look at the week 3 Colts – Texans game. Although the Colts only held a four point halftime lead of 14-10, the game felt well in the Colts’ control. The Texans opened up the game with one of those “worthless” scores -- a kickoff return for a touchdown -- which gave them a 7-0 lead. The Colts had the same thing happen in the Super Bowl and went on to dominate the remainder of the game. A similar situation happened here. The Colts had two efficient offensive drives resulting in touchdowns and their 14-10 lead. They never trailed after this point and went on to win 30-24. Donna Cavanagh

The Problem with Most Football Rankings

Sports "Experts" often use subjective criteria and win/loss records to rank teams. This type of analysis can lead to inaccurate rankings in the NFL.

“The better football team does NOT always win.” This may sound like an obvious statement, but if you look at most "Power Rankings" and "Football Polls", the main criteria for the rankings are a team’s win/loss record once the season gets started. When the season gets a few early "upsets" where more talented teams lose, the traditional ranking systems start elevating less talented teams with good win/loss records even though they might not be as good a football team. This accounts for the virtual revolving door that you see this year with the college football rankings. Just yesterday, previously unbeaten South Florida that had risen to #2 in the rankings, lost to Rutgers. Now, as with so many number 1 and number 2 teams before them in this season, South Florida will drop in the rankings. Perhaps, in this case, the dropping in rank may be the right thing since South Florida only rose to that level because of upsets of powerhouse teams like LSU and USC. The same thing happens with most "Power Ranking" systems that rate NFL teams. The win/loss record dominates these subjectively generated lists where an "expert" opinion is heavily influenced by the win loss record. It’s safe to say that nobody is going to argue with the majority of the lists this week that rank the Patriots and Colts as 1 and 2. However, the questions about rankings arise when deciding where to place the 5-1 Packers. If you look at their win/loss record, traditional ranking experts say, “Well they beat the Eagles, Chargers, Redskins and Giants. Those are 4 pretty good teams so the Packers must be better right?” Sorry Packers’ fans, but not necessarily. Let’s remember that it was two muffed punts that made the difference in the Eagles game, a fumble recovery for a touchdown that solidified their win in the Redskins game, and two quick-strike touchdowns in the 4th quarter that gave them the win against the Chargers. When it comes down to bare data, it was only the Giants who were beaten soundly by the Packers. While the Packers have won games, and at this point they are sure to make the playoffs with their position in their division and conference, we still have to question some of the "Power Ranking" lists that rate them as high as a 5. PossessionPoints.com ranks teams based on their offensive and defensive performances which are key ingredients to consistently winning football. You won't find the Packers in the top 10 on this list; they are 14th because that is where their performance puts them. Don't get us wrong, we love the storyline developing around the "seasoned" Hall of Fame–bound Quarterback Brett Favre and a team full of otherwise young, very young and enthusiastic players. Their confidence from these early season wins may just be the impetus needed to propel them to more "performance" based wins like the one over the Giants. Even if they just continue to play the way they have been playing, we probably will still see them in the playoffs. With their defense leading the way, PossessionPoints.com is projecting that they will indeed win 13 games. If they do continue this confident play, they could earn a first-round bye and most likely a home field advantage in the playoffs. However, we must ask what happens if they don't keep playing as well? What if the breaks that have gone their way start going to their opponents? Will their confidence shake? Well, it might, especially since they don't have the solid performances in the past to build on like a team such as the Patriots. Donna Cavanagh

A letter to Australians

Dear Aussies,

We hear you swim with sharks yet you cannot walk the same earth as 160 million of your fellow men and women? Pakistan may be a country demonised by the world and dubbed a basket case by the world's media yet the ground reality is something very different.

Pakistan is a country struggling with its identity like many emerging countries--how to resolve Islam with the modern world?--but it is not a dangerous place, certainly not for international cricketers. Benazir Bhutto's death was a tragedy but a political assassination has no significance for Australians.

Many countries have toured Pakistan since your last refusal and all their players have returned home safely. Indeed, cricket is held in such esteem that it is equally loved by young women in designer shades and old men with unkempt beards. All the religious men I have ever met in Pakistan have loved cricket and relished the challenge of Australia.

Hence, your refusal seems strange to me, borne of a mental caricature of a country that bears no relationship with the "risks" that you will face. To me, this smacks of cultural imperialism, an unwillingness to properly understand and engage with the reality of a much poorer country.

Instead you wallow in the splendour of your rich world lifestyles. This whole approach is against the spirit of cricket, a game that has helped bridge social and political divisions and conflicts.

I fail to understand the risks you perceive you will be exposed to? As I have argued before, these risks are far smaller than driving a fast car, crossing the road, swimming with sharks or any of the extreme sports you are famous for indulging in. Cricketers have died or been seriously injured on the cricket field throughout the world while no cricketer has ever come to harm during Pakistan's "troubles".

Failing all that, if you do fear the bombers of Karachi more than the bombers of London, Colombo, or Mumbai then please stay at home but you should allow braver, hungrier, and more realistic cricketers to go in your place.

Surely the answer for Cricket Australia is to assemble a team of the willing and honour its commitment to international cricket? The alternative is an international game that becomes increasing divided by false fears into a game of the rich and poor. Cricket has always had greater significance than most sports, and your attitude does this great game a monumental disservice.

Kamran Abbasi