The New Year is coming close and it is the time for the Four Hills Tournament. I am already eagerly looking forward to it. The last ski jumping season was a pleasure to watch with so many jumpers able to succeed, and this season seems just as good. That makes predicting the tournament winner very hard.
Austria has a winning streak since the 2008-09 tournament. But Austria's dominance in ski jumping has ended. The best Austrian in the World Cup is Michael Hayböck on third place. He is having a solid season with four podium results and is still to miss the top 10. He is one of the favorites.
Last year's winner Thomas Diethart has been badly out of form this year and can't be expected to repeat his victory. Two-time Four Hills Champion Gregor Schlierenzauer has one win and one second place from this season but there have also been some mediocre results that he can't afford at the Four Hills.
Anders Fannemel is the current World Cup leader. After a brilliant start to the season, the last weekend in Engelberg was worryingly his two worst competitions of this winter. If he can return to the level he was earlier this season, then he is fighting for the title.
I think the most impressive jumper of the season has been Roman Koudelka. Three wins, one second place, and only once out of the top 10 (11th in the 1st Lillehammer competition). He is only two points behind Fannemel in the World Cup standings, despite missing the competitions in Nizhny Tagil. He is my favorite for the Four Hills title.
After winning almost everything else in the sport, Simon Ammann is still in the quest of his first Four Hills title. Apart from the 1st Lillehammer competition in inconsistent win conditions, he has always been in the top 10, including two wins in Kuusamo. He had some excellent jumps last weekend in Engelberg, so he has a good chance to win that elusive title this time. But the opponents are strong.
The biggest hopes for the other host country, Germany, seem to be Severin Freund and Richard Freitag. Freund has had a solid start to his season but to win the Four Hills title, he need to start beating others. Freitag didn't start the season so well but had an excellent weekend in Engelberg with a win and a fifth place.
These are some but not all of the jumpers able to win the Four Hills title. The best Japanese, Noriaki Kasai, Daiki Ito, and Taku Takeuchi, skipped the last two weekends, so their form is hard to predict. Kasai started the season well and shared the win in the 2nd Kuusamo competition plus was third in the first competition there, with Ito on the second place.
Other jumpers capable for good results include Peter Prevc, Jernej Damjan, Anders Bardal, and Stefan Kraft. Kamil Stoch's form is a huge question mark. Last winter's World Cup champion and double Olympic gold medalist injured his ankle just before the season started and Oberstdorf will be his first World Cup competition for this winter. That is far from an ideal situation before the Four Hills.
So, this Four Hills Tournament seems hard to predict. My favorites are Koudelka followed by Ammann, Hayböck, and Fannemel.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Olympic Agenda 2020 approved
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) approved the Olympic Agenda 2020. The recommendations of the agenda include reducing the cost of the games and improving their legacy as well as some ethical recommendations.
One of the recommendations was allowing to have some sports organized outside the host city and in exceptional cases outside the host country. That would enable more use of existing venues. I hope the compactness of the Olympics doesn't suffer a lot from that. In my opinion, all sports should be within a reasonable distance from the host city, say three hours by car, unless there are some geographic reasons, like sailing far from an inland host city. I am fine with having some sports outside the host city, as long as there remains a clear main host city, hosting most important sports like athletics, swimming, and basketball. Though, in the case of team sports played in multiple arenas, I think also other sports than football could have matches in different cities around the country. For example, in the case of ice hockey, it doesn't always make sense to have two hockey arenas in the host city but another round robin group could be played in another city with an existing hockey arena.
As for allowing having sports outside the host country, I think it is a good decision. If a host city is situated close to a border and there is some existing venue right behind the border, it doesn't make sense to build a new venue to the host country. Yet those venues abroad should be within a reasonable distance. Again, I think something like three hours by car should be the maximum. And there should be no visa requirements between the countries where the games are hosted.
Another recommendation aimed to cut the costs is to move from a sport-based to an event-based programme. Instead of capping the number of sports, the number of events will be capped as well as the number of athletes and coaches. The organizing committees are allowed to propose additional events to their edition of the Olympic Games.
I am not so sure capping the number of events and athletes is a better way to prevent the costs increasing than capping the number of sports. To fit the new limits, athletics and swimming may need to drop some events off. I don't like the idea of dropping triple jump and race walking off as they are distinguishable events within athletics. Besides, I doubt reducing the number of athletics and swimming events reduces the costs a lot, the athletics and swimming venues are still needed. I think reducing the number of sports and thus the number of venues needed would cut the costs more effectively. As for the organizing committees being allowed to propose events, it enables having sports of local interest but I don't like the idea of adding sports only for one Olympics. I would prefer a stable Olympic programme with new sports being aimed to become permanent Olympic sports.
One of the recommendations was allowing to have some sports organized outside the host city and in exceptional cases outside the host country. That would enable more use of existing venues. I hope the compactness of the Olympics doesn't suffer a lot from that. In my opinion, all sports should be within a reasonable distance from the host city, say three hours by car, unless there are some geographic reasons, like sailing far from an inland host city. I am fine with having some sports outside the host city, as long as there remains a clear main host city, hosting most important sports like athletics, swimming, and basketball. Though, in the case of team sports played in multiple arenas, I think also other sports than football could have matches in different cities around the country. For example, in the case of ice hockey, it doesn't always make sense to have two hockey arenas in the host city but another round robin group could be played in another city with an existing hockey arena.
As for allowing having sports outside the host country, I think it is a good decision. If a host city is situated close to a border and there is some existing venue right behind the border, it doesn't make sense to build a new venue to the host country. Yet those venues abroad should be within a reasonable distance. Again, I think something like three hours by car should be the maximum. And there should be no visa requirements between the countries where the games are hosted.
Another recommendation aimed to cut the costs is to move from a sport-based to an event-based programme. Instead of capping the number of sports, the number of events will be capped as well as the number of athletes and coaches. The organizing committees are allowed to propose additional events to their edition of the Olympic Games.
I am not so sure capping the number of events and athletes is a better way to prevent the costs increasing than capping the number of sports. To fit the new limits, athletics and swimming may need to drop some events off. I don't like the idea of dropping triple jump and race walking off as they are distinguishable events within athletics. Besides, I doubt reducing the number of athletics and swimming events reduces the costs a lot, the athletics and swimming venues are still needed. I think reducing the number of sports and thus the number of venues needed would cut the costs more effectively. As for the organizing committees being allowed to propose events, it enables having sports of local interest but I don't like the idea of adding sports only for one Olympics. I would prefer a stable Olympic programme with new sports being aimed to become permanent Olympic sports.
Monday, December 8, 2014
Projected Alpine Skiing World Cup standings explained
I have added the projected Alpine Skiing World Cup standings to my blog. It is a different perspective to the overall World Cup standings. The actual standings can be distorted by the uneven number of races in different disciplines. The projected standings show how many points the skiers will have at the end of the season if they score points at the same rate as earlier in the season. Surely this isn't the perfect way to present the World Cup standings, for example this doesn't take injuries into account. And Henrik Kristoffersen winning all 11 slalom races to finish the season on overall third place is an unrealistic assumption. But surely it is fair to assume Felix Neureuther will finish the season higher as 18th overall where he is ranked now due to the small number of technique races. 7th, as in the projected standings, seems more likely. One thing to remember is also the combined races that can't have been included to the projected standings.
A quick look into men's standings shows two men above others, Kjetil Jansrud and Marcel Hirscher. Jansrud is the only man to have made the podium in all speed races whereas Hirscher is the only man to have made the podium in all technique races. Jansrud leads as he has more wins and has scored points in three disciplines. Still it would be way too early to say he has the title in bag, even if he doesn't get injured. Both Jansrud and Hirscher will have bad races and the one with less bad races seems like the one to win the title.
Of course, it is still too early to predict the final standings. Pinturault can be strong in slalom, giant slalom, and super-G. If he begins to succeed constantly in all of them and get wins, he can win the overall title. But as the projected standings show, he must improve from how he has performed this season. Of course, he has no slalom points in the projected standings as he got no points from Levi. With more races the projected standings will get more accurate.
On women's side, Tina Maze is way above others. She is the only one who can constantly get high points in all disciplines. It is yet to be seen what Lindsey Vonn can do in technique disciplines; if she succeeded there, she could join the title battle. A big mover in the projected standings is Lara Gut who is only 12th in the actual standings, due to more technique than speed races. If she can keep on scoring points in speed races like in Lake Louise, she can fight for the third place in the overall World Cup.
A quick look into men's standings shows two men above others, Kjetil Jansrud and Marcel Hirscher. Jansrud is the only man to have made the podium in all speed races whereas Hirscher is the only man to have made the podium in all technique races. Jansrud leads as he has more wins and has scored points in three disciplines. Still it would be way too early to say he has the title in bag, even if he doesn't get injured. Both Jansrud and Hirscher will have bad races and the one with less bad races seems like the one to win the title.
Of course, it is still too early to predict the final standings. Pinturault can be strong in slalom, giant slalom, and super-G. If he begins to succeed constantly in all of them and get wins, he can win the overall title. But as the projected standings show, he must improve from how he has performed this season. Of course, he has no slalom points in the projected standings as he got no points from Levi. With more races the projected standings will get more accurate.
On women's side, Tina Maze is way above others. She is the only one who can constantly get high points in all disciplines. It is yet to be seen what Lindsey Vonn can do in technique disciplines; if she succeeded there, she could join the title battle. A big mover in the projected standings is Lara Gut who is only 12th in the actual standings, due to more technique than speed races. If she can keep on scoring points in speed races like in Lake Louise, she can fight for the third place in the overall World Cup.
Friday, November 28, 2014
2014 ATP World Tour review
The 2014 ATP season has finished so it is time to have some review of the season. Novak Djokovic ended the season as the World No. 1. He wasn't way above others and managed to win only one Grand Slam tournament but nobody else could play on such a high level all year long.
Roger Federer finished the season as the World No. 2. That surpassed the expectations after the poor 2013 season. He played more often at the net and it worked for him. He won five titles this year, including two in the Masters Series. He also finally got his name to the Davis Cup trophy when Switzerland won it for the first time. But, despite having had the second-best season of all players, he couldn't win a slam. He isn't anymore way above the rest of the field, and players like Cilic or Gulbis have the abilities to beat him when they are in form. What I found promising was that he got better at the end of the season, but that can also be explained by faster surfaces on the second half of the season.
This season saw the end of the domination by the usual Big Four. Stan Wawrinka started that by winning the Australian Open. Title at the Monte Carlo Masters proved he isn't a one-tournament wonder. But his season had lots of everything. The lowpoint was a first-round loss at the French Open as well as the loss streak after the US Open. Quarterfinals at Wimbledon and the US Open were respectable performances but his game lacked the magic there was at the Australian Open and Monte Carlo. But he found his form again at the end of the season, making the semifinals at the World Tour Finals and winning impressively a singles and a doubles rubber in the Davis Cup final.
Marin Cilic was another first-time Grand Slam champion this year. He won the US Open with very impressive tennis. He dominated the semifinal against Federer and won it in straights. The final against Kei Nishikori was a one-sided affair. Three consecutive long matches surely didn't help Nishikori but Cilic was in an excellent form. Still, Cilic couldn't establish his status as a top player the same way as Wawrinka did. He won four titles in total but besides the US Open, Wimbledon quarterfinal was the only time he made it that far in a slam or masters.
Kei Nishikori reached this year the level that he is a serious threat to anyone on the tour. I think his two most memorable matches this year were the Madrid Masters final and the US Open semifinal. Kei had found a great clay form and won the Barcelona 500. After that he made the Madrid Masters final and was leading it against Rafael Nadal with a set and a break. But then an injury cost him the second set and the title as he was forced to retire at the beginning of third. In the US Open semifinal, he beat the World No. 1 Djokovic in four sets. Unfortunately he still couldn't win a masters or a slam but he finished the season at a career-high rank of 5. If he stayed healthy next year, he should be able to do that next year.
Milos Raonic and Grigor Dimitrov were players who made the long-awaited breakthrough to the top 10 this year. They both did reached their first Grand Slam semifinals at Wimbledon but losses to Djokovic and Federer showed they still need to improve.
Talking about Nadal only now shows what a poor season he had by his standards. He missed most of the second half of the season due to injury and health issues but even until then, he was playing the worst season since his breakthrough on the tour. There were more players than before who were able to trouble and even beat him.
Andy Murray was even bigger a disappointment. He never looked like a top player during this season. As a sign of his poor performances, he wouldn't have made the World Tour Finals without playing and winning some smaller tournaments after the US Open. And once he made the Tour Finals, he won only one match there.
And some words about one of my favorites, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. After the summer 2013's knee injury, Tsonga couldn't reach his former form. 2014 was full of mediocre results and he won only one title. But that title gives some hope. It was at the Toronto Masters, beating Djokovic on the round of 16 and Federer in the final. That showed he still has the abilities to succeed. I hope he can play more often like that in 2015. And of course that he will have fully recovered from the elbow injury that ended his Davis Cup final by the beginning of the season.
What I liked this year was unpredictability and new players succeeding. That was very refreshing after years of Big Four domination. But what I didn't like was only two players having truly great seasons as a whole. Those were Djokovic and Federer to a lesser extent. The other good players had fluctuations in form or injuries. My wish for 2015 is that some of the younger guys can succeed with that kind of consistency. If Nishikori could have a season without bigger injuries, I believe he would be a consistent top player, what he was already at the end of 2014.
Roger Federer finished the season as the World No. 2. That surpassed the expectations after the poor 2013 season. He played more often at the net and it worked for him. He won five titles this year, including two in the Masters Series. He also finally got his name to the Davis Cup trophy when Switzerland won it for the first time. But, despite having had the second-best season of all players, he couldn't win a slam. He isn't anymore way above the rest of the field, and players like Cilic or Gulbis have the abilities to beat him when they are in form. What I found promising was that he got better at the end of the season, but that can also be explained by faster surfaces on the second half of the season.
This season saw the end of the domination by the usual Big Four. Stan Wawrinka started that by winning the Australian Open. Title at the Monte Carlo Masters proved he isn't a one-tournament wonder. But his season had lots of everything. The lowpoint was a first-round loss at the French Open as well as the loss streak after the US Open. Quarterfinals at Wimbledon and the US Open were respectable performances but his game lacked the magic there was at the Australian Open and Monte Carlo. But he found his form again at the end of the season, making the semifinals at the World Tour Finals and winning impressively a singles and a doubles rubber in the Davis Cup final.
Marin Cilic was another first-time Grand Slam champion this year. He won the US Open with very impressive tennis. He dominated the semifinal against Federer and won it in straights. The final against Kei Nishikori was a one-sided affair. Three consecutive long matches surely didn't help Nishikori but Cilic was in an excellent form. Still, Cilic couldn't establish his status as a top player the same way as Wawrinka did. He won four titles in total but besides the US Open, Wimbledon quarterfinal was the only time he made it that far in a slam or masters.
Kei Nishikori reached this year the level that he is a serious threat to anyone on the tour. I think his two most memorable matches this year were the Madrid Masters final and the US Open semifinal. Kei had found a great clay form and won the Barcelona 500. After that he made the Madrid Masters final and was leading it against Rafael Nadal with a set and a break. But then an injury cost him the second set and the title as he was forced to retire at the beginning of third. In the US Open semifinal, he beat the World No. 1 Djokovic in four sets. Unfortunately he still couldn't win a masters or a slam but he finished the season at a career-high rank of 5. If he stayed healthy next year, he should be able to do that next year.
Milos Raonic and Grigor Dimitrov were players who made the long-awaited breakthrough to the top 10 this year. They both did reached their first Grand Slam semifinals at Wimbledon but losses to Djokovic and Federer showed they still need to improve.
Talking about Nadal only now shows what a poor season he had by his standards. He missed most of the second half of the season due to injury and health issues but even until then, he was playing the worst season since his breakthrough on the tour. There were more players than before who were able to trouble and even beat him.
Andy Murray was even bigger a disappointment. He never looked like a top player during this season. As a sign of his poor performances, he wouldn't have made the World Tour Finals without playing and winning some smaller tournaments after the US Open. And once he made the Tour Finals, he won only one match there.
And some words about one of my favorites, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. After the summer 2013's knee injury, Tsonga couldn't reach his former form. 2014 was full of mediocre results and he won only one title. But that title gives some hope. It was at the Toronto Masters, beating Djokovic on the round of 16 and Federer in the final. That showed he still has the abilities to succeed. I hope he can play more often like that in 2015. And of course that he will have fully recovered from the elbow injury that ended his Davis Cup final by the beginning of the season.
What I liked this year was unpredictability and new players succeeding. That was very refreshing after years of Big Four domination. But what I didn't like was only two players having truly great seasons as a whole. Those were Djokovic and Federer to a lesser extent. The other good players had fluctuations in form or injuries. My wish for 2015 is that some of the younger guys can succeed with that kind of consistency. If Nishikori could have a season without bigger injuries, I believe he would be a consistent top player, what he was already at the end of 2014.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
2014 Davis Cup Final preview
The ATP World Tour Finals last week were a big disappointment with predictable results, slow surface not providing attractive tennis, and the final being a walkover. But there is still one big event of 2014 left, the Davis Cup Final which will hopefully be more interesting. France will be hosting Switzerland on indoor clay. Until last Saturday, I would've said everything looks fine for Switzerland. Federer was playing excellent tennis and Wawrinka had found his lost form. But Federer has injured his back and there are reports about Federer and Wawrinka having had some conflict after the Tour Finals semifinal. For sure those controversies don't do good for the team spirit but I am even more worried about Federer's back. Without Federer, it would be hard for Switzerand to get the needed three points.
As for France, Tsonga seems like an obvious choice for singles. The other singles player could be the French No. 2 Gael Monfils but they could also pick Richard Gasquet who played well in the Davis Cup semifinal on clay. France will probably need a singles player also in doubles. Tsonga/Gasquet won the doubles rubber in the semifinal so they might be the best option. But if they want to rest either of these, they might pick Benneteau to doubles.
Switzerland has also a dilemma around doubles. Whether to play with Federer/Wawrinka or rest Federer and play with Chiudinelli/Wawrinka, like in the semifinal? Or even rest both Federer and Wawrinka and play with Chiudinelli/Lammer like on the first round? Switzerland have better chances in singles, so resting makes sense but is risky if they aren't 2-0 after Friday.
The first day looks like it will be Monfils or Gasquet vs. Federer and Tsonga vs. Wawrinka. Assuming Federer's back is OK, he should win. The other match can be trickier to predict. Wawrinka should be the favourite but Tsonga seems like the better player under pressure. Given Wawrinka's promising form at the Tour Finals, I give this to Stan, but Jo can be just as good as Stan.
Doubles is hard to predict. Federer/Wawrinka can be a good team but France should have a good team, too. If Federer or Wawrinka rests, then I give this to France.
The final day seems like it is Tsonga vs. Federer and Monfils or Gasquet vs. Wawrinka. On paper, that should be two points for Switzerland but with Wawrinka's fluctuations in form, you never know. Tsonga is a player who has beaten Federer on clay but Federer is the favourite. If France want to win the title, they had better lead before Sunday.
My prediction is that Federer will finish it for Switzerland in the fourth rubber. But if he isn't healthy, then France will win.
As for France, Tsonga seems like an obvious choice for singles. The other singles player could be the French No. 2 Gael Monfils but they could also pick Richard Gasquet who played well in the Davis Cup semifinal on clay. France will probably need a singles player also in doubles. Tsonga/Gasquet won the doubles rubber in the semifinal so they might be the best option. But if they want to rest either of these, they might pick Benneteau to doubles.
Switzerland has also a dilemma around doubles. Whether to play with Federer/Wawrinka or rest Federer and play with Chiudinelli/Wawrinka, like in the semifinal? Or even rest both Federer and Wawrinka and play with Chiudinelli/Lammer like on the first round? Switzerland have better chances in singles, so resting makes sense but is risky if they aren't 2-0 after Friday.
The first day looks like it will be Monfils or Gasquet vs. Federer and Tsonga vs. Wawrinka. Assuming Federer's back is OK, he should win. The other match can be trickier to predict. Wawrinka should be the favourite but Tsonga seems like the better player under pressure. Given Wawrinka's promising form at the Tour Finals, I give this to Stan, but Jo can be just as good as Stan.
Doubles is hard to predict. Federer/Wawrinka can be a good team but France should have a good team, too. If Federer or Wawrinka rests, then I give this to France.
The final day seems like it is Tsonga vs. Federer and Monfils or Gasquet vs. Wawrinka. On paper, that should be two points for Switzerland but with Wawrinka's fluctuations in form, you never know. Tsonga is a player who has beaten Federer on clay but Federer is the favourite. If France want to win the title, they had better lead before Sunday.
My prediction is that Federer will finish it for Switzerland in the fourth rubber. But if he isn't healthy, then France will win.
Monday, November 10, 2014
The flaws of the NASCAR Chase for the Sprint Cup
Now I'm writing about a series I am not so familiar with. NASCAR, I mean. But I'll write anyway, sometimes it's easier for an outsider to see flaws (or an outsider just can't see why they really aren't flaws).
The Chase for the Sprint Cup will get its conclusion next Sunday at Homestead-Miami. Or should I rather call it the Sprint for the Chase Cup as after 26 races, the title is decided in the last ten races. Anyway, I spotted this interesting statistic:
Qualified for the Championship round:
Logano - 5 wins - 15 times in top 5
Harvick - 4 wins - 13 times in top 5
Hamlin - 1 wins - 7 times in top 5
Newman - 0 wins - 4 times in top 5
Eliminated after the Eliminator round:
Keselowski - 6 wins - 16 times in top 5
Gordon - 4 wins - 14 times in top 5
Edwards - 2 wins - 7 times in top 5
Kenseth - 0 wins - 13 times in top 5
So, it seems like the eliminated drivers form a stronger lineup than the Championship round lineup. I think that highlights the biggest flaw of the current Chase system. It's just crazy that after 26 races, the advancing drivers are decided in three-race elimination rounds, and in the end, the title is decided in one race. I'm not saying the Chase is a bad system; I rather think it could be a great system. Extending the title battle to the last race and eliminating four drivers after every third race makes the end of the season exciting and keeps the title battle more open. It may not be the fairest system but it's balancing between having a fair and an entertaining system. That's why team sports have the playoffs and so has the PGA Tour, too, and those systems work.
I think the Chase system should reward the entire season's success more. Somebody with Gordon's season shouldn't be out of the title contention while Newman is in the final four with no wins. So, instead of resetting all drivers' points to the same amount between the elimination rounds, don't reset them or reset them so that the best drivers of the season have a significant advantage but even the last qualifier has a chance to win the title.
Also, I don't like how the title is decided in the final race. While winning the title by finishing 7th with even 11th place being enough while the main rival wins would be anticlimatic, winning the title just by finishing ahead of the other contenders doesn't feel right if they've had a better season until then. Have it like in the previous elimination rounds, you're through if you win, otherwise points decide.
So basically, give more importance for the entire season's performances. For example, don't reset the points but allow advancing to the next elimination round and winning the title by winning a race if a driver doesn't otherwise have enough points for that. That kind of a system would reward having a great season but would also reward winning.
The Chase for the Sprint Cup will get its conclusion next Sunday at Homestead-Miami. Or should I rather call it the Sprint for the Chase Cup as after 26 races, the title is decided in the last ten races. Anyway, I spotted this interesting statistic:
Qualified for the Championship round:
Logano - 5 wins - 15 times in top 5
Harvick - 4 wins - 13 times in top 5
Hamlin - 1 wins - 7 times in top 5
Newman - 0 wins - 4 times in top 5
Eliminated after the Eliminator round:
Keselowski - 6 wins - 16 times in top 5
Gordon - 4 wins - 14 times in top 5
Edwards - 2 wins - 7 times in top 5
Kenseth - 0 wins - 13 times in top 5
So, it seems like the eliminated drivers form a stronger lineup than the Championship round lineup. I think that highlights the biggest flaw of the current Chase system. It's just crazy that after 26 races, the advancing drivers are decided in three-race elimination rounds, and in the end, the title is decided in one race. I'm not saying the Chase is a bad system; I rather think it could be a great system. Extending the title battle to the last race and eliminating four drivers after every third race makes the end of the season exciting and keeps the title battle more open. It may not be the fairest system but it's balancing between having a fair and an entertaining system. That's why team sports have the playoffs and so has the PGA Tour, too, and those systems work.
I think the Chase system should reward the entire season's success more. Somebody with Gordon's season shouldn't be out of the title contention while Newman is in the final four with no wins. So, instead of resetting all drivers' points to the same amount between the elimination rounds, don't reset them or reset them so that the best drivers of the season have a significant advantage but even the last qualifier has a chance to win the title.
Also, I don't like how the title is decided in the final race. While winning the title by finishing 7th with even 11th place being enough while the main rival wins would be anticlimatic, winning the title just by finishing ahead of the other contenders doesn't feel right if they've had a better season until then. Have it like in the previous elimination rounds, you're through if you win, otherwise points decide.
So basically, give more importance for the entire season's performances. For example, don't reset the points but allow advancing to the next elimination round and winning the title by winning a race if a driver doesn't otherwise have enough points for that. That kind of a system would reward having a great season but would also reward winning.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
2014 ATP World Tour Finals preview
The 2014 ATP World Tour season will get its conclusion next week at the World Tour Finals in London's O2 Arena. The groups have been released:
Group A: Djokovic, Wawrinka, Berdych, Cilic
This seems like the weaker of the groups, despite having three of this year's Grand Slam champions. But of those champions, only the World No. 1, Wimbledon champion Novak Djokovic has been impressive lately and he comes to London as the champion of last week's Paris Masters. He has is also the champion of the last two World Tour Finals.
The Australian Open champion, Stan Wawrinka has been very inconsistent this year, and after the Monte Carlo Masters title, he is yet to reach a semifinal. After making the quarterfinals at the US Open, he has won only two matches, so his form doesn't look too good for the Tour Finals. He has played some great matches against Djokovic and finally at this year's Australian Open, he beat him, but in his current form it is hard to see him beating Djokovic.
But this group might still offer Stan a chance to make his second Tour Finals semifinal in a row. The third Grand Slam champion in this group, the US Open champion Marin Cilic won a 250-point title in Moscow but otherwise his results after the US Open have been mediocre, and he missed the Paris Masters due to a right-arm injury.
The fourth player of the group is Tomas Berdych. After Djokovic, he has recently been the most consistent of this group's players: quarterfinals at the US Open, final at Beijing 500, quarterfinal at the Shanghai Masters, title at Stockholm 500, semifinal at the Paris Masters. Still, he seems like the least capable for upsetting Djokovic; Djokovic beat him in the Beijing final 6-0, 6-2. His consistent form can get him through from this group but Wawrinka and Cilic have the abilities to beat him, like they both did on their way to Grand Slam titles.
Group B: Federer, Nishikori, Murray, Raonic
This seems like the tougher group. Federer has been playing a great season but he has suffered losses to Nishikori in Miami in March and Raonic last week in Paris. Given the level of tennis these three have played recently, advancing from this group will be a big task for Murray.
Roger Federer must be the favourite to win this group. After the French Open, he has been very consistent and reaching the Wimbledon final plus winning two Masters titles have been the highlights of his season. Nishikori and Raonic have beaten him this year but more often than not, Roger should beat those players.
Kei Nishikori and Milos Raonic are playing their first ATP World Tour Finals. Especially Nishikori of these two has had some great results this year; he made the Madrid final which he would have won without getting injured and later this year he made the US Open final by beating World No. 1 Novak Djokovic in the semifinal. Raonic has also had some good results, like reaching the final at last week's Paris Masters. With Federer in the group, it is hard to see both of them through even though it's not impossible. Yet, these two and Federer will make it hard for Murray to advance from the group.
Andy Murray had played a mediocre season and after the US Open, he wasn't even qualifying for the Tour Finals. Then, titles at Shenzen 250, Vienna 250, and Valencia 500 put him in a position to secure his Tour Finals place at Paris Masters. Still, his performances in big events have been mediocre with his only semifinal in a mandatory event having been at the French Open. Given his poor record against top players this year, it is hard to see him succeeding here, and I'd be surprised if he even made it past the round robin.
Semifinals and the final
It seems like the biggest favorites for the title are the World No. 1, three-time champion Djokovic and the World No. 2, six-time champion Federer. Federer outplayed Djokovic in their last meeting in the Shanghai Masters semifinals and won in two sets. But this time I give the edge to Djokovic. The surface at the O2 Arena is usually pretty slow favoring Djokovic and he also had a better warm-up at the Paris Masters, a title compared to Federer losing in the quarterfinals. Murray and Berdych seem like the most certain players not to win the title; they haven't been able to win big matches this year. Nishikori and Raonic have been in a good form recently but they would need to play their best tennis to have a chance to win the title in the presence of Djokovic and Federer. Wawrinka and Cilic haven't been in a great form recently but if they somehow found their form, they could beat any of their opponents.
If any of the underdogs were to win the title, I think beating Djokovic or Federer in the round robin might help. That way having to play Djokovic and Federer consecutively in the semifinal and the final would be less likely, and Djokovic and Federer might have to play against each other in the semifinals.
Anyway, my pick for the title is Djokovic but Federer can beat him. But if these two didn't play up to their potential, there are some players who could have the game to beat them.
Group A: Djokovic, Wawrinka, Berdych, Cilic
This seems like the weaker of the groups, despite having three of this year's Grand Slam champions. But of those champions, only the World No. 1, Wimbledon champion Novak Djokovic has been impressive lately and he comes to London as the champion of last week's Paris Masters. He has is also the champion of the last two World Tour Finals.
The Australian Open champion, Stan Wawrinka has been very inconsistent this year, and after the Monte Carlo Masters title, he is yet to reach a semifinal. After making the quarterfinals at the US Open, he has won only two matches, so his form doesn't look too good for the Tour Finals. He has played some great matches against Djokovic and finally at this year's Australian Open, he beat him, but in his current form it is hard to see him beating Djokovic.
But this group might still offer Stan a chance to make his second Tour Finals semifinal in a row. The third Grand Slam champion in this group, the US Open champion Marin Cilic won a 250-point title in Moscow but otherwise his results after the US Open have been mediocre, and he missed the Paris Masters due to a right-arm injury.
The fourth player of the group is Tomas Berdych. After Djokovic, he has recently been the most consistent of this group's players: quarterfinals at the US Open, final at Beijing 500, quarterfinal at the Shanghai Masters, title at Stockholm 500, semifinal at the Paris Masters. Still, he seems like the least capable for upsetting Djokovic; Djokovic beat him in the Beijing final 6-0, 6-2. His consistent form can get him through from this group but Wawrinka and Cilic have the abilities to beat him, like they both did on their way to Grand Slam titles.
Group B: Federer, Nishikori, Murray, Raonic
This seems like the tougher group. Federer has been playing a great season but he has suffered losses to Nishikori in Miami in March and Raonic last week in Paris. Given the level of tennis these three have played recently, advancing from this group will be a big task for Murray.
Roger Federer must be the favourite to win this group. After the French Open, he has been very consistent and reaching the Wimbledon final plus winning two Masters titles have been the highlights of his season. Nishikori and Raonic have beaten him this year but more often than not, Roger should beat those players.
Kei Nishikori and Milos Raonic are playing their first ATP World Tour Finals. Especially Nishikori of these two has had some great results this year; he made the Madrid final which he would have won without getting injured and later this year he made the US Open final by beating World No. 1 Novak Djokovic in the semifinal. Raonic has also had some good results, like reaching the final at last week's Paris Masters. With Federer in the group, it is hard to see both of them through even though it's not impossible. Yet, these two and Federer will make it hard for Murray to advance from the group.
Andy Murray had played a mediocre season and after the US Open, he wasn't even qualifying for the Tour Finals. Then, titles at Shenzen 250, Vienna 250, and Valencia 500 put him in a position to secure his Tour Finals place at Paris Masters. Still, his performances in big events have been mediocre with his only semifinal in a mandatory event having been at the French Open. Given his poor record against top players this year, it is hard to see him succeeding here, and I'd be surprised if he even made it past the round robin.
Semifinals and the final
It seems like the biggest favorites for the title are the World No. 1, three-time champion Djokovic and the World No. 2, six-time champion Federer. Federer outplayed Djokovic in their last meeting in the Shanghai Masters semifinals and won in two sets. But this time I give the edge to Djokovic. The surface at the O2 Arena is usually pretty slow favoring Djokovic and he also had a better warm-up at the Paris Masters, a title compared to Federer losing in the quarterfinals. Murray and Berdych seem like the most certain players not to win the title; they haven't been able to win big matches this year. Nishikori and Raonic have been in a good form recently but they would need to play their best tennis to have a chance to win the title in the presence of Djokovic and Federer. Wawrinka and Cilic haven't been in a great form recently but if they somehow found their form, they could beat any of their opponents.
If any of the underdogs were to win the title, I think beating Djokovic or Federer in the round robin might help. That way having to play Djokovic and Federer consecutively in the semifinal and the final would be less likely, and Djokovic and Federer might have to play against each other in the semifinals.
Anyway, my pick for the title is Djokovic but Federer can beat him. But if these two didn't play up to their potential, there are some players who could have the game to beat them.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Alpine skiing season starts
The Alpine skiing season starts next weekend and I will write some texts about Alpine skiing during winter. I have already added a Google Calendar including all the World Cup and World Championship race dates. Later in November I will also add the ski jumping World Cup to the calendar.
Once the season has started, I will make the projected final World Cup standings to reduce the distortion caused by the different number of races in each discipline, to give a better picture of who are the strongest contenders for the overall title.
Once the season has started, I will make the projected final World Cup standings to reduce the distortion caused by the different number of races in each discipline, to give a better picture of who are the strongest contenders for the overall title.
Friday, October 10, 2014
New feature: Sports calendars for Google Calendar
I have made a Google Calendar of the FIA World Endurance Championship season including the 2015 race dates plus the qualifying and race times of the rest of the 2014 season. You can import the calendar to your Google Calendar.
I will later add also some other series. These are based on my interests, series whose calendars I want to have in my own Google Calendar. I will add the 2015 IndyCar calendar once it's released and later this month I will add Alpine skiing World Cup calendars.
I will later add also some other series. These are based on my interests, series whose calendars I want to have in my own Google Calendar. I will add the 2015 IndyCar calendar once it's released and later this month I will add Alpine skiing World Cup calendars.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Thoughts about IndyCar schedule
The IndyCar season ended over two weeks ago, which is very early given that e.g. NASCAR's Chase for the Sprint Cup started only last weekend and will finish in mid-November. IndyCar wanted to have the season finale in late August to get the season finished before the American football season begins.
The early season finish has been criticized a lot but I can understand the reasons behind it. One can say the IndyCar fans would watch IndyCar also after the football season has started but that argument doesn't take casual fans into account. Once the football season has started, it is harder to make casual fans watch IndyCar as well as it is harder to get attention for IndyCar. The season ending in late August can help to get more attention for the season finish.
But the early season finish has also its disadvantages. Even if it enabled to get more attention for the season finish, it means the offseason will be longer than the race season if the next season begins in March.
I think the season should be seven to eight months long. Usually that means a season from March to October or November. But I think the season could also begin earlier to shorten the offseason after an August finish. In that case, even a February start would be too early but the season could begin in January or December. A longer season would allow more time between races. I think two weeks is ideal for the gap between races. A race every week feels too often; a race doesn't feel so special when there was one in the previous week and another in the following one. A race every two weeks feels right; it would feel more special yet the races would be often enough to keep the interest up. Yet, a winter start wouldn't completely be without problems. There are IndyCar drivers participating the 24 Hours of Daytona so a January start would be problematic. Besides weather would rule out many tracks for races in winter.
Weather leads to another topic. Should IndyCar expand overseas? There could be races e.g. in South America during winter.
I think IndyCar should concentrate on the USA, their key market is there. But there could be some overseas races to increase the series' international recognition. I think Latin America would be a good option for international races. The races would be in the same time zones as the USA so it wouldn't make much difference for an American TV viewer. Brazil had a race in Sao Paulo until last year and next year there will probably be a race in the city of Brasilia. Another Latin American country where I would like to see a race is Colombia as they have three drivers in the series. Mexico as the USA's neighboring country would also be quite a natural option for an abroad race. Yet, the former Champ Car venue Autodromo Hermanos Rodrigues in Mexico City will be hosting F1 starting from the next year, so that track obviously isn't an option for IndyCar.
As for overseas races, I think Australia and Japan could also be good additions to the calendar. Surfers Paradise and Motegi have already previously hosted IndyCar and CART races. Those races' time zones might be somewhat problematic for the American TV audience but I am pretty sure late Saturday night is better than early Sunday morning. Because of the difficult time zone, I don't think IndyCar should consider expansion to Europe. Another reason is that IndyCar isn't very popular in Europe and I doubt the races would draw enough audience to be worth flying the cars to Europe.
All in all, I think the season ending in late August may have some advantages but the long offseason has its disadvantages. Starting the season earlier could be a solution to avoid the long offseason of the August finish. Yet finding tracks for a winter start might be more difficult than extending the season until October or November with a March start. My opinion is that the offseason must not exceed five months. If you cannot do it with an August finish, then extend the season into October or November.
The early season finish has been criticized a lot but I can understand the reasons behind it. One can say the IndyCar fans would watch IndyCar also after the football season has started but that argument doesn't take casual fans into account. Once the football season has started, it is harder to make casual fans watch IndyCar as well as it is harder to get attention for IndyCar. The season ending in late August can help to get more attention for the season finish.
But the early season finish has also its disadvantages. Even if it enabled to get more attention for the season finish, it means the offseason will be longer than the race season if the next season begins in March.
I think the season should be seven to eight months long. Usually that means a season from March to October or November. But I think the season could also begin earlier to shorten the offseason after an August finish. In that case, even a February start would be too early but the season could begin in January or December. A longer season would allow more time between races. I think two weeks is ideal for the gap between races. A race every week feels too often; a race doesn't feel so special when there was one in the previous week and another in the following one. A race every two weeks feels right; it would feel more special yet the races would be often enough to keep the interest up. Yet, a winter start wouldn't completely be without problems. There are IndyCar drivers participating the 24 Hours of Daytona so a January start would be problematic. Besides weather would rule out many tracks for races in winter.
Weather leads to another topic. Should IndyCar expand overseas? There could be races e.g. in South America during winter.
I think IndyCar should concentrate on the USA, their key market is there. But there could be some overseas races to increase the series' international recognition. I think Latin America would be a good option for international races. The races would be in the same time zones as the USA so it wouldn't make much difference for an American TV viewer. Brazil had a race in Sao Paulo until last year and next year there will probably be a race in the city of Brasilia. Another Latin American country where I would like to see a race is Colombia as they have three drivers in the series. Mexico as the USA's neighboring country would also be quite a natural option for an abroad race. Yet, the former Champ Car venue Autodromo Hermanos Rodrigues in Mexico City will be hosting F1 starting from the next year, so that track obviously isn't an option for IndyCar.
As for overseas races, I think Australia and Japan could also be good additions to the calendar. Surfers Paradise and Motegi have already previously hosted IndyCar and CART races. Those races' time zones might be somewhat problematic for the American TV audience but I am pretty sure late Saturday night is better than early Sunday morning. Because of the difficult time zone, I don't think IndyCar should consider expansion to Europe. Another reason is that IndyCar isn't very popular in Europe and I doubt the races would draw enough audience to be worth flying the cars to Europe.
All in all, I think the season ending in late August may have some advantages but the long offseason has its disadvantages. Starting the season earlier could be a solution to avoid the long offseason of the August finish. Yet finding tracks for a winter start might be more difficult than extending the season until October or November with a March start. My opinion is that the offseason must not exceed five months. If you cannot do it with an August finish, then extend the season into October or November.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
My review of the 2014 men's US Open and some thoughts on the future
The most memorable thing of this year's US Open was two first-time Grand Slam finalists with Marin Cilic winning his first Grand Slam title. This was the first time since the 2005 Australian Open when none of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, or Novak Djokovic made the final at a Grand Slam tournament. Unfortunately this wasn't otherwise a particularly interesting tournament, and despite an interesting match-up, the final was pretty one-sided.
In my preview, I pointed out a player who has been troubling the best players during this summer, yet hasn't achieved big success. He was Marin Cilic. After a five-setter against Gilles Simon on the round of 16, he was superb in the last three matches and is a deserving champion. It is always nice to see an offensive player succeeding instead of a player who rather waits for the opponent's errors. But there is a stain in Cilic's career. Last year he failed a drug test during the tournament in Munich. The substance was nikethamide which Cilic said was from incautious use of glucose tablets. As I am not an expert in doping, I cannot question the decision to reduce his ban to only four months because the use was said to be unintended and not to enhance performance. But how the ATP/ITF were hiding his doping case didn't give a good image of the transparency of their anti-doping work.
The runner-up Nishikori had a great tournament despite not winning the title. He beat three top 6 players on his way to the final. On the round of 16, he beat the World No. 6 Milos Raonic in five sets. In the quarterfinal, he beat the No. 4 Stan Wawrinka in five sets, and in the semifinal he beat the World No. 1 Novak Djokovic in four sets. Those long matches may account for his lame performance in the final, even though Cilic was so good that Nishikori would have had trouble even if he had been completely fresh.
It was a pity that the final was so one-sided, it was nice to have two fresh faces in the final. After the final, some people might have said to have actually preferred a final involving two of the big four. While I must say that I preferred the Djokovic-Federer final at Wimbledon, having two big names doesn't always guarantee a great final. From recent years, the 2013 Australian Open final Djokovic-Murray wasn't particularly exciting whereas Nishikori's first 500-level final in Tokyo in 2012 against another first-time 500 finalist Milos Raonic was one of the matches I enjoyed the most that year. I want to see fresh faces on the top of the tour. Nishikori was already in the Madrid Masters final but an injury cost him that match after being a set and a break up against Nadal. That injury forced him aside from the French Open, after having a great start to the clay season with a 500 title in Barcelona. If he could avoid injuries, he would have potential to be on the top of the tour. Cilic is yet to prove he can stay on the top of the tour. Low ranking and tough draws had made it difficult for him to make it to the late rounds in big events. Now with his improved ranking, he should be able to have deep runs more often and he definitely has the potential to win more big titles.
Novak Djokovic is the World No. 1 but he hasn't been playing his best tennis this summer after winning Wimbledon. It is hard to say what was wrong with him on North America's hard courts. He had just won Wimbledon so he should be in a good form but maybe getting married has taken some focus away from tennis. As his fan, I wouldn't be worried yet. He still has a great chance to finish this year as the World No. 1. And at this point of his career, his big goal should be to complete the Career Grand Slam at the French Open. He can still play great tennis and only Nadal has a better peak level on clay. It is hard for Novak to reach Nadal's peak level on clay but if he can avoid heavy decline longer than Nadal, he should have a great chance to win the French Open.
Roger Federer was the player with the best results in the pre-US Open Masters tournaments. But as I said in the preview, he isn't way above the field. I think his current peak level isn't anymore among the very best on the tour. Otherwise he is just another top 10 player but with his consistency he is No. 3 and being the most successful player of all time puts pressure on his opponents. This tournament with Djokovic not playing his best tennis, Nadal aside, and Andy Murray being hardly on top-10 level, was a great opportunity for Roger to win his 18th Grand Slam title but he wasn't just good enough. And maybe this was his last chance, at least outside Wimbledon. I can't see him anymore improving for the next season. On Wimbledon's grass he might still win a title if Djokovic has a bad tournament and Murray cannot anymore find his best level. And if Roger himself plays his best tennis. That may be too many ifs.
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Stan Wawrinka were the players I expected to be the most dangerous title rivals for Federer and Djokovic. Tsonga was playing decently on the first three rounds but on the round of 16, he didn't have enough consistency against well-defending Andy Murray. Wawrinka was like he has been most of the season. Great at his best but sloppy at times. That was enough to make the quarterfinals but in the quarters he lost a tight five-setter to Nishikori. Wawrinka's season has been a bit disappointing after winning the Australian Open and the Monte Carlo Masters which made him the No. 1 in the Race to London. After Monte Carlo he is yet to win a title and has had some big disappointments like losing on the first round at the French Open. But with a Grand Slam and a Masters title, I don't consider his season as a disappointment. He has taken a step forward this season, now he can win big titles. He will most likely never dominate the tour but he can win any event he enters if he manages to play his best tennis. I wouldn't be surprised if he won some of the remaining Masters events this year or the World Tour Finals. Tsonga's season has also turned into a good one as he won his second Masters title in Toronto after a bad first half of the season. My expectations for him for the rest of the season are pretty similar to Wawrinka. If he had a great week, he could win some big event.
This season has been a breakthrough for Milos Raonic and Grigor Dimitrov. They have made the top 10 and they both made their first Grand Slam semifinals at Wimbledon. The US Open was a decent performance by both. Neither of them can be happy with a round of 16 exit but they weren't really underperforming. Raonic took the eventual finalist Nishikori to five sets whereas Dimitrov lost to well-playing Gael Monfils.
Monfils was a positive surprise at the US Open. He was yet to drop a set after the second set of his quarterfinal match against Federer. Unfortunately he couldn't keep his level up to win the match but he lost it in five sets, after having match points in Federer's serve in the fourth set. He is such an interesting player that I would love him to succeed but he is already 28, so the time is running out for him to achieve something big. Still, this was his first season with two Grand Slam quarterfinals, so hopefully he can have some good results in the near future.
All in all, it was very nice to see fresh faces succeeding. Unfortunately there weren't particularly memorable matches. Nishikori beating unusually bad Djokovic or Cilic beating 33-year-old Federer isn't as impressive as Robin Söderling beating Nadal at Roland Garros or Wawrinka beating Djokovic at the Australian Open, beating players at a tournament that they have dominated in the previous years. But it is nice that each slam had a different champion this year, not only on men's but also on women's side. And it is also nice that this is the first season since 2003 with two new Grand Slam champions.
In my preview, I pointed out a player who has been troubling the best players during this summer, yet hasn't achieved big success. He was Marin Cilic. After a five-setter against Gilles Simon on the round of 16, he was superb in the last three matches and is a deserving champion. It is always nice to see an offensive player succeeding instead of a player who rather waits for the opponent's errors. But there is a stain in Cilic's career. Last year he failed a drug test during the tournament in Munich. The substance was nikethamide which Cilic said was from incautious use of glucose tablets. As I am not an expert in doping, I cannot question the decision to reduce his ban to only four months because the use was said to be unintended and not to enhance performance. But how the ATP/ITF were hiding his doping case didn't give a good image of the transparency of their anti-doping work.
The runner-up Nishikori had a great tournament despite not winning the title. He beat three top 6 players on his way to the final. On the round of 16, he beat the World No. 6 Milos Raonic in five sets. In the quarterfinal, he beat the No. 4 Stan Wawrinka in five sets, and in the semifinal he beat the World No. 1 Novak Djokovic in four sets. Those long matches may account for his lame performance in the final, even though Cilic was so good that Nishikori would have had trouble even if he had been completely fresh.
It was a pity that the final was so one-sided, it was nice to have two fresh faces in the final. After the final, some people might have said to have actually preferred a final involving two of the big four. While I must say that I preferred the Djokovic-Federer final at Wimbledon, having two big names doesn't always guarantee a great final. From recent years, the 2013 Australian Open final Djokovic-Murray wasn't particularly exciting whereas Nishikori's first 500-level final in Tokyo in 2012 against another first-time 500 finalist Milos Raonic was one of the matches I enjoyed the most that year. I want to see fresh faces on the top of the tour. Nishikori was already in the Madrid Masters final but an injury cost him that match after being a set and a break up against Nadal. That injury forced him aside from the French Open, after having a great start to the clay season with a 500 title in Barcelona. If he could avoid injuries, he would have potential to be on the top of the tour. Cilic is yet to prove he can stay on the top of the tour. Low ranking and tough draws had made it difficult for him to make it to the late rounds in big events. Now with his improved ranking, he should be able to have deep runs more often and he definitely has the potential to win more big titles.
Novak Djokovic is the World No. 1 but he hasn't been playing his best tennis this summer after winning Wimbledon. It is hard to say what was wrong with him on North America's hard courts. He had just won Wimbledon so he should be in a good form but maybe getting married has taken some focus away from tennis. As his fan, I wouldn't be worried yet. He still has a great chance to finish this year as the World No. 1. And at this point of his career, his big goal should be to complete the Career Grand Slam at the French Open. He can still play great tennis and only Nadal has a better peak level on clay. It is hard for Novak to reach Nadal's peak level on clay but if he can avoid heavy decline longer than Nadal, he should have a great chance to win the French Open.
Roger Federer was the player with the best results in the pre-US Open Masters tournaments. But as I said in the preview, he isn't way above the field. I think his current peak level isn't anymore among the very best on the tour. Otherwise he is just another top 10 player but with his consistency he is No. 3 and being the most successful player of all time puts pressure on his opponents. This tournament with Djokovic not playing his best tennis, Nadal aside, and Andy Murray being hardly on top-10 level, was a great opportunity for Roger to win his 18th Grand Slam title but he wasn't just good enough. And maybe this was his last chance, at least outside Wimbledon. I can't see him anymore improving for the next season. On Wimbledon's grass he might still win a title if Djokovic has a bad tournament and Murray cannot anymore find his best level. And if Roger himself plays his best tennis. That may be too many ifs.
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Stan Wawrinka were the players I expected to be the most dangerous title rivals for Federer and Djokovic. Tsonga was playing decently on the first three rounds but on the round of 16, he didn't have enough consistency against well-defending Andy Murray. Wawrinka was like he has been most of the season. Great at his best but sloppy at times. That was enough to make the quarterfinals but in the quarters he lost a tight five-setter to Nishikori. Wawrinka's season has been a bit disappointing after winning the Australian Open and the Monte Carlo Masters which made him the No. 1 in the Race to London. After Monte Carlo he is yet to win a title and has had some big disappointments like losing on the first round at the French Open. But with a Grand Slam and a Masters title, I don't consider his season as a disappointment. He has taken a step forward this season, now he can win big titles. He will most likely never dominate the tour but he can win any event he enters if he manages to play his best tennis. I wouldn't be surprised if he won some of the remaining Masters events this year or the World Tour Finals. Tsonga's season has also turned into a good one as he won his second Masters title in Toronto after a bad first half of the season. My expectations for him for the rest of the season are pretty similar to Wawrinka. If he had a great week, he could win some big event.
This season has been a breakthrough for Milos Raonic and Grigor Dimitrov. They have made the top 10 and they both made their first Grand Slam semifinals at Wimbledon. The US Open was a decent performance by both. Neither of them can be happy with a round of 16 exit but they weren't really underperforming. Raonic took the eventual finalist Nishikori to five sets whereas Dimitrov lost to well-playing Gael Monfils.
Monfils was a positive surprise at the US Open. He was yet to drop a set after the second set of his quarterfinal match against Federer. Unfortunately he couldn't keep his level up to win the match but he lost it in five sets, after having match points in Federer's serve in the fourth set. He is such an interesting player that I would love him to succeed but he is already 28, so the time is running out for him to achieve something big. Still, this was his first season with two Grand Slam quarterfinals, so hopefully he can have some good results in the near future.
All in all, it was very nice to see fresh faces succeeding. Unfortunately there weren't particularly memorable matches. Nishikori beating unusually bad Djokovic or Cilic beating 33-year-old Federer isn't as impressive as Robin Söderling beating Nadal at Roland Garros or Wawrinka beating Djokovic at the Australian Open, beating players at a tournament that they have dominated in the previous years. But it is nice that each slam had a different champion this year, not only on men's but also on women's side. And it is also nice that this is the first season since 2003 with two new Grand Slam champions.
Monday, September 8, 2014
Should F1 go to three-car teams?
Yesterday there was an interesting tweet by Adam Parr:
F1 going to three-car teams feels like a major change as there has been no three-car teams since the 80s, and since the 90s, there has been no one-car teams. Two-car teams have been the standard of F1 for about the last twenty years. The grid reducing to eight teams isn't completely out of question after this year. Caterham is stuck on the back of the grid and isn't doing financially well. The Caterham Group of the team founder Tony Fernandes sold the team earlier this year, and the future prospects of the team don't look good. Marussia is another of the new teams of 2010 and still stuck to the back of the grid, despite scoring two points this year and being ahead of Sauber in the constructors' standings. Besides, Marussia's road car business is now defunct so running an F1 team might not make so much sense for them. Sauber is a team that has struggled financially in the last years, yet the rumoured takeover by the Canadian billionaire Lawrence Stroll would secure the future of the team. Lotus have also had financial issues in the last years, so one cannot be sure about their future. And if F1 went to three-car teams, I am not so sure Red Bull would like to continue Toro Rosso as their main team would already have three cars.
Meanwhile, there are new team projects aiming to join F1 in 2016, so a plan to reduce the number of teams sounds surprising. Then again, I doubt those teams woud have a lot to give to F1. We saw in 2010 how difficult it is to come to F1 as a brand-new team. Caterham and Marussia have struggled throughout their entire existence, HRT went bust after three seasons, and the USF1 team never made the grid. It seems like to start from scratch and be competitive in F1, a team must have the resources of a big car manufacturer, Toyota as an example. Even they couldn't make it to the top during their eight-year stay in F1 but at least they were competitive. Still, most of the time they were competing in the midfield against teams with smaller budgets but more experience.
Entering F1 has got very difficult. It is hard to get the financing to have a competitive budget. Besides, the lack of other resources makes it hard for new teams to be competitive in F1. But how to make it easier to enter F1? Reducing the costs would make it easier to join the series as well as it would be easier for the midfield teams to challenge the top teams. A budget cap has sometimes been proposed but it would be difficult to police. Car manufacturer affiliated teams could have their R&D done in the road car division to hide it from the F1 team's budget. Restrictions like engine development freeze have been introduced to reduce costs. But even if engines didn't cost so much, teams can use the saved money to something else. With enough standardization in components, teams could save money but developing F1 towards a spec series would be bad for the series. The competition between constructors has always been a part of F1 so it must remain like that. Also, teams with better resources would oppose more standardization and might leave F1 because of it. Also, the richer teams might not even like to cut their budgets enabling financially less strong teams to challenge them more easily. That would be another reason for them to leave F1. And with big teams leaving F1, there might be a possibility of another series surpassing F1 as the most important series in car racing. Because of that risk, F1 couldn't afford losing its top teams.
So, I think there is little to be done to reduce the cost of new manufacturers entering F1. But is there then any way to help new teams entering F1 as well as to reduce the performance gap between the better and worse teams? Is going to less teams with more cars the only way to make the back of the grid more competitive?
To be honest, I think less manufacturers with more cars would make the competition tighter. The backmarker teams don't have the resources of the big teams and the big teams won't voluntarily give up their advantage over the smaller teams to make the competition tighter. But I wouldn't go to a grid of three-car teams. A three-car team withdrawing from F1 would be a bigger loss than a two-car team. Two three-car teams withdrawing would be disastrous for the series, there would be six cars less. Instead of three-car teams, I would allow buying components from other teams and even customer cars. Privateer constructors like Williams have opposed the idea of customer cars because a team with a customer car of a dominant team might beat them with a fraction of their budget. But customer cars could also be a way of financing the operations of privateer constructors by selling their cars to customer teams. To ensure more constructors having customers, each constructor could be allowed only one customer team. Of course, customer cars could enable some teams practically having four cars by entering the series as two teams. To prevent teams from having financial advantage by operating as two teams with the same car, teams with customer cars, or cars mostly consisting of customer components, could be excluded from the constructors' championship and thus from getting their share of the series' revenue. That would also protect constructor teams from losing to customer teams in the constructors' championship, being an incentive for the teams to have own cars. After all, I think allowing customer cars would make the competition tighter. But I also think F1 needs more constructors than only the top teams. In case of customer cars being allowed, F1 should ensure own cars being the preferred option for midfield teams.
"This is the last year of F1 as we know it. In 2015 eight teams will contest the championship, with several teams entering three cars."There were also other tweets confirming this possibility. (link 1, link 2) Of course, I am not sure how credible that F1 Paddock Pass is but Adam Parr would feel pretty credible a source. I would say "no smoke without fire".
F1 going to three-car teams feels like a major change as there has been no three-car teams since the 80s, and since the 90s, there has been no one-car teams. Two-car teams have been the standard of F1 for about the last twenty years. The grid reducing to eight teams isn't completely out of question after this year. Caterham is stuck on the back of the grid and isn't doing financially well. The Caterham Group of the team founder Tony Fernandes sold the team earlier this year, and the future prospects of the team don't look good. Marussia is another of the new teams of 2010 and still stuck to the back of the grid, despite scoring two points this year and being ahead of Sauber in the constructors' standings. Besides, Marussia's road car business is now defunct so running an F1 team might not make so much sense for them. Sauber is a team that has struggled financially in the last years, yet the rumoured takeover by the Canadian billionaire Lawrence Stroll would secure the future of the team. Lotus have also had financial issues in the last years, so one cannot be sure about their future. And if F1 went to three-car teams, I am not so sure Red Bull would like to continue Toro Rosso as their main team would already have three cars.
Meanwhile, there are new team projects aiming to join F1 in 2016, so a plan to reduce the number of teams sounds surprising. Then again, I doubt those teams woud have a lot to give to F1. We saw in 2010 how difficult it is to come to F1 as a brand-new team. Caterham and Marussia have struggled throughout their entire existence, HRT went bust after three seasons, and the USF1 team never made the grid. It seems like to start from scratch and be competitive in F1, a team must have the resources of a big car manufacturer, Toyota as an example. Even they couldn't make it to the top during their eight-year stay in F1 but at least they were competitive. Still, most of the time they were competing in the midfield against teams with smaller budgets but more experience.
Entering F1 has got very difficult. It is hard to get the financing to have a competitive budget. Besides, the lack of other resources makes it hard for new teams to be competitive in F1. But how to make it easier to enter F1? Reducing the costs would make it easier to join the series as well as it would be easier for the midfield teams to challenge the top teams. A budget cap has sometimes been proposed but it would be difficult to police. Car manufacturer affiliated teams could have their R&D done in the road car division to hide it from the F1 team's budget. Restrictions like engine development freeze have been introduced to reduce costs. But even if engines didn't cost so much, teams can use the saved money to something else. With enough standardization in components, teams could save money but developing F1 towards a spec series would be bad for the series. The competition between constructors has always been a part of F1 so it must remain like that. Also, teams with better resources would oppose more standardization and might leave F1 because of it. Also, the richer teams might not even like to cut their budgets enabling financially less strong teams to challenge them more easily. That would be another reason for them to leave F1. And with big teams leaving F1, there might be a possibility of another series surpassing F1 as the most important series in car racing. Because of that risk, F1 couldn't afford losing its top teams.
So, I think there is little to be done to reduce the cost of new manufacturers entering F1. But is there then any way to help new teams entering F1 as well as to reduce the performance gap between the better and worse teams? Is going to less teams with more cars the only way to make the back of the grid more competitive?
To be honest, I think less manufacturers with more cars would make the competition tighter. The backmarker teams don't have the resources of the big teams and the big teams won't voluntarily give up their advantage over the smaller teams to make the competition tighter. But I wouldn't go to a grid of three-car teams. A three-car team withdrawing from F1 would be a bigger loss than a two-car team. Two three-car teams withdrawing would be disastrous for the series, there would be six cars less. Instead of three-car teams, I would allow buying components from other teams and even customer cars. Privateer constructors like Williams have opposed the idea of customer cars because a team with a customer car of a dominant team might beat them with a fraction of their budget. But customer cars could also be a way of financing the operations of privateer constructors by selling their cars to customer teams. To ensure more constructors having customers, each constructor could be allowed only one customer team. Of course, customer cars could enable some teams practically having four cars by entering the series as two teams. To prevent teams from having financial advantage by operating as two teams with the same car, teams with customer cars, or cars mostly consisting of customer components, could be excluded from the constructors' championship and thus from getting their share of the series' revenue. That would also protect constructor teams from losing to customer teams in the constructors' championship, being an incentive for the teams to have own cars. After all, I think allowing customer cars would make the competition tighter. But I also think F1 needs more constructors than only the top teams. In case of customer cars being allowed, F1 should ensure own cars being the preferred option for midfield teams.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Why is IndyCar getting more interesting than F1? What could F1 learn from North America?
Current IndyCar and former Formula One and NASCAR driver Juan Pablo Montoya has said F1 should copy American racing to re-engage fans. Actually, I must say my motorsports interest has been switching from F1 to IndyCar in the recent years, so maybe Montoya has a point.
Why I have started to get interested in IndyCar is that it offers better entertainment than F1. Actually, I preferred F1 when it didn't go too far with its attempts to be entertaining. Back then it seemed like American racing was the one going too far with attempts to make races more entertaining with excessive use of pace car, push-to-pass in IndyCar, or green-white-checker finish in NASCAR. But in recent years in F1, safety car rules have been changed to make safety car periods spice up the race more as well as the DRS is even more artificial than push-to-pass in IndyCar. The use of push-to-pass in IndyCar is in the driver's discretion plus one can use it also to defend, yet one can use it only ten times in a race. In F1, a driver can use DRS always when he is within one second of the car ahead in the DRS zone, yet one cannot use it to defend. That produces more exciting wheel-to-wheel racing in IndyCar as opposed to F1's DRS passes that can hardly be called overtakes. Another thing I dislike in F1 is the amount of tarmac run-offs. Tarmac is more forgiving compared to gravel, taking away challenge as going wide isn't punished the way it used to be. Instead going wide may even gain some time, leading to uncertainty if a qualifying lap is valid or if an overtake happened withing the track limits. In North America, tarmac run-offs are still quite uncommon with run-offs being mostly gravel or street circuits having no run-off between the track and the wall like in F1. IndyCar also provides more variety with tracks by having races on not only road courses and street circuits but also on ovals. Also, I dislike F1 having double points in the final race of the season. IndyCar also introduced that for this year but I prefer their system. They give double points in the 500-mile races of Indianapolis, Pocono, and Fontana which is the final race of the season. That makes more sense as they are the longest races of the season whereas in F1 the Abu Dhabi GP isn't any different to the other Grands Prix.
But what could F1 learn from North America in that regard? I think F1's overtaking aids have gone too far. Just introduce similar rules like with push-to-pass in IndyCar; first you try to overtake without push-to-pass, then if you are still stuck behind a slower car, you can use push-to-pass, yet cannot do it lap after lap. Of course, I am not sure that would make racing in F1 as tight as in IndyCar; also cars play a role here and I will return on that later. As for run-offs, there is no return to gravel in fast corners where it would be dangerous. But I think there shouldn't be tarmac runoffs in slow corners where gravel traps or grass wouldn't be dangerous. When it comes to oval racing, I think it is a nice addition to IndyCar but has no place in F1. Ovals haven't been a part of F1 excluding the series' early years when Indianapolis 500 was a World Championship race and the Monza circuit also included the oval section. Besides, given the high emphasis of safety in F1, it would be difficult to see F1 racing on dangerous ovals.
One major difference between F1 and IndyCar is F1 teams designing and building their own cars whereas IndyCar teams use single-make cars. The difference between IndyCar teams is which engine they use plus there will be different aerokits starting from the next season. The single-make chassis is obviously one reason for the tighter racing in IndyCar. And of course it means much lower costs. Then again, I think each team having their own car has become an essential part of F1 and is a part of the series' attractiveness as it is unique among single-seaters. In that regard, IndyCar will never be like F1, yet I would like it to be more like CART in the 90s with multiple different chassis and engine manufacturers. More manufacturers would mean more technical competition. But F1 shouldn't go for customer cars, each team having their own car has been a part of the series for such a long time. One aim of F1 regulations should be to enable tight racing but not to limit teams' technical freedom. That is challenging; too much freedom and the differences between teams can get too big. But too restrictive rules take away the attractiveness of technical competition in F1, even if that enabled tighter racing.
Montoya spoke about American series being more fan-friendly. I cannot speak a lot about the fan experience at the track as I have never been to a race. Also, I don't know about IndyCar's televising in its home market in the USA. In Europe, it is mostly a pay channel sport but so is also F1 these days. But a big difference is the use of the new media. F1's Twitter account is just links to articles on the series' website, IndyCar and NASCAR, on the other hand, tweet photos and videos on the series' Twitter accounts. Of course, teams tweet actively in F1 so there isn't so much need of an active series account. There is also a difference in the series' YouTube policy. F1 removes videos from YouTube in order to protect their material. IndyCar and NASCAR don't remove videos and even have own YouTube accounts, in order to promote the series. Exclusive TV rights may be a problem for F1 but their approach still seems outdated.
One more thing I prefer in IndyCar is how everything seems more relaxed there. It is hard to describe but I think there are less controversies in IndyCar than in F1. Maybe it is just because I haven't followed it as much as F1. Controversies obviously help to keep F1 in headlines between races but I am tired of them. And maybe it is that more relaxed attitude why tough racing leads to less complaining in IndyCar, making it more enjoyable to watch.
But to the main question, what could F1 learn from North America? I think completely copying North American racing wouldn't work. Not all existing fans would like American-style F1, and for people liking American-style open-wheel racing, there is already IndyCar. F1 has always been more about sport and less about show than American racing. That is what it should be like also nowadays, even though DRS, double-points final race, and proposed standing restarts are even bigger show elements than what there is in American racing. Also, F1 must not lose the aspect of technical competition that makes it special. F1 could copy some elements from American racing or other series as long as it doesn't lose its own nature. For example, I think DRS in the way it is used in F1 has not been a good addition whereas IndyCar-style push-to-pass would be an improvement. To retain the existing fanbase, F1 must retain its essence as well as improve the fan experience, e.g. with new media, to comply with the standards set by other series. A better fan experience would also help to get new fans. And American series could be a model of the use of new media.
Why I have started to get interested in IndyCar is that it offers better entertainment than F1. Actually, I preferred F1 when it didn't go too far with its attempts to be entertaining. Back then it seemed like American racing was the one going too far with attempts to make races more entertaining with excessive use of pace car, push-to-pass in IndyCar, or green-white-checker finish in NASCAR. But in recent years in F1, safety car rules have been changed to make safety car periods spice up the race more as well as the DRS is even more artificial than push-to-pass in IndyCar. The use of push-to-pass in IndyCar is in the driver's discretion plus one can use it also to defend, yet one can use it only ten times in a race. In F1, a driver can use DRS always when he is within one second of the car ahead in the DRS zone, yet one cannot use it to defend. That produces more exciting wheel-to-wheel racing in IndyCar as opposed to F1's DRS passes that can hardly be called overtakes. Another thing I dislike in F1 is the amount of tarmac run-offs. Tarmac is more forgiving compared to gravel, taking away challenge as going wide isn't punished the way it used to be. Instead going wide may even gain some time, leading to uncertainty if a qualifying lap is valid or if an overtake happened withing the track limits. In North America, tarmac run-offs are still quite uncommon with run-offs being mostly gravel or street circuits having no run-off between the track and the wall like in F1. IndyCar also provides more variety with tracks by having races on not only road courses and street circuits but also on ovals. Also, I dislike F1 having double points in the final race of the season. IndyCar also introduced that for this year but I prefer their system. They give double points in the 500-mile races of Indianapolis, Pocono, and Fontana which is the final race of the season. That makes more sense as they are the longest races of the season whereas in F1 the Abu Dhabi GP isn't any different to the other Grands Prix.
But what could F1 learn from North America in that regard? I think F1's overtaking aids have gone too far. Just introduce similar rules like with push-to-pass in IndyCar; first you try to overtake without push-to-pass, then if you are still stuck behind a slower car, you can use push-to-pass, yet cannot do it lap after lap. Of course, I am not sure that would make racing in F1 as tight as in IndyCar; also cars play a role here and I will return on that later. As for run-offs, there is no return to gravel in fast corners where it would be dangerous. But I think there shouldn't be tarmac runoffs in slow corners where gravel traps or grass wouldn't be dangerous. When it comes to oval racing, I think it is a nice addition to IndyCar but has no place in F1. Ovals haven't been a part of F1 excluding the series' early years when Indianapolis 500 was a World Championship race and the Monza circuit also included the oval section. Besides, given the high emphasis of safety in F1, it would be difficult to see F1 racing on dangerous ovals.
One major difference between F1 and IndyCar is F1 teams designing and building their own cars whereas IndyCar teams use single-make cars. The difference between IndyCar teams is which engine they use plus there will be different aerokits starting from the next season. The single-make chassis is obviously one reason for the tighter racing in IndyCar. And of course it means much lower costs. Then again, I think each team having their own car has become an essential part of F1 and is a part of the series' attractiveness as it is unique among single-seaters. In that regard, IndyCar will never be like F1, yet I would like it to be more like CART in the 90s with multiple different chassis and engine manufacturers. More manufacturers would mean more technical competition. But F1 shouldn't go for customer cars, each team having their own car has been a part of the series for such a long time. One aim of F1 regulations should be to enable tight racing but not to limit teams' technical freedom. That is challenging; too much freedom and the differences between teams can get too big. But too restrictive rules take away the attractiveness of technical competition in F1, even if that enabled tighter racing.
Montoya spoke about American series being more fan-friendly. I cannot speak a lot about the fan experience at the track as I have never been to a race. Also, I don't know about IndyCar's televising in its home market in the USA. In Europe, it is mostly a pay channel sport but so is also F1 these days. But a big difference is the use of the new media. F1's Twitter account is just links to articles on the series' website, IndyCar and NASCAR, on the other hand, tweet photos and videos on the series' Twitter accounts. Of course, teams tweet actively in F1 so there isn't so much need of an active series account. There is also a difference in the series' YouTube policy. F1 removes videos from YouTube in order to protect their material. IndyCar and NASCAR don't remove videos and even have own YouTube accounts, in order to promote the series. Exclusive TV rights may be a problem for F1 but their approach still seems outdated.
One more thing I prefer in IndyCar is how everything seems more relaxed there. It is hard to describe but I think there are less controversies in IndyCar than in F1. Maybe it is just because I haven't followed it as much as F1. Controversies obviously help to keep F1 in headlines between races but I am tired of them. And maybe it is that more relaxed attitude why tough racing leads to less complaining in IndyCar, making it more enjoyable to watch.
But to the main question, what could F1 learn from North America? I think completely copying North American racing wouldn't work. Not all existing fans would like American-style F1, and for people liking American-style open-wheel racing, there is already IndyCar. F1 has always been more about sport and less about show than American racing. That is what it should be like also nowadays, even though DRS, double-points final race, and proposed standing restarts are even bigger show elements than what there is in American racing. Also, F1 must not lose the aspect of technical competition that makes it special. F1 could copy some elements from American racing or other series as long as it doesn't lose its own nature. For example, I think DRS in the way it is used in F1 has not been a good addition whereas IndyCar-style push-to-pass would be an improvement. To retain the existing fanbase, F1 must retain its essence as well as improve the fan experience, e.g. with new media, to comply with the standards set by other series. A better fan experience would also help to get new fans. And American series could be a model of the use of new media.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Some thoughts about the CHL and European ice hockey
In recent years, there have been attempts to have inter-European ice hockey matches and create a pan-European league. That would be important to grow hockey in Europe. With more money in European hockey, Europe would be more attractive for top players. The latest attempt for a pan-European league is the second incarnation of the Champions Hockey League (CHL).
The 2008-09 season saw the first incarnation of the CHL; 12 clubs from the top European leagues in a competition reminiscent of the UEFA Champions League. For the following season, there were plans to increase the number of teams by including clubs from smaller hockey countries' leagues. But the future editions of the CHL were cancelled because of lack of financing.
Since 2010 there was another tournament for European leagues' clubs, the European Trophy. That was expanded from Finnish and Swedish clubs' pre-season Nordic Trophy. The European Trophy was mostly a pre-season event but since 2011 its playoffs were played in December. Starting from 2014, the European Trophy was replaced by the new Champions Hockey League.
Champions Hockey League and European Trophy haven't been the only ways for teams to go international. The Russia-based KHL has expanded to West, with Jokerit from Helsinki, Finland as their latest new foreign team. They have also had teams from e.g. Slovakia, Latvia, and the Czech Republic, even though the Czech team Lev Prague withdrew from the league after the last season, despite having made the finals.
The difference between the CHL and the KHL is that the CHL is played alongside national leagues whereas the KHL is the only league for its teams. The CHL's format is like the UEFA Champions League whereas the KHL's format is like the NHL.
The critics of the CHL say it is like a pre-season exhibition competition. I wouldn't say the teams take it as exhibition matches but the timing of the CHL is difficult. The CHL season must be started before the national leagues begin, so the level of hockey isn't at its best. And as the national leagues finish with playoffs, unlike in football, the hockey season cannot finish with the Champions League final like in football but the CHL final must be played before the national playoffs. That makes it more difficult to make winning the CHL the pinnacle of the season as there are still the national playoffs ahead.
Some critics also say that the CHL is no true Champions League as not all teams are national league champions or even top 4 clubs. I don't think it is such a huge problem. Obviously some clubs with commitment were needed. And in my opinion it is good to have many teams from the big hockey nations. I think the big number of e.g. Finnish, Swedish, or Czech teams helps to generate interest in the CHL. With two teams from each country, the fans of non-CHL clubs might be ignorant towards the CHL whereas with more teams from each country, a bigger part of the fanbase in each country has their favorite clubs playing. I think it is better to have more teams from strong hockey countries than to have teams from more leagues that are weaker. Winning the title by beating top European clubs adds to its prestige in comparison to winning the title by beating clubs from weaker leagues.
One big point of criticism is the absence of KHL teams. It may devaluate the CHL title's status as the European club championship but I don't see it as a problem as the KHL teams have way bigger budgets than the teams in other European top leagues. I don't think it makes sense to have teams with so different budgets playing in the same competition. Also, as the KHL aims to be the pan-European top league, I think the inclusion of KHL teams would undermine the CHL's aims to be the pan-European top competition.
It is obvious that the national leagues are still the priority of the CHL teams. The national leagues make the most of their season and the national playoffs are the culmination of the season. But if the CHL gets going also after this season, it will help to establish the tradition of international club matches in European hockey. That might make it easier to abandon the national leagues in the future to play in a pan-European league.
As for Jokerit, the Finnish team that didn't go the CHL route but instead joined the KHL, I think they are taking a risk. Can the higher level of KHL hockey attract their fans as much as the familiar opponents from the Finnish League, especially their local rival HIFK? And can they afford the higher budget of KHL, especially remembering the first non-Russian finalist team, Lev Prague, had to withdraw from the league after their finalist season because of financial difficulties. Besides, I think it is hard for existing teams to increase their fanbase by joining the KHL as they used to be rivals of other teams and will remain as that even after joining the KHL. Then again, a brand new KHL team might not be a rival for existing teams but it wouldn't have an existing fanbase to start with.
The CHL format reminds me of football in Europe. There are the national leagues with familiar opponents and long-time rivalries as well as the inter-European matches. I think any football fan in e.g. England or Italy would be upset for a suggestion to abandon the national league for an international league. That is how I think it is also in European hockey. Then again, if Jokerit have success in the KHL, I think more Western European teams might be willing to join the KHL, especially if the international CHL matches are well-welcomed but they don't see enough potential in the CHL.
I doubt the CHL could challenge the KHL; there is more money in the KHL unless the KHL faced some crisis. But if the CHL is here to stay, with more tradition it could become a meaningful European title for fans. If there were a serious European title, I am pretty sure fans would appreciate it. If football has League, Cup, and European titles, why couldn't hockey have national and European titles?
The 2008-09 season saw the first incarnation of the CHL; 12 clubs from the top European leagues in a competition reminiscent of the UEFA Champions League. For the following season, there were plans to increase the number of teams by including clubs from smaller hockey countries' leagues. But the future editions of the CHL were cancelled because of lack of financing.
Since 2010 there was another tournament for European leagues' clubs, the European Trophy. That was expanded from Finnish and Swedish clubs' pre-season Nordic Trophy. The European Trophy was mostly a pre-season event but since 2011 its playoffs were played in December. Starting from 2014, the European Trophy was replaced by the new Champions Hockey League.
Champions Hockey League and European Trophy haven't been the only ways for teams to go international. The Russia-based KHL has expanded to West, with Jokerit from Helsinki, Finland as their latest new foreign team. They have also had teams from e.g. Slovakia, Latvia, and the Czech Republic, even though the Czech team Lev Prague withdrew from the league after the last season, despite having made the finals.
The difference between the CHL and the KHL is that the CHL is played alongside national leagues whereas the KHL is the only league for its teams. The CHL's format is like the UEFA Champions League whereas the KHL's format is like the NHL.
The critics of the CHL say it is like a pre-season exhibition competition. I wouldn't say the teams take it as exhibition matches but the timing of the CHL is difficult. The CHL season must be started before the national leagues begin, so the level of hockey isn't at its best. And as the national leagues finish with playoffs, unlike in football, the hockey season cannot finish with the Champions League final like in football but the CHL final must be played before the national playoffs. That makes it more difficult to make winning the CHL the pinnacle of the season as there are still the national playoffs ahead.
Some critics also say that the CHL is no true Champions League as not all teams are national league champions or even top 4 clubs. I don't think it is such a huge problem. Obviously some clubs with commitment were needed. And in my opinion it is good to have many teams from the big hockey nations. I think the big number of e.g. Finnish, Swedish, or Czech teams helps to generate interest in the CHL. With two teams from each country, the fans of non-CHL clubs might be ignorant towards the CHL whereas with more teams from each country, a bigger part of the fanbase in each country has their favorite clubs playing. I think it is better to have more teams from strong hockey countries than to have teams from more leagues that are weaker. Winning the title by beating top European clubs adds to its prestige in comparison to winning the title by beating clubs from weaker leagues.
One big point of criticism is the absence of KHL teams. It may devaluate the CHL title's status as the European club championship but I don't see it as a problem as the KHL teams have way bigger budgets than the teams in other European top leagues. I don't think it makes sense to have teams with so different budgets playing in the same competition. Also, as the KHL aims to be the pan-European top league, I think the inclusion of KHL teams would undermine the CHL's aims to be the pan-European top competition.
It is obvious that the national leagues are still the priority of the CHL teams. The national leagues make the most of their season and the national playoffs are the culmination of the season. But if the CHL gets going also after this season, it will help to establish the tradition of international club matches in European hockey. That might make it easier to abandon the national leagues in the future to play in a pan-European league.
As for Jokerit, the Finnish team that didn't go the CHL route but instead joined the KHL, I think they are taking a risk. Can the higher level of KHL hockey attract their fans as much as the familiar opponents from the Finnish League, especially their local rival HIFK? And can they afford the higher budget of KHL, especially remembering the first non-Russian finalist team, Lev Prague, had to withdraw from the league after their finalist season because of financial difficulties. Besides, I think it is hard for existing teams to increase their fanbase by joining the KHL as they used to be rivals of other teams and will remain as that even after joining the KHL. Then again, a brand new KHL team might not be a rival for existing teams but it wouldn't have an existing fanbase to start with.
The CHL format reminds me of football in Europe. There are the national leagues with familiar opponents and long-time rivalries as well as the inter-European matches. I think any football fan in e.g. England or Italy would be upset for a suggestion to abandon the national league for an international league. That is how I think it is also in European hockey. Then again, if Jokerit have success in the KHL, I think more Western European teams might be willing to join the KHL, especially if the international CHL matches are well-welcomed but they don't see enough potential in the CHL.
I doubt the CHL could challenge the KHL; there is more money in the KHL unless the KHL faced some crisis. But if the CHL is here to stay, with more tradition it could become a meaningful European title for fans. If there were a serious European title, I am pretty sure fans would appreciate it. If football has League, Cup, and European titles, why couldn't hockey have national and European titles?
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
My preview of the 2014 men's US Open
The field at this year's men's US Open may seem weak. Rafael Nadal is injured and aside. World No. 1 Novak Djokovic underperformed in the two pre-US Open Masters events in Toronto and Cincinnati. Roger Federer had great success in Toronto and Cincinnati, yet isn't playing his best game. Andy Murray is having a difficult season and hasn't won any titles or even achieved finals. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga won the Toronto Masters but lost on the first round of the the Cincinnati Masters. The Australian Open champion Stan Wawrinka has been very inconsistent this year and anything between a title and a first-round loss is possible. David Ferrer and Milos Raonic have been having good runs in the previous weeks, yet they seem unable to win big matches.
Then again, the struggles of big names make this US Open maybe the most unpredictable Grand Slam tournament in years. None of Djokovic, Federer, and Murray are unbeatable, so this is a big chance to get a non-Big Four Grand Slam champion. If Tsonga can bring his form from Toronto, he is in the contention, and Wawrinka showed in Australia he can win a slam. And unless the big names improve their games, there will be more players who could beat them.
Roger Federer has obviously been in the best form in recent weeks. A final on Wimbledon's grass, then a final in Toronto and a title in Cincinnati in Masters events on DecoTurf. But he isn't way above the field, as shown by his loss to Tsonga in the Toronto final as well as by some tight matches in the recent weeks. We have seen this year that he isn't unbeatable. Then again, his performances in Toronto and Cincinnati show he can win the US Open.
Novak Djokovic hasn't been too impressive after winning Wimbledon. Both Toronto and Cincinnati ended with a round-of-16 loss, to Tsonga and Robredo. I think it all comes down to if he can find his best level; if he can, he is the favorite as he is the most consistent player on the top. But if he can't find his best level, there will be players with the abilities to beat him.
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga won the Masters event in Toronto but lost on the first round in the Masters event in Cincinnati the following week. The title in Toronto showed he can still succeed, something one could doubt after his poor first half of the season. When he is playing his best tennis, he can beat anybody on the tour. He definitely has a chance to win the US Open. Then again, he isn't the most consistent player on the tour so we must see if he can bring his best game. Also, he still lacks a Grand Slam title, so winning the US Open might be a big task mentally.
Stan Wawrinka has been very inconsistent this year. After his Australian Open title, he had difficult tournaments before winning the Masters event of Monte Carlo, propelling him to the top of the Race to London. After that, he has been unable to win titles and the French Open was a huge disappointment with a first-round loss. At Wimbledon, he made the quarterfinals, which was his career-best result there. His performances in Toronto and Cincinnati were mediocre, round of 16 and quarterfinals. He needs to play better at the US Open if he wants to win there. If he could bring his best game, then he would be one of the biggest favorites to win the title; he has been great in the hardcourt slams in the last two seasons. And the Australian Open and Monte Carlo titles show he has the mental abilities to win big titles.
A few words about Andy Murray. His level after the back surgery hasn't been on the level it used to be. His best performance so far has been the semifinal at the French Open. I believe he will go through the early rounds with his consistency but at some point in the second week, he will face a player who is better than him. Let's face it, he is only ninth in the rankings, there are players who are playing better than him. I just can't see him winning the US Open.
David Ferrer made the final in Cincinnati. With the big names underperforming, Ferrer might have a chance to win a slam at the US Open. Unfortunately, he seems to lack the ability, or maybe just the faith, to win big matches against big names. Of the nine significant finals he has played in his career, he has won only one, the only one without a Big Four opponent. I wouldn't be surprised if he made the final in New York but I would be (very positively) surprised if he won the title.
Milos Raonic has been playing a solid season. Then again, he seems to be able to make the most of his draws but is unable to beat the best players. That's why I think he isn't ready to win a slam. Grigor Dimitrov is another youngster who has made the top 10 this season, yet also he doesn't seem able to beat the best players yet. Besides, Dimitrov has been more inconsistent, so a first-week exit by Dimitrov wouldn't be as much of an upset as by Raonic.
A player who might have abilities to trouble big names is Marin Cilic. His current ranking of 16 means harder draws for him, though, as seen recently. He lost on the round of 16 in Toronto to Federer and in Cincinnati to Wawrinka. Both times he lost in three sets. In the Wimbledon quarterfinals, he lost in five to Djokovic. Also at the French Open, his tournament ended against Djokovic; four-set loss on the round of 32. Cilic might have the skills and the form to succeed at the US Open but the question is if he has the mentality. He is still to prove he has the mental abilities to win big matches. That is what he needs to do if he is to win the US Open. Plus he may have a tough draw.
So, I think Federer and Djokovic are the favourites at the US Open. Tsonga and Wawrinka are the players who have the abilities to challenge and even outplay them; then again they may underperform badly. And if Federer and Djokovic underperform, there are lots of players with a chance to win the title.
Then again, the struggles of big names make this US Open maybe the most unpredictable Grand Slam tournament in years. None of Djokovic, Federer, and Murray are unbeatable, so this is a big chance to get a non-Big Four Grand Slam champion. If Tsonga can bring his form from Toronto, he is in the contention, and Wawrinka showed in Australia he can win a slam. And unless the big names improve their games, there will be more players who could beat them.
Roger Federer has obviously been in the best form in recent weeks. A final on Wimbledon's grass, then a final in Toronto and a title in Cincinnati in Masters events on DecoTurf. But he isn't way above the field, as shown by his loss to Tsonga in the Toronto final as well as by some tight matches in the recent weeks. We have seen this year that he isn't unbeatable. Then again, his performances in Toronto and Cincinnati show he can win the US Open.
Novak Djokovic hasn't been too impressive after winning Wimbledon. Both Toronto and Cincinnati ended with a round-of-16 loss, to Tsonga and Robredo. I think it all comes down to if he can find his best level; if he can, he is the favorite as he is the most consistent player on the top. But if he can't find his best level, there will be players with the abilities to beat him.
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga won the Masters event in Toronto but lost on the first round in the Masters event in Cincinnati the following week. The title in Toronto showed he can still succeed, something one could doubt after his poor first half of the season. When he is playing his best tennis, he can beat anybody on the tour. He definitely has a chance to win the US Open. Then again, he isn't the most consistent player on the tour so we must see if he can bring his best game. Also, he still lacks a Grand Slam title, so winning the US Open might be a big task mentally.
Stan Wawrinka has been very inconsistent this year. After his Australian Open title, he had difficult tournaments before winning the Masters event of Monte Carlo, propelling him to the top of the Race to London. After that, he has been unable to win titles and the French Open was a huge disappointment with a first-round loss. At Wimbledon, he made the quarterfinals, which was his career-best result there. His performances in Toronto and Cincinnati were mediocre, round of 16 and quarterfinals. He needs to play better at the US Open if he wants to win there. If he could bring his best game, then he would be one of the biggest favorites to win the title; he has been great in the hardcourt slams in the last two seasons. And the Australian Open and Monte Carlo titles show he has the mental abilities to win big titles.
A few words about Andy Murray. His level after the back surgery hasn't been on the level it used to be. His best performance so far has been the semifinal at the French Open. I believe he will go through the early rounds with his consistency but at some point in the second week, he will face a player who is better than him. Let's face it, he is only ninth in the rankings, there are players who are playing better than him. I just can't see him winning the US Open.
David Ferrer made the final in Cincinnati. With the big names underperforming, Ferrer might have a chance to win a slam at the US Open. Unfortunately, he seems to lack the ability, or maybe just the faith, to win big matches against big names. Of the nine significant finals he has played in his career, he has won only one, the only one without a Big Four opponent. I wouldn't be surprised if he made the final in New York but I would be (very positively) surprised if he won the title.
Milos Raonic has been playing a solid season. Then again, he seems to be able to make the most of his draws but is unable to beat the best players. That's why I think he isn't ready to win a slam. Grigor Dimitrov is another youngster who has made the top 10 this season, yet also he doesn't seem able to beat the best players yet. Besides, Dimitrov has been more inconsistent, so a first-week exit by Dimitrov wouldn't be as much of an upset as by Raonic.
A player who might have abilities to trouble big names is Marin Cilic. His current ranking of 16 means harder draws for him, though, as seen recently. He lost on the round of 16 in Toronto to Federer and in Cincinnati to Wawrinka. Both times he lost in three sets. In the Wimbledon quarterfinals, he lost in five to Djokovic. Also at the French Open, his tournament ended against Djokovic; four-set loss on the round of 32. Cilic might have the skills and the form to succeed at the US Open but the question is if he has the mentality. He is still to prove he has the mental abilities to win big matches. That is what he needs to do if he is to win the US Open. Plus he may have a tough draw.
So, I think Federer and Djokovic are the favourites at the US Open. Tsonga and Wawrinka are the players who have the abilities to challenge and even outplay them; then again they may underperform badly. And if Federer and Djokovic underperform, there are lots of players with a chance to win the title.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Rule changes in F1 in the past ten years and my opinion on them
Niki Lauda has suggested that the rule changes of the last ten years should be reconsidered. (Original article in German) The article lists the 77 rule changes of the last ten years. 45 of them were in the Technical Regulations and 32 in Sporting Regulations. Here are the changes and what I think about them.
As for the aerodynamic changes for 2005, I don't have much to say. Obviously they were intented to help overtaking as the cars' aerodynamic sensitivity has made following another car so difficult.
Banning tyre changes was a bad decision in my opinion. Having one set of tyres for the race forced drivers to look more after their tyres, and I don't think that kind of tyre management belongs to F1.
Allowing a third car for lower-placed teams wasn't a good rule in my opinion. After a weak 2004 season, McLaren had a third car for Friday practices whereas their title rival Renault didn't have one. That sounds like un unfair rule.
Reintroducing the tyre changes was a good thing in my opinion. As I wrote above, I think one set of tyres for a race required too much tyre management.
I have had mixed feelings about single-supply tyres. On one hand, I think the tyre war belongs to F1. On the other hand, tyres may have played a bit too big role. In 2006, there were some obvious Bridgestone races and some obvious Michelin races. That was a bit too predictable. When it comes to the mandatory use of both compounds, I am not completely sure it improves racing. Most drivers will have the same optimal tyre strategy, even though it enables some gambles with strategy. But it means there are some drivers with different tyre compounds so that should create some overtaking. I wouldn't say the mandatory use of both compounds is such a bad rule. The limited number of tyre sets per weekend obviously helps to cut costs.
The Safety Car rules for 2007 were changed to prevent the race to pits during yellow flags before the Safety Car. The downside of those rules was that you can't exploit the lead you had before the Safety Car to have a pitstop plus if you had to pit for refuelling before pitting was allowed again, you got a penalty. Luckily that rule isn't anymore in effect.
My opinion on longlife gearboxes is similar to my opinion on longlife engines. In my opinion, no components should be required to last more than one weekend. But the longlife gearboxes are to restrict costs so they are there to stay.
As it has became obvious, I don't really like the idea of longlife components but I have preferred the rules for engine life since 2009. Now you don't automatically get a penalty from an engine change unless you have used too many engines during the season or the car is in Parc Ferme after the qualifying.
The introduction of KERS was obviously something F1 had to do. They had to bring some eco aspect to F1, even though the road relevance of F1 KERS is debatable.
In order to cut costs, testing as well as the use of wind tunnels and computational fluid dynamics has been restricted. Personally I must say, I don't miss in-season testing so much. The downside of restricted on-track testing is that it favours teams with better wind tunnel and CFD facilities whereas smaller teams would be more in line with the big teams in on-track testing. On the other hand, unlimited track testing would mean that the richest teams could spend huge amounts of money in developing the car what smaller teams couldn't do.
In 2009, KERS didn't bring much advantage; the two best cars of 2009 didn't even have KERS. The weight of KERS affected to the weight distribution of the car and to reduce that disadvantage, the minimum weight was increased, even though the teams had agreed not to use KERS in 2010.
Refuelling was banned for safety reasons. I must say, I miss refuelling. It brough more tactical aspects to racing, even though that may have meant less action on track as the drivers were relying on the pit strategy.
Once again, costs were tried to cut with some rules: reduced number of tyre sets, cap on engine price, restrictions on testing, and restrictions on staff.
Drag Reduction System was an easy solution to increase overtaking. When you are close enough, you get a speed advantage helping you to get past the car ahead. But that kind of passing isn't very spectacular. I would have regulations that would make the cars such that you can overtake with them more easily, without aids like DRS. And if there must be an overtaking aid, I would prefer IndyCar-style push-to-pass. You can use it only for a certain number of times during a race, so you must manage push-to-passes, and you can use it also to defend.
With standing restarts in 2015, it seems like Safety Car periods are being used to bring some action. I much prefer how they do at Le Mans where they try to avoid safety car periods with yellow flag zones where you must slow down noticeably. Le Mans wants the Safety Car to affect to the race as little as possible, F1 as much as possible.
The personal numbers aren't such a big deal but I would have preferred assigning the permanent numbers to teams. In car racing, the numbers usually belong to the car owners, and the number system used in F1 until 1995 basically had semi-permanent numbers for teams, so there would have been legendary numbers like 27 and 28 for Ferrari or 5 and 6 for Williams.
As for the Technical Regulations, I would go for more road relevance, that would bring more car manufacturers to F1. Maybe more freedom in the regulations. At Le Mans, Audi, Toyota, and Porsche have completely different engines. If you think about F1, Ferrari and Renault are completely different car manufacturers. What is relevant for one of them is not necessarily for another of them. Allow more freedom and F1 would be more attractive for car manufacturers. As for the Sporting Regulations, I would prefer less gimmicks to improve the show and I would like the rules to promote more pure racing.
And moreover, I would prefer more stability with the rules. At the same time, F1 wants to cut costs but is constantly changing rules, which brings costs to teams. More stable rules would make F1 more attractive for new teams and engine manufacturers.
Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2005
- The engines must last 2 Grand Prix weekends (instead of one)
- The front wing must be at the height of 15cm (instead of 10cm)
- The rear wing must be moved 15cm closer to the car
- The diffuser may be at maximum 12.5cm high
As for the aerodynamic changes for 2005, I don't have much to say. Obviously they were intented to help overtaking as the cars' aerodynamic sensitivity has made following another car so difficult.
Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2005
- The qualification consists of two single laps the times of which will be aggregated
- Tyre changes during the race are banned
- Teams from the fifth place in the Constructors' Championship may run a third car on Friday
Banning tyre changes was a bad decision in my opinion. Having one set of tyres for the race forced drivers to look more after their tyres, and I don't think that kind of tyre management belongs to F1.
Allowing a third car for lower-placed teams wasn't a good rule in my opinion. After a weak 2004 season, McLaren had a third car for Friday practices whereas their title rival Renault didn't have one. That sounds like un unfair rule.
Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2006
- Engines with 8 cylinders and 2.4 liter capacity
Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2006
- Qualification with a three-phase knockout system
- Tyre changes are again allowed
Reintroducing the tyre changes was a good thing in my opinion. As I wrote above, I think one set of tyres for a race required too much tyre management.
Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2007
- Maximum RPM of engines 19,000, development frozen
Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2007
- The Friday practice consists of two 90min sessions (instead of two 60min sessions)
- During a Safety Car period, the pit lane remains closed until all cars are in queue behind the Safety Car
- Single supply tyres: During the race, both tyre compounds must be used
- Maximum of 14 tyre sets per driver per race
- Maximum of 30,000 testing kilometers per team
I have had mixed feelings about single-supply tyres. On one hand, I think the tyre war belongs to F1. On the other hand, tyres may have played a bit too big role. In 2006, there were some obvious Bridgestone races and some obvious Michelin races. That was a bit too predictable. When it comes to the mandatory use of both compounds, I am not completely sure it improves racing. Most drivers will have the same optimal tyre strategy, even though it enables some gambles with strategy. But it means there are some drivers with different tyre compounds so that should create some overtaking. I wouldn't say the mandatory use of both compounds is such a bad rule. The limited number of tyre sets per weekend obviously helps to cut costs.
The Safety Car rules for 2007 were changed to prevent the race to pits during yellow flags before the Safety Car. The downside of those rules was that you can't exploit the lead you had before the Safety Car to have a pitstop plus if you had to pit for refuelling before pitting was allowed again, you got a penalty. Luckily that rule isn't anymore in effect.
Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2008
- Introduction of standard electronics, no more traction control
- Gearbox must last 4 GP weekends
My opinion on longlife gearboxes is similar to my opinion on longlife engines. In my opinion, no components should be required to last more than one weekend. But the longlife gearboxes are to restrict costs so they are there to stay.
Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2008
- Spare cars are banned
Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2009
- The big aero reform with 180cm wide front wings (instead of 140cm)
- 75cm wide rear wings (instead of 100cm)
- 95cm high rear wings (instead of 80cm)
- Diffuser height 17.5cm in center, 12.5cm outside
- Winglets and fins on the bodywork banned
- Return of slick tyres
- Maximum RPM of engines 18,000
- Maximum of 8 engines per year
- KERS allowed, 82 hp for 6.7 seconds per lap
As it has became obvious, I don't really like the idea of longlife components but I have preferred the rules for engine life since 2009. Now you don't automatically get a penalty from an engine change unless you have used too many engines during the season or the car is in Parc Ferme after the qualifying.
The introduction of KERS was obviously something F1 had to do. They had to bring some eco aspect to F1, even though the road relevance of F1 KERS is debatable.
Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2009
- Pit lane during Safety Car periods again open, delta time for the inlap
- Maximum of 15,000 testing kilometers and 20 test days
- Maximum of 60 wind tunnel hours per week, 60% models at maximum, maximum of 40 teraflops computer capacity
In order to cut costs, testing as well as the use of wind tunnels and computational fluid dynamics has been restricted. Personally I must say, I don't miss in-season testing so much. The downside of restricted on-track testing is that it favours teams with better wind tunnel and CFD facilities whereas smaller teams would be more in line with the big teams in on-track testing. On the other hand, unlimited track testing would mean that the richest teams could spend huge amounts of money in developing the car what smaller teams couldn't do.
Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2010
- Tyre width restricted to 245mm (front) and 325mm (rear)
- Minimum weight 620kg (instead of 605kg)
- KERS voluntarily abandoned
In 2009, KERS didn't bring much advantage; the two best cars of 2009 didn't even have KERS. The weight of KERS affected to the weight distribution of the car and to reduce that disadvantage, the minimum weight was increased, even though the teams had agreed not to use KERS in 2010.
Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2010
- New points system 25-18-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 (instead of 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1)
- Refuelling banned
- 11 tyre sets per driver per GP weekend (instead of 14)
- Maximum cost of customer engines €9 million
- 15 testing days (before the season) + 3 (after the season) with 1 car per team
- At a restart after a Safety Car period, overtaking allowed after the SC line at pit entry (instead after the start/finish line)
- Maximum of 47 staff members per team at track
Refuelling was banned for safety reasons. I must say, I miss refuelling. It brough more tactical aspects to racing, even though that may have meant less action on track as the drivers were relying on the pit strategy.
Once again, costs were tried to cut with some rules: reduced number of tyre sets, cap on engine price, restrictions on testing, and restrictions on staff.
Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2011
- Double diffuser banned. Maximal diffuser height over the whole width 12.5cm
- F-duct banned
- Introduction of the Drag Reduction System. Free use in practice and qualifying, in race in certain places
- KERS again allowed
- Minimum weight 640kg (instead of 620kg)
- Fixed weight distribution +/- 1%
- Gearbox must last 5 GP weekends
Drag Reduction System was an easy solution to increase overtaking. When you are close enough, you get a speed advantage helping you to get past the car ahead. But that kind of passing isn't very spectacular. I would have regulations that would make the cars such that you can overtake with them more easily, without aids like DRS. And if there must be an overtaking aid, I would prefer IndyCar-style push-to-pass. You can use it only for a certain number of times during a race, so you must manage push-to-passes, and you can use it also to defend.
Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2011
- Team orders allowed
Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2012
- Chassis height at the front axle 55cm (instead of 62.5cm)
- Regulations for the position of the exhaust tailpipe
- Retarted ignition with all 8 cylinders banned
Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2012
- Race duration with breaks 4 hours at maximum
- When overtaking, both drivers must leave a car's widh space
- Unlapping during Safety Car periods
With standing restarts in 2015, it seems like Safety Car periods are being used to bring some action. I much prefer how they do at Le Mans where they try to avoid safety car periods with yellow flag zones where you must slow down noticeably. Le Mans wants the Safety Car to affect to the race as little as possible, F1 as much as possible.
Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2013
- Double DRS banned
- DRS use also in practice and qualifying only in the DRS zone
- Minimum weight 642kg (instead of 640kg)
Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2013
- Maximum of 12 testing days (instead of 15)
- Maximum of 60 staff members at track
Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2014
- The big engine reform with 1.6-litre turbo V6, direct injection, and two electric units MGU-K and MGU-H
- Maximal fuel flow of 100kg per hour
- 8-speed gearbox (previous maximum 7-speed)
- Maximum of 5 engines per driver per year
- Exhaust position central in rear, only one exhaust
- Maximal nose height 18.5cm
- Front wing width 165cm (instead of 180cm)
- Rear wing with two elements at maximum (previously three)
- Minimum weight 691kg (previously 642kg), brake-by-wire allowed
- Gearbox must last 6 GP weekends
- Introduction of a standard side crash structure
Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2014
- Maximum of 100kg of fuel for a race
- Double points in the season finale
- Introduction of penalty points: with 12 points during 365 days a race ban
- Personal numbers for drivers for their entire career
- Ban of FRIC?
The personal numbers aren't such a big deal but I would have preferred assigning the permanent numbers to teams. In car racing, the numbers usually belong to the car owners, and the number system used in F1 until 1995 basically had semi-permanent numbers for teams, so there would have been legendary numbers like 27 and 28 for Ferrari or 5 and 6 for Williams.
How would I change regulations?
As for the Technical Regulations, I would go for more road relevance, that would bring more car manufacturers to F1. Maybe more freedom in the regulations. At Le Mans, Audi, Toyota, and Porsche have completely different engines. If you think about F1, Ferrari and Renault are completely different car manufacturers. What is relevant for one of them is not necessarily for another of them. Allow more freedom and F1 would be more attractive for car manufacturers. As for the Sporting Regulations, I would prefer less gimmicks to improve the show and I would like the rules to promote more pure racing.
And moreover, I would prefer more stability with the rules. At the same time, F1 wants to cut costs but is constantly changing rules, which brings costs to teams. More stable rules would make F1 more attractive for new teams and engine manufacturers.
Monday, July 7, 2014
What next for Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer?
Today's Wimbledon final was a big match for both players, Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer. Djokovic's last Grand Slam title was from the last year's Australian Open. After that, he has always been beaten in slams by the eventual champions, and he didn't seem to play his best tennis in those matches. Most recently, he lost the French Open final to Rafael Nadal after winning the first set. The question was if he could finally play his best game in a Grand Slam final and win it.
Federer won his last Grand Slam title at Wimbledon two years ago, which made him again the World No. 1. But 2013 was a bad year for him, for the first time since 2003, he fell out of the top 4, he won only one title, and his Wimbledon title defense ended on the second round ending his streak of 36 consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinals. His 2014 season with a new racquet and a new coach Stefan Edberg had started much better; he was fourth in the Race to London ranking and now he was playing in his first Grand Slam final in two years, at the mature age of 32. Could he win it and surpass Pete Sampras in Wimbledon titles as well as get one further Grand Slam title away from Rafael Nadal.
Well, Djokovic won the final in five sets. He was the better player most of the match. Federer took the first set to tiebreak and won it but Djokovic won the next two. Djokovic was up a break in the fourth set and serving for the championship but then Federer broke back, his first break in the match. In the following game, Djokovic had a match point in Federer's serve but Federer could hold his serve and broke Djokovic's serve in the following game to take the match to the fifth set. At this point, it seemed like Federer was the better player on court. But Djokovic could hold his serves, and nerves, and at 5-4, he broke Federer's serve to win the championship.
But what to expect from these players in the future? It is somewhat surprising that Djokovic won his second Wimbledon title before his second US Open title as grass is considered as his worst surface and hardcourt as his best. The higher number of excellent hard-courters compared to excellent grass-courters explains that, as well as today's Wimbledon playing more like a fast hard court where you don't necessarily need special grass skills. Still, despite the US Open not being his most successful tournament, he is now my favourite for that title. He is the best hardcourt player on the tour. Hopefully now after ending the Grand Slam drought at Wimbledon, he has more mental strength in big points, what he has lacked so often at slams in the last two years. And as he is very unlikely to reach Federer in Grand Slam title count, or even another great of this era, Nadal, his biggest aim must be to complete the career Grand Slam at the French Open. I wrote about his chances to win the French Open in the last month, and now all I can add to it is that at least next year he won't have the pressure of winning no Grand Slam titles in the previous 17 months.
Then, what to expect from Federer? I am afraid this was his last big chance to win a slam. He is playing an excellent year, he will be the World No. 3 on Monday, ahead of Grand Slam champion Stan Wawrinka. But I am afraid it is not anymore in his racquet. Djokovic is now better than Federer on grass. Nadal is better, at least on clay and hard courts. I think also Wawrinka is very dangerous, he beat Federer on Monte Carlo's clay and I believe he can play on a higher level also on hard courts. And there are dangerous players like Nishikori and Gulbis. As well as Roger is playing, he played better in 2012 when he won his last slam. In 2012, he routined Djokovic in the Wimbledon semifinal, today he lost to him. Although I don't rate Djokovic even close to peak Federer as a grass-courter, I must say he is now better on grass than Federer, today's match showed that. And if Murray can find his old form, I think he could also be better than Federer on grass. All in all, I am afraid the days are over when Federer could outplay the opposition to win a slam. Even on his beloved grass, there are now players that can play better than him. Now he needs some luck to win a slam, he needs others underperforming. Outside grass, that is very difficult, there are too many players that can beat him. On grass, a slam might be possible, there aren't so many excellent grass-courters. But there is only one slam on grass, and every year Federer is one year older and has declined more. I see it very hard for Federer to win another slam. Maybe the chance to surpass Sampras in Wimbledon titles motivates him to fight against decline to win one more Wimbledon title. But I am afraid Wimbledon 2012 will remain as his last Grand Slam title. Today he had a chance to win yet another but he couldn't do it. It won't be any easier in the future, just harder.
Federer won his last Grand Slam title at Wimbledon two years ago, which made him again the World No. 1. But 2013 was a bad year for him, for the first time since 2003, he fell out of the top 4, he won only one title, and his Wimbledon title defense ended on the second round ending his streak of 36 consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinals. His 2014 season with a new racquet and a new coach Stefan Edberg had started much better; he was fourth in the Race to London ranking and now he was playing in his first Grand Slam final in two years, at the mature age of 32. Could he win it and surpass Pete Sampras in Wimbledon titles as well as get one further Grand Slam title away from Rafael Nadal.
Well, Djokovic won the final in five sets. He was the better player most of the match. Federer took the first set to tiebreak and won it but Djokovic won the next two. Djokovic was up a break in the fourth set and serving for the championship but then Federer broke back, his first break in the match. In the following game, Djokovic had a match point in Federer's serve but Federer could hold his serve and broke Djokovic's serve in the following game to take the match to the fifth set. At this point, it seemed like Federer was the better player on court. But Djokovic could hold his serves, and nerves, and at 5-4, he broke Federer's serve to win the championship.
But what to expect from these players in the future? It is somewhat surprising that Djokovic won his second Wimbledon title before his second US Open title as grass is considered as his worst surface and hardcourt as his best. The higher number of excellent hard-courters compared to excellent grass-courters explains that, as well as today's Wimbledon playing more like a fast hard court where you don't necessarily need special grass skills. Still, despite the US Open not being his most successful tournament, he is now my favourite for that title. He is the best hardcourt player on the tour. Hopefully now after ending the Grand Slam drought at Wimbledon, he has more mental strength in big points, what he has lacked so often at slams in the last two years. And as he is very unlikely to reach Federer in Grand Slam title count, or even another great of this era, Nadal, his biggest aim must be to complete the career Grand Slam at the French Open. I wrote about his chances to win the French Open in the last month, and now all I can add to it is that at least next year he won't have the pressure of winning no Grand Slam titles in the previous 17 months.
Then, what to expect from Federer? I am afraid this was his last big chance to win a slam. He is playing an excellent year, he will be the World No. 3 on Monday, ahead of Grand Slam champion Stan Wawrinka. But I am afraid it is not anymore in his racquet. Djokovic is now better than Federer on grass. Nadal is better, at least on clay and hard courts. I think also Wawrinka is very dangerous, he beat Federer on Monte Carlo's clay and I believe he can play on a higher level also on hard courts. And there are dangerous players like Nishikori and Gulbis. As well as Roger is playing, he played better in 2012 when he won his last slam. In 2012, he routined Djokovic in the Wimbledon semifinal, today he lost to him. Although I don't rate Djokovic even close to peak Federer as a grass-courter, I must say he is now better on grass than Federer, today's match showed that. And if Murray can find his old form, I think he could also be better than Federer on grass. All in all, I am afraid the days are over when Federer could outplay the opposition to win a slam. Even on his beloved grass, there are now players that can play better than him. Now he needs some luck to win a slam, he needs others underperforming. Outside grass, that is very difficult, there are too many players that can beat him. On grass, a slam might be possible, there aren't so many excellent grass-courters. But there is only one slam on grass, and every year Federer is one year older and has declined more. I see it very hard for Federer to win another slam. Maybe the chance to surpass Sampras in Wimbledon titles motivates him to fight against decline to win one more Wimbledon title. But I am afraid Wimbledon 2012 will remain as his last Grand Slam title. Today he had a chance to win yet another but he couldn't do it. It won't be any easier in the future, just harder.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
The future of Williams?
A front row lockout and finishing third and fourth at last weekend's Austrian Grand Prix was a great result from Williams whose last years have had lots of ups and downs. They fell from a top team to a midfield team once their partnership with BMW ended after the 2005 season. 2011 was their worst season in decades, ninth position in the constructors' championship with only five points. After that, one could wonder if there were any hope for a better future for Williams. That's why their good form in the 2012 season was a positive surprise. Pastor Maldonado won the Spanish Grand Prix for the team, their first win since Juan Pablo Montoya at the 2004 Brazilian GP. Yet they couldn't finish higher than eighth in the constructors' championship; Maldonado was way too inconsistent and Bruno Senna didn’t have the pace.
2013 was again a difficult season for the team. Just like in 2011, they finished ninth in the constructors championship with five points. After the season, Maldonado, with his PDVSA sponsorship, left the team for Lotus. Valtteri Bottas, who had replaced Bruno Senna after 2012, stayed in the team, and a former Ferrari driver Felipe Massa became his new teammate. The team also had to end their engine partnership with Renault and they switched to Mercedes engines.
The switch to Mercedes engines was probably the best thing that could happen to Williams. Mercedes has built the best 2014-spec engine, as shown by their own team dominating the series. That's why also Mercedes' customers have had good results this year. But you can't explain Williams' good form with only the Mercedes engines. They are ahead of McLaren, an established top team. Force India are two points ahead of Williams but they gained lots of points compared to Williams in the early season. Williams seem like the only team besides Red Bull that might have pace to challenge Mercedes, even though Williams doesn't perform everywhere as well as at Montreal and the Red Bull Ring.
But can they repeat this season's results next year and re-establish themselves as a top team? That is hard to say but I am a bit sceptical. I believe that at least some of Red Bull, Ferrari, and McLaren will be stronger next year and will be able to challenge Mercedes. This season is for Williams a bit like the 2012 season was for Williams and Sauber. Suddenly a midfield team has a car capable for podium results, yet they couldn't repeat the success in the following year. One advantage for Williams is the Mercedes engines, though. If Mercedes could retain their advantage for the next year, Williams might find themselves fighting against usual top teams like Red Bull, Ferrari, and McLaren.
The Mercedes engines may have helped Williams to become again a team that can race for podium results but if they are to become a true championship contender, they may need to have another engine partner. After all, Williams are Mercedes' customers and I am not sure they would get full support, especially if that might cost Mercedes' own team a title. McLaren could have stayed as a customer team for Mercedes who are probably the best engine manufacturer in F1. Instead they start a works engine partnership with Honda. Being a customer team isn't an ideal position if you want to race for the titles.
Williams need results like they have had this year to convince some car manufacturer to enter into a works partnership with them. What I think is good for Williams, is that they seem to be financially more stable than other midfield teams, making them more attractive for a long-term partnership. Besides, their non-F1 engineering services might make them an attractive partner for a car manufacturer. Still, at the moment there isn't much talk about potential new engine manufacturers, so having Mercedes customer engines is the best they can have at the moment. Those are the best engines available and help them to establish themselves as a strong midfield team. That is where they need to be to have a chance to become a works team for a new engine manufacturer.
To establish themselves as a strong midfield team, they need also a strong driver line-up. Bottas and Massa is a good pairing, especially Bottas has had some very impressive race performances. But Bottas has been so good that I expect him to leave Williams for a better team in few years unless Williams becomes a true top team. Having at least one excellent driver is necessary for a team. Williams' 2012 season is an example on that. The car had lots of potential, as shown by Maldonado's win in the Spanish GP. But Maldonado was very inconsistent and Bruno Senna lacked pace. With a stronger driver line-up, they might have finished a couple of positions higher in the final standings.
Finding good drivers is difficult for a midfield team, especially as they aren't able to pay much but would rather have drivers who would bring some sponsors. But Williams aren't here alone. The likes of Lotus, Force India, and Sauber have this same problem. One can hope that the good results of this year would bring some new sponsors for Williams to be able to have a strong driver line-up as well as engineering department. Unfortunately we have seen in recent years that good performances don't guarantee new sponsors for midfield teams. Lotus was strong in last two seasons and Sauber in 2012, yet those teams have had financial difficulties.
Williams are having a great season but they still have a long way to become a real top team. They need results like this to attract new sponsors and maybe some car manufacturer to enter into a works partnership. More sponsor income and works engines are in my opinion what Williams need to become a championship contender again.
2013 was again a difficult season for the team. Just like in 2011, they finished ninth in the constructors championship with five points. After the season, Maldonado, with his PDVSA sponsorship, left the team for Lotus. Valtteri Bottas, who had replaced Bruno Senna after 2012, stayed in the team, and a former Ferrari driver Felipe Massa became his new teammate. The team also had to end their engine partnership with Renault and they switched to Mercedes engines.
The switch to Mercedes engines was probably the best thing that could happen to Williams. Mercedes has built the best 2014-spec engine, as shown by their own team dominating the series. That's why also Mercedes' customers have had good results this year. But you can't explain Williams' good form with only the Mercedes engines. They are ahead of McLaren, an established top team. Force India are two points ahead of Williams but they gained lots of points compared to Williams in the early season. Williams seem like the only team besides Red Bull that might have pace to challenge Mercedes, even though Williams doesn't perform everywhere as well as at Montreal and the Red Bull Ring.
But can they repeat this season's results next year and re-establish themselves as a top team? That is hard to say but I am a bit sceptical. I believe that at least some of Red Bull, Ferrari, and McLaren will be stronger next year and will be able to challenge Mercedes. This season is for Williams a bit like the 2012 season was for Williams and Sauber. Suddenly a midfield team has a car capable for podium results, yet they couldn't repeat the success in the following year. One advantage for Williams is the Mercedes engines, though. If Mercedes could retain their advantage for the next year, Williams might find themselves fighting against usual top teams like Red Bull, Ferrari, and McLaren.
The Mercedes engines may have helped Williams to become again a team that can race for podium results but if they are to become a true championship contender, they may need to have another engine partner. After all, Williams are Mercedes' customers and I am not sure they would get full support, especially if that might cost Mercedes' own team a title. McLaren could have stayed as a customer team for Mercedes who are probably the best engine manufacturer in F1. Instead they start a works engine partnership with Honda. Being a customer team isn't an ideal position if you want to race for the titles.
Williams need results like they have had this year to convince some car manufacturer to enter into a works partnership with them. What I think is good for Williams, is that they seem to be financially more stable than other midfield teams, making them more attractive for a long-term partnership. Besides, their non-F1 engineering services might make them an attractive partner for a car manufacturer. Still, at the moment there isn't much talk about potential new engine manufacturers, so having Mercedes customer engines is the best they can have at the moment. Those are the best engines available and help them to establish themselves as a strong midfield team. That is where they need to be to have a chance to become a works team for a new engine manufacturer.
To establish themselves as a strong midfield team, they need also a strong driver line-up. Bottas and Massa is a good pairing, especially Bottas has had some very impressive race performances. But Bottas has been so good that I expect him to leave Williams for a better team in few years unless Williams becomes a true top team. Having at least one excellent driver is necessary for a team. Williams' 2012 season is an example on that. The car had lots of potential, as shown by Maldonado's win in the Spanish GP. But Maldonado was very inconsistent and Bruno Senna lacked pace. With a stronger driver line-up, they might have finished a couple of positions higher in the final standings.
Finding good drivers is difficult for a midfield team, especially as they aren't able to pay much but would rather have drivers who would bring some sponsors. But Williams aren't here alone. The likes of Lotus, Force India, and Sauber have this same problem. One can hope that the good results of this year would bring some new sponsors for Williams to be able to have a strong driver line-up as well as engineering department. Unfortunately we have seen in recent years that good performances don't guarantee new sponsors for midfield teams. Lotus was strong in last two seasons and Sauber in 2012, yet those teams have had financial difficulties.
Williams are having a great season but they still have a long way to become a real top team. They need results like this to attract new sponsors and maybe some car manufacturer to enter into a works partnership. More sponsor income and works engines are in my opinion what Williams need to become a championship contender again.
Monday, June 16, 2014
My report of the 2014 24 Hours of Le Mans
This year's 24 Hours of Le Mans is now behind. For me this was the second Le Mans I really followed. I followed as much of last year's race as possible and enjoyed it, and this time I wanted to see the entire race, and it was a truly great race.
This year marked the return of the works Porsche team to Le Mans. I was happy to see Porsche going to Le Mans; they are such an iconic brand in racing and one of my favourite car brands. I really hope they will have success at Le Mans, yet this year I was actually hoping them not to win. I didn't want them to humiliate Audi and Toyota in the first year after their comeback, especially as Audi is another of my favourite brands.
Audi has dominated Le Mans since 2000 winning all but two races, 2003 and 2009. That's why it is understandable many people wanted to have a new winner. Still, my sympathies were on Audi's side, partly because of their difficult week. The #1 Audi R18 driven by Loic Duval crashed badly in Wednesday's practice session. Duval didn't injure himself badly in the accident but was he had to miss the race and was replaced by Marc Gene. The #1 Audi also couldn't participate the first qualifying session on Wednesday. The qualifying wasn't too good for other Audis, too. The three R18s occupied the starting positions 5 to 7, behind the Toyotas and the Porsches.
Early in the race, #14 Porsche had some fuel system problems that forced it to pits being repaired. Then, with just under two hours of racing, it started to rain heavily and we had some drama. The #8 Toyota driven by Nicolas Lapierre seemed to spin by itself to barriers on the wet track, and at the same a GT Ferrari, driven by Sam Bird hit the #3 Audi driven by Marco Bonanomi. The Audi had to retire whereas the Toyota was able to continue the race but lost lots of time being repaired.
At night, the #1 Audi had to pit to get the fuel injector changed. Also the #14 Porsche faced again problems, being forced to have again a long pit stop. Meanwhile the #7 Toyota was racing with a comfortable lead of almost two minutes to the second-placed #2 Audi. Then, in early morning we had the most dramatic moment of the race. The leading #7 Toyota had been reported to have stopped at Arnage and the #2 Audi took the lead. An electrical problem had forced the Toyota to retire from the lead.
Now, despite all the struggles of the week, the Audi team found themselves having a one-two lead in the race with #2 in the lead and #1 second. The #20 Porsche was on the third place in front of the #8 Toyota and #14 Porsche who had lost lots of time in pits during the race. But the race was far from over, there was still more than the duration of a regular WEC race to finish. And it wasn't a comfortable finish for Audi. The #2 R18 dropped to third position because its turbocharger had to be changed. Now the #1 Audi was leading the race, after being heavily crashed on Wednesday's practice. One of its drivers was the record-winner of Le Mans, Tom Kristensen, aiming for his tenth win.
But nothing was predictable in this race. The #1 Audi also had to get its turbocharger changed, which dropped it to the 3rd place. Now the #20 Porsche was leading the comeback race of the manufacturer in Le Mans. But the #2 Audi was coming fast from behind and it got past during the pit stops. Eventually, the #20 Porsche couldn't even make the podium as technical issues forced it to retire. Also the #14 Porsche had to pit because of technical problems but it was sent back to track at the end of the race to cross the finish line.
In the end, the race was won by the #2 Audi R18 driven by Marcel Fässler, Andre Lotterer, and Benoit Treluyer. The #1 Audi R18 driven by Tom Kristensen, Marc Gene, and Lucas Di Grassi finished second and the #8 Toyota TS040 driven by Anthony Davidson, Sebastien Buemi, and Nicolas Lapierre finished third.
Many people must have found yet another Audi win boring but I was happy for them after all the difficulties they had this week. In some ways, I can understand the joy of Rafael Nadal's fans after his maybe the worst French Open-winning performance. In both cases, the old winner was vulnerable but nobody else had what it takes to win.
At the same time, I feel gutted for Toyota. They did everything right in the race but to win a 24-hour race, you must have the reliability and they didn't have. They were the fastest car this year and I hope they can win Le Mans soon, even though Toyota doesn't raise the same passion in me as Porsche or Audi.
Porsche had an excellent comeback race even though technical issues ended it. Before those issues, they had even one car racing for the win. I hope and believe they can have success in the next years and have tight battles for wins against other teams. While I was happy that Audi could win after the difficult week, I hope to get a new winning manufacturer as soon as possible. Despite Audi's win, at least this year the battle for the win involved three teams, so you can't say Audi winning was inevitable.
Besides the LMP1 class, I enjoyed the GTE classes. Especially the battle for the win of GTE Pro was exciting with wheel-to-wheel racing. The #51 Ferrari of AF Corse, #97 Aston Martin, and #74 Chevrolet Corvette were battling for the win of GTE Pro. Unfortunately first the #74 Corvette and then the #97 Aston Martin faced technical problems, ending the battle for the win before the race ended. I wanted Aston Martin to have a good result as their last Le Mans was a sad race because of Allan Simonsen's death in the GTE Am class. That's why I was really gutted about the power steering issue that took them off from battling for the GTE Pro class win. Every cloud has a silver lining, though. My countryman Toni Vilander was driving the winning AF Corse #51 Ferrari with Gianmaria Bruni and Giancarlo Fisichella. And Aston Martin could win the GTE Am class with the #95 V8 Vantage GTE; the same number that Simonsen had at last year's Le Mans. Unfortunately their #98 V8 Vantage GTE faced some technical issues while leading the GTE Am class; otherwise they could have had one-two in the class.
I really enjoyed the race, 24 hours of great racing and drama, and no artificial gimmicks like DRS or tyres designed to degrade like in F1. Le Mans and other WEC races aren't so hard to follow for an F1 fan, as there are many F1 drivers there. My motorsport interest is definitely moving from F1 to Le Mans and the WEC.
This year marked the return of the works Porsche team to Le Mans. I was happy to see Porsche going to Le Mans; they are such an iconic brand in racing and one of my favourite car brands. I really hope they will have success at Le Mans, yet this year I was actually hoping them not to win. I didn't want them to humiliate Audi and Toyota in the first year after their comeback, especially as Audi is another of my favourite brands.
Audi has dominated Le Mans since 2000 winning all but two races, 2003 and 2009. That's why it is understandable many people wanted to have a new winner. Still, my sympathies were on Audi's side, partly because of their difficult week. The #1 Audi R18 driven by Loic Duval crashed badly in Wednesday's practice session. Duval didn't injure himself badly in the accident but was he had to miss the race and was replaced by Marc Gene. The #1 Audi also couldn't participate the first qualifying session on Wednesday. The qualifying wasn't too good for other Audis, too. The three R18s occupied the starting positions 5 to 7, behind the Toyotas and the Porsches.
Early in the race, #14 Porsche had some fuel system problems that forced it to pits being repaired. Then, with just under two hours of racing, it started to rain heavily and we had some drama. The #8 Toyota driven by Nicolas Lapierre seemed to spin by itself to barriers on the wet track, and at the same a GT Ferrari, driven by Sam Bird hit the #3 Audi driven by Marco Bonanomi. The Audi had to retire whereas the Toyota was able to continue the race but lost lots of time being repaired.
At night, the #1 Audi had to pit to get the fuel injector changed. Also the #14 Porsche faced again problems, being forced to have again a long pit stop. Meanwhile the #7 Toyota was racing with a comfortable lead of almost two minutes to the second-placed #2 Audi. Then, in early morning we had the most dramatic moment of the race. The leading #7 Toyota had been reported to have stopped at Arnage and the #2 Audi took the lead. An electrical problem had forced the Toyota to retire from the lead.
Now, despite all the struggles of the week, the Audi team found themselves having a one-two lead in the race with #2 in the lead and #1 second. The #20 Porsche was on the third place in front of the #8 Toyota and #14 Porsche who had lost lots of time in pits during the race. But the race was far from over, there was still more than the duration of a regular WEC race to finish. And it wasn't a comfortable finish for Audi. The #2 R18 dropped to third position because its turbocharger had to be changed. Now the #1 Audi was leading the race, after being heavily crashed on Wednesday's practice. One of its drivers was the record-winner of Le Mans, Tom Kristensen, aiming for his tenth win.
But nothing was predictable in this race. The #1 Audi also had to get its turbocharger changed, which dropped it to the 3rd place. Now the #20 Porsche was leading the comeback race of the manufacturer in Le Mans. But the #2 Audi was coming fast from behind and it got past during the pit stops. Eventually, the #20 Porsche couldn't even make the podium as technical issues forced it to retire. Also the #14 Porsche had to pit because of technical problems but it was sent back to track at the end of the race to cross the finish line.
In the end, the race was won by the #2 Audi R18 driven by Marcel Fässler, Andre Lotterer, and Benoit Treluyer. The #1 Audi R18 driven by Tom Kristensen, Marc Gene, and Lucas Di Grassi finished second and the #8 Toyota TS040 driven by Anthony Davidson, Sebastien Buemi, and Nicolas Lapierre finished third.
Many people must have found yet another Audi win boring but I was happy for them after all the difficulties they had this week. In some ways, I can understand the joy of Rafael Nadal's fans after his maybe the worst French Open-winning performance. In both cases, the old winner was vulnerable but nobody else had what it takes to win.
At the same time, I feel gutted for Toyota. They did everything right in the race but to win a 24-hour race, you must have the reliability and they didn't have. They were the fastest car this year and I hope they can win Le Mans soon, even though Toyota doesn't raise the same passion in me as Porsche or Audi.
Porsche had an excellent comeback race even though technical issues ended it. Before those issues, they had even one car racing for the win. I hope and believe they can have success in the next years and have tight battles for wins against other teams. While I was happy that Audi could win after the difficult week, I hope to get a new winning manufacturer as soon as possible. Despite Audi's win, at least this year the battle for the win involved three teams, so you can't say Audi winning was inevitable.
Besides the LMP1 class, I enjoyed the GTE classes. Especially the battle for the win of GTE Pro was exciting with wheel-to-wheel racing. The #51 Ferrari of AF Corse, #97 Aston Martin, and #74 Chevrolet Corvette were battling for the win of GTE Pro. Unfortunately first the #74 Corvette and then the #97 Aston Martin faced technical problems, ending the battle for the win before the race ended. I wanted Aston Martin to have a good result as their last Le Mans was a sad race because of Allan Simonsen's death in the GTE Am class. That's why I was really gutted about the power steering issue that took them off from battling for the GTE Pro class win. Every cloud has a silver lining, though. My countryman Toni Vilander was driving the winning AF Corse #51 Ferrari with Gianmaria Bruni and Giancarlo Fisichella. And Aston Martin could win the GTE Am class with the #95 V8 Vantage GTE; the same number that Simonsen had at last year's Le Mans. Unfortunately their #98 V8 Vantage GTE faced some technical issues while leading the GTE Am class; otherwise they could have had one-two in the class.
I really enjoyed the race, 24 hours of great racing and drama, and no artificial gimmicks like DRS or tyres designed to degrade like in F1. Le Mans and other WEC races aren't so hard to follow for an F1 fan, as there are many F1 drivers there. My motorsport interest is definitely moving from F1 to Le Mans and the WEC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)