Boxing Day Test

Today was not a happy day for Australian cricket. Twenty runs was the highest score on the Australian score card, and the tenth wicket fell before the total score got to three figures. To add insult to injury, it took England just an extended session to overtake Australia's score without losing even one wicket! The atmosphere at the iconic MCG was extremely subdued; no one wants to see such a capitulation, and Australia just did not appear to be competitive enough. If they don't manage to pull this game from the brink, then England will have won the Ashes, and I think Australia will have some very difficult decisions to make: to preserve a core team around which to build with an infusion of young players who can be honed into a top team again over some time. Australia have been such a good team, by a huge margin for such a long time, it is difficult to even contemplate a period of rebuilding, but this is what is required.

I got Matthew Hayden's book "Standing my ground" as a present from Pearl. Australia now needs to manufacture a few new idols of the likes of Hayden. I believe that the captain should also stand aside, for a someone who will be able to take the side into the future; I am not sure that this will or should be Michael Clarke! Anyways, I am not a selector - they will have to think long and hard about this!

Good bye 2010, bring on 2011!

It's difficult to believe, but last night was the shortest night of the year i.e the summer solstice in the southern hemisphere, and with it the holidays are therefore only a breath away! Melbourne has a new buzz, with many visitors including the Barmy Army and the English Cricket Team aka "The Poms" to entertain us on Boxing Day (plus next four, hopefully), and I hope it turns out to be a real contest. The Ashes cricket series is well poised, which has re-ignited interest in the game, - the MCG is a sellout on Sunday!

2010 saw me celebrate a significant anniversary (you can but guess which), included two trips to South Africa and a number of adventures of exploration around Australia. In March we drove along the Victorian and SA (aka South Australian) coast and caught a ferry to Kangaroo Island, yet another very pristine part of the world, which is good to see (and know, since they are becoming scarcer!). In winter we explored Victoria's King Valley and specifically their wine farms! In spring we took Jay, Jacqui and their girls up to Hamilton Island - part of the Whitsundays group on the north-eastern shores of Australia and bordering the GBR (Great Barrier Reef). It was a nice change from Melbourne which was still very chilly and wet. In fact this year has been by far the wettest that I have experienced in Melbourne so far. We sailed up to Whitsundays Beach, apparently one of the top beaches in the world - and I can believe that! It is on Whitsundays Island, which is uninhabited and a nature sanctuary, no doubt majorly contributing to the beach's very pristine nature. We also snorkeled around one of the reefs off the yacht, but were really pressed for time, so we'll have to schedule a return visit.

Personally, I kept myself occupied with two primary passions, namely sailing once or twice a week on Barry's Zardos and cycling. The latter takes up a lot of time too, but I am slightly more in control, since I don't always cycle with our team - the 6am-ers. Still, a routine 40km ride before work in the mornings takes me about 80 or 90 minutes. The routine however makes up for good outings. In October I was seconding Brave Dave of the 6am-ers on his Melbourne to Warnambool quest - not an insignificant 260km ride: however on the day this was compounded with cold temperatures (below 10 degrees C), intermittent showers and a headwind in excess of 30kph for most of the way! However Brave mastered it well, and was rewarded with a prize for his effort! Just earlier this month I went with the team to ride the Tour of Bright (I had not actually entered the race), and this included an ascent of Mount Hotham (ascent in excess of 2000m). I rode both stages and was pleased to finish each of them well. It's probably worth a mention that Pearl and I skied Mt Hotham two years ago!

In between, Melbourne laid on its usual array of activities, but for me the highlight this year was the 2010 World Cycling Championships which took place in Geelong (80km southwest of Melbourne), featuring the world's top riders. (See separate blog post below if you're interested).

Now we're getting ready to spend Christmas at home for the first time in a number of years, hoping to take in some of the cricket, before getting ready for the state titles S80 sailing championships in early January, followed by the Australian Open tennis and the Tour Down Under in quick succession thereafter - and that is just the start of 2011! It will no doubt be at least as hectic as 2010. Bring it on!

Itchy geeks

They do have a tendency to get under your skin, and irritate the s..t out of you! Those are the geeks that just think they know it all, speak in a dialect interspersed with meaningless acronyms, admittedly are more intelligent than the average; but they are at their most irritating when they've convinced you that they have been right all along!

Now, on a different topic, consider the following quote: "Countries that restrict free access to information, or violate the basic rights of Internet users, risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century, ... " oh, how easy it is to slug someone else, one can be so smug and self-righteous, with the firm backing of reason and logic behind one! This was attributed to the US Madame Secretary, speaking in February 2010, and the object of her reference was China and their tendency to shut out voices, just like the above geeks, that are a thorn in their side. Now please don't get me wrong, I am no China apologist, but how ironical, now that the shoe appears to be on the other foot! Is there a hint of double standards? Would the same warning be applicable? Is access to all information indeed a right of Internet users? And whose decision is it anyway? The latest Wiki Leaks are indeed a thorn in the side of the US State Department, inconvenient, embarrassing and yes, even perhaps in a few cases a security threat, but is the reaction justified? Is it directed correctly? I, as I am sure is the case for the majority, have not got any information about the leaked cables from the Wiki Leaks site itself, but rather in the popular media - are they then at least not guilty of the same offence as Wiki Leaks in publishing sensitive information? If the popular press had been restrained, how many, in all honesty, would have sniffed the Wiki Leaks site for the information?

I am not sure of the answers to the questions which I have posed, but it does appear as if Madame Secretary's words, at least as far as john citizen is concerned, will be coming back to haunt her and her peers. I found the following survey on the web site of the local Melbourne daily - The Age. I don't think I have ever seen one with 18000+ respondents; moreover with such a large proportion in favour of one specific view.

This must be a real itch for the US Secretary of State and other leaders. The online world is watching their response with interest. As someone recently remarked: "I am not sure whether I am anti - Wiki Leaks, but I do know that I am anti- anti- Wiki Leaks". Somehow the public do develop a sense of what is right and wrong, and often it is not what they are told it to be.

Tour of Bright

Thanks to the 6am-ers cycling team who invited me along to the Tour of Bright this year! I got to ride two legs of the Tour with them: it was tough, but somehow enjoyable.

Although the weather was forecast to be wet, after a deluge on Saturday morning it cleared up, and was really ideal for the tour. Saturday's stage left Bright in a northerly direction towards Ovens, then heading south-eastwards towards Mt Beauty, before a final climb to Tawonga Gap, althogether just over 90km. I battled a bit towards the end, and especially up the climb to Tawonga, but was glad to have made it in a time of just under 3h25 - or averaging 27.5km/h - which is about right for me on that type of terrain, and combarable to some of those racing. Stage map

I did not participate in the time trial on Saturday afternoon, instead trying to get some pics of the team.

I was apprehensive about Sunday's ride. Only about 54km, but about half of the distance would be a climb, in parts in excess of 10%, up to Mount Hotham (1861m) - the last time I was up there, it was to ski. However the first part of the ride was easy, and an excellent opportunity to warm up properly. I rode with John and Lorry to the beginning of the ascent, and then made my way slowly but steadily up. I did not stop, was overtaken by the race pelotons and many individuals, but made it to the top in about 2h50, or 19km/h - again not too  shabby I thought, given that I had not done much hill training this year. Stage map

Anyway, I have now been issued the challenge of entering the race properly next year  - from a number of quarters. That will mean some more concerted training, and therefore dedication. Thanks to "Fabio" for posting the above pic on my facebook page. There is nowhere to hide these days!

Winning and losing

Australians are passionate about sport, there is no question about that, and among them Melbournians are probably the most vociferous supporters. That is until the team or individual stops winning! This is at least my observation which was again reinforced this weekend just gone. Interest in the national cricket side, up against England at the Adelaide Oval, hit an air pocket, and did not re-emerge until this afternoon, when the disinterest finally turned to anger and ridicule - reactions more familiar in South Africans.

This is by no means unique. During the beloved footy season, supporters of the losing team, which does not give a good account of itself, clear out of the stadium way before the end of the match - adding to the poor players' dejection, when, I would rather have thought constructive support might be a better option.

On the topic of cricket however it does appear as if the decade plus of dominance of the game is nearing its end. A rebuilding phase is, or will need to start in earnest, very soon. The choice of personnel to be part of this phase will need to be one of the early, difficult decisions. There will not be another Warny, Gilly, Pigeon or Haydos, but in time the new team will, I am sure, make its own mark, and deliver its own set of heroes and role models. They will need support during this phase, but cannot be expected to win every match and series. This is good for cricket, no?

The cricket was not the only loss inflicted this past week, the other was the 2022 World Cup hosting rights! But the reaction was predictable: yawn and ignore it! The Australian bid did cost us (the tax payer) almost $45m, but we have our footy and league (not to mention super rugby, tennis, F1 GP, etc.) and the bunch of cheating FIFA execs can go and play where ever they choose. "Cheating" because how can someone look you in the eye the night before, pledge you their support, and then not follow through the next day? - this is something very foreign to the straight up and down Aussie. The fact that this was not the action of one, but at least six executives just demonstrates that their values are very different to the ones lived by here. (I had to laugh at one report, hidden in small print somewhere, that the single vote that Australia got for their bid, is now being claimed by two FIFA execs - i.e. even after the fact, they don't want to admit they lied to you!)

Again, my question is whether it is time to give up? South Africa hosted a successful World Cup this year, but can anyone remember that South Africa were done in when bidding for the 2006 World Cup? None less than Nelson Mandela sat where Frank Lowy sat on Thursday last (just found out that I have common heritage with Frank - he too was born in Czechoslovakia, only thirty years before I was), and who got it? GERMANY! To their credit, South Africa did not give up; probably wiser to the workings of FIFA, they bid for the next one and got that. But then, there is England, poor England - the home of the most popular and successful football league, where all players want to play, and the best do. England bid alongside South Africa and Germany for 2006, now they tried again for 2018, only to be denied yet again. It does not make sense to me, is it because they already have the best and don't need 'development'? Why then did Germany, France, and Italy get hosting rights in the last 20 years? However, England won't give up, they'll be there bidding again!

So in conclusion: Don't give up; and don't give up on your team!

Personal note: For years my Australian Super Rugby team were the Queensland Reds. Why? Probably because they were so awful for so many years and needed the support! And besides Victoria did not have a team. All that is changing in 2011. Victoria is getting the Melbourne Rebels, they are the real underdogs, and I am switching my allegiance from Reds to Rebels but then the Reds are so hot now (2010), they will have great support!

Just for the record:
The voting for World Cup 2006:

Three days before the vote was due to take place, in Zurich on 6th July 2000, Brazil withdrew their application to host the 2006 World Cup Final (some say because Pelé is a friend of Beckenbauer's).

This left England, Germany, Morocco and South Africa with competing bids. [NOTE: Was this a trade of votes between Germany and Brazil, who were eventually awarded the 2014 rights??]

First round of voting: The 24 members of the FIFA Executive Committee all cast their votes to decide who would host 2006 World Cup Finals; Africa for once, or Europe yet again.

Germany pulled 10 votes in the first round, South Africa 6, England 5, and Morocco 3.

No-one abstained and Morocco were eliminated.

In the second round of voting, three of those who voted for England in the first round seemed to desert them in favour of South Africa; surely they wouldn't switch to Germany? South Africa tied Germany with eleven votes each. England only attracted two votes and were eliminated.

There was great speculation as to where the last two votes for England would go. If the final ballot tied at 12-12, FIFA President Sepp Blatter was to decide who would have the honour of hosting the 2006 World Cup Finals - he was rumoured to be in favour of South Africa [NOTE: This is a common thread, he was rumoured to favour Australia for 2022?? - bad omen - don't get Blatter

The greatest chance to justifiably bring a World Cup Finals to Africa, for the first time, was squandered.

One of the two remaining votes went to West Germany and the other - in the hands of Charles Dempsey, the New Zealand President of the Oceania Football Confederation - was not submitted. [NOTE: Oceania?? they did not vote for 2022 either, having been disqualified on the grounds of corruption: Bad omen number 2, don't rely on Oceania's support for your bid!] The abstention as good as a vote for West Germany. The media attention Charles Dempsey received, once his inaction became known to the world, forced him to resign from the FIFA Executive Committee and all other FIFA committees of which he was a member. Whatever his real reasons for abstaining and eventually resigning, the World Cup Finals in 2006 were to be hosted in Germany. 

Voting for the 2010 World Cup:

Africa was chosen as the host for the 2010 World Cup as part of a short-lived policy, abandoned in 2007, to rotate the event among football confederations. [NOTE: The 'rules' do change .... there is hope!] Five African nations placed bids to host the 2010 World Cup: Egypt, Morocco, South Africa and a joint bid from Libya and Tunisia. Following the decision of the FIFA Executive Committee not to allow co-hosted tournaments, Tunisia withdrew from the bidding process. The committee also decided not to consider Libya's solo bid as it no longer met all the stipulations laid down in the official List of Requirements.The winning bid was announced by FIFA president Sepp Blatter at a media conference on 15 May 2004 in Zürich; in the first round of voting South Africa received 14 votes, Morocco received 10 votes and Egypt no votes. South Africa were granted the right to host the 2010 World Cup.

Voting for the 2014 World Cup:
Due to the rotation policy, it was already known that the 2014 World Cup Finals would be returning to South America and, being CONMEBOL's only candidate put forward to host the tournament, the announcement that Brazil would host the 2014 World Cup Finals (on Tuesday, October 30th 2007) was merely a formality.

Voting for the 2018 World Cup:
First round: Russia 9; Spain/Portugal 7; Belgium/Netherlands 4; England 2 (eliminated).
Second round: Russia 13; Spain/Portugal 7; Belgium/Netherlands 2.
Russia gets to host WC2018.

Voting for the 2022 World Cup:
First round: Qatar 11; USA 3; South Korea 4; Japan 3; Australia 1 (eliminated).
Second round: Qatar 10; USA 5; South Korea 5; Japan 2 (eliminated).
Third round: Qatar 11; USA 6; South Korea 5; (eliminated).
Fourth round: Qatar 14; USA 8. Qatar get to host WC2022.

Confusing? We may need some other consultants!

Cycling World Championships - Geelong - Elite Men's race

An early start to the day, since the clocks ticked over to summer time last night - but it was worth it. The weather really played along.

Thor Hushovd, the eventual winner of the Rainbow Jersey

The teams took their turns in signing on for the race at Federation Square in central Melbourne. The largest contingents appeared to be from Spain, Italy, US, Netherlands and of course Australia. Opinions about who would end the day in the rainbow jersey varied. Many hoped Cadel would keep the jersey for another year, but Philippe Gilbert appeared to be the favourite of those in the know, but there were many other names in the mix.

Soon all the formalities were over and the teams were racing. First stretch comprised of a flat run to Geelong, (80km). We glimpsed the peloton against a beautiful backdrop of yellow fields from the train on our way to Geelong; then it was 11 heart breaking 16km circuits - 260km is a long way! The peloton eventually got the early break group under control - but paid a heavy price, the Italians, and even the Australians lost some important cavalry as a result.

Last two laps were really exciting. Cadel made some promising breaks; Gilbert almost had it with 3km to go, but eventually the leaders were yet again caught and it was a bunch sprint to the finish. Hushovd, God of Thunder, bided his time - was mid-field for much of the race - and came out smiling on the podium.

More of my pcitures can be found here.

Spring day in Victoria

I had been looking forward to the cycling taking centre stage, with the arrival of some of this sport's top names arriving in Melbourne for the UCI World Championships taking place next weekend in Geelong (70km drive from Melbourne). In case you haven't heard though, the cycling has been up-staged - by Australian Rules Football! The AFL Grand Final was played yesterday, but finished in a DRAW! The rules of the game do not allow extra time, or a golden goal - and therefore next weekend Melbourne will first and foremost host the replay of the AFL Grand Final - and the cycling will unfortunately play second fiddle. (Aside - AFL is Melbourne's ultimate sporting extravaganza, and nothing in Melbourne can up-stage the AFL Grand Final, attended by a capacity MCG crowd (100,000 spectators in the stadium), and at least three live sites in the city one for each team's supporters and one that is non-partisan.) The head of World Road Cycling Championships, is reported to have "felt sick" once the status of the match became apparent.

However after yesterday's surprise draw, a quick morning bike ride (60km to Mordialloc along Beach Road), today we made our way to Buninyong, just outside Ballarat, for the holding of the Sun World Cycling Classic 2010. It was the first really warm day in Victoria after the winter, and the field had some of the top names in cycling (including Phil Liggett commentating) preparing for the UCI World Champs next week. We watched the riders complete seven laps, before the sprint to the finish line. The winner was Italian Filippo Pozzato, Cancellara finishing fourth.

Sailing Zardos

I try and sail every Saturday afternoon - what does this involve?

I am a member at the Royal Brighton Yacht Club, in the southern Melbourne suburbs. It is located on the coast of Port Phillip Bay, and that is also where we sail our races. I am part of a group / team of five crew who sail regularly: Alfredo, Alan, Chris and our skipper Barry are the other team members. Barry also owns Zardos, an S80 class boat. We can sail it with 3, 4 or 5 crew - 4 probably being the best configuration.

Most of our races are pursuits which involve a handicap start i.e. the fastest boats start last - these have the highest time penalty. This means that line honours typically also determine the overall placing in a race. The exception is boats which fly extras (spinaker), which are given a further time penalty, as a percentage of their overall race elapsed time - these are computed after the race, and may change the final line honour placings. Our current handicap for Saturday afternoon racing is 15 minutes - the highest that its ever been i.e. in the eyes of those that determined the handicaps, we are sailing better now than ever before. The results for the winter season are published on the RBYC web site - these include the entrants each week and their handicaps, the results of the race, and the season standings.

We are currently lying in fourth place, but only one behind the third placed boat - that will make next week's last race of the season quite exciting. There are two other S80 class boats at our club, namely San Rafael and Hot Shot - so these are the ones we like to compare ourselves against!

As I'm mostly on the boat without a camera, pictures of our sailing are in short supply, but I'll try and get a couple more to post on my flickr page.

The logic of airline regulation

A part of my job, I look at regulatory issues quite a bit from a financial services standpoint, and understand that regulators, mandated by governments, need to keep certain "free market" businesses in check in the interests of the customer in the longer term. (See discussion of the new Basel Accord changes on www.systemiclogic.com.au soon).

Recentely, however, I was struck by the logic behind the regulation of another industry - the international airlines. Long gone are the days (in most countries) where the country's flag carrying airline had the local business to itself and was actively protected from competition on routes to and from its home country - the industry has seen deregulation, resulting in fares which make flying the cheapest form on travel in most cases. However international routes are still the subject of regulation by regulators of each of the countries which the route aims to connect. Whilst safety is the overriding concern behind the licensing of airlines, customer conevience (frequency of routes, availability) and price are purported to be the prime reasons behind the regulatory approvals of routes and the airlines who want to fly them. "Purported", because from the recent events I have to conclude that the customer convenience cannot be the only factor driving the regualtor decisions.

Example 1:
Eighteen months ago, a second Australia registered carrier (Virgin, flying as V Australia) started flying the route between Australia and the US. Regulatory approval was obtained for both Virgin, and Delta, the second US carrier wanting to operate the route - this was in the interests of the passenger, as it would provide more competition to the two incument airlines, Qantas and United. A year later Virgin and Delta applied for permission to "legally collude", or, as it's euphemistically put, cooperate on the route. The regulator in Australia approved the collusion, whereas the regulator in the US denied this. This is the first inconsistency, since the interests of the customer should be the same, so why are the regulators providing inconsistent decisions? Perhaps there is a national interest issue as well, and the Australian regulator was trying to protect Australia's second airline from further US competition? Anyway: strike one against Virgin.

Example 2:
Trans-Tasman route is predominantly operated by Qantas, Air New Zealand and Virgin. Emirates also extends some of its flights to Australia to fly onto New Zealand, however its role on this route is secondary. Virgin and Air New Zealand applied to collude on the route, and this was denied by the Australian regulator: strike two against Virgin.

Example 3:
Virgin started flying to Johannesburg in South Africa in March of this year. These flights originated in Melbourne, but were nontheless competition to Qantas, whose flights to Johannesburg originate in Sydney, and South Africa's carrier which flies from Perth. Interestingly Qantas and SA legally collude on these routes and sell seats on each others' aircraft, so from a fare point of view, Qantas offer flights from Sydney and Perth. Virgin had some impact on the route pricing, since they launched fares which were lower than the incumbents, however it is interesting to note that fares to Johannesburg are still at least 30% dearer than those to Los Angeles (comparable distance flown, MEL-JNB: $1480, MEL-LAX: $1149), now there is probably an economy of scale which contributes somewhat to this differential, but interesting stat nonetheless. More interesting though is that earlier this year when the Qantas / SA collusion came up for review, the Australian regualor ruled to renew it for a further period: strike three against Virgin, but also, in my view to the detriment of lower fares on the route, and therefore the customer. Eventhough Qantas, in its representation in lobbying for the extension of the collusion with SA, referred to Virgin as the new formidable competitor on the route, it was but a few months later that Virgin announced its withdrawal from the route citing profitability issues. In fact it must have been their load factors which were abysmal, with fares 30% higher than other similar routes, it should have been profitable.

Now the regulatory deicisions cited in the first two examples caused some ire in the Virgin group, causing Branson to "bleat" that its unfair! (No sympathy from me on that front). However taking the third example into the mix as well, one has to wonder when looking at these from the other perspective:
Example 1 - ruling in favour of Qantas
Example 2 - ruling in favour of Qantas
Example 3 - ruling in favour of Qantas - Excuse me for being a bit sceptical and at least suspecting that there might be a slight possibility of conspiracy in favour of one of Australia's national icons - but where does that leave the customer!?


In the interests of transparency, I have to declare that: 1) my interest in the airline idustry is purely as a layman, and I don't have any professional interest or expertise in evaluating them, or their regulation; 2) I have a reputation of supporting the underdog in sport and business, and typically do not like fat and happy incumbent businesses; 3) I fly between Melbourne and Johannesburg at least twice a year, and enjoyed the extra competition, and the direct nature of Virgin's route while it lasted, and was filthy when they decided to withdraw it!

And we finally have .... a new government!

Well not quite, but at least there is some finality on who is responsible for forming Australia's next government.

The pre-occupation of some, we are led to believe, over the last two weeks has been how to resolve a 'dead-heat' result delivered by Australia's voters, with each of the major 'party groupings' having the same number of seats in the lower house. The final say was left to three independents from regional / rural areas of Australia, who normally would have absolutely no influence on the politics of the day - a change, which will hopefully add a bit of spice to an otherwise very bland political landscape.

In my view, the results show that there was very little policy distinction to differentiate the two major parties, and voters probably had an equal dislike for both of the leaders in terms of personalities, or prime minister material potenital. However the ALP (Labor Party) got the luck of the draw with the one distinction that there was - the NBN (for the non-Australian readers, this is the National Broadband Network).

The ALP has a very ambitious and costly ($43bn) plan to roll out a new fibre network to 93% of the population. The Liberal / National coalition on the other hand has a modest $6bn plan which leverages the existing infrastructure, supplemented by some new infrastucture and mobile technology. The distinction is 100gbit vs 12gbit base speeds, and, with the Liberal option, the country areas will most probably have to continue to rely on mobile i.e. second best - again. With the decision on who will govern left with three regional / rural MPs, its no surprise to me that they went with the party that promised new infrastructure in their areas. Oh, yes and there were additional top-up sweeteners, once the "dead-heat" became apparent.

The question is whether new, ground-breaking infrastructure deployment is best left to the private sector, or whether it should involve government. There is a question around economies of scale, where business will never, on its own, invest if it cannot guarantee sufficient demand to get a reasonable return on its investment. Moreover the return should materialise in a foreseeable period. Consequently, if left to business alone, most countries would probably not have the rail infrastructure that they have today, and similarly country Australia would probably not get broadband except via satelite (on a clear day) or mobile, slower technology.

It is true though that there is an element of "build it and they will come". A new railroad makes establishment of new settlements feasible, and I suspect broadband in country areas will facillitate new uses, which may yet obviate the cross-subsidisation of the new infrasstructure by metropolitan area tax payers. As no one likes paying taxes, this is controversial, but may at least lead to a a lasting legacy for the future.

PS: Having just returned from a break outside of a metropolitan area, I witnessed first hand why infrastructure left to the private sector alone is unsatisfactory. In terms of mobile telephony, city dwellers like me have a choice of three or four suppliers, in the country they have one - Telstra; and I wonder if they would have that if Telstra were not once a wholy-owned government entity.

Blog revamp!

After an absence of almost two years, I am planning to revive my blog! There are things that cannot be said in a tweet or that don't belong on facebook, and at the moment this blog is the best place for me to have a say!

I am sticking with the name for now, since I still live in Melbourne, although it will probably not be that meaningful for some.