Michael Vaughan: Broad lifeline means I'm backing England

England Cricket / Michael Vaughan / 30 July 2011 / Leave a Comment

Broad celebrates his hat-trick

"Strauss might have thought England were out of it as Yuvraj and Dravid looked set to pile on the runs. However, after Broad's superb hat-trick, the hosts will be feeling buoyant."

Stuart Broad was the star on day two once again - this time with the ball - and ex-England skipper Michael Vaughan is convinced that England can now go on and triumph...

At the end of a great day at Trent Bridge, England's will be the happier dressing room. The Betfair markets may disagree but I'm sticking with the home team to win the second Test.

They've been given a lifeline by Stuart Broad. On day one, he turned England's fortunes around with a superb innings of 64 and, on day two, he changed the course of the game again with Test best bowling figures of 6 for 46. In the space of a fortnight, he's turned his own form around too and now looks far more at ease with himself.

You can back England at [2.78] to win the match, with India [1.87] and an unlikely draw at [9.0]. India may have scored the bigger first innings total and England would have liked to have ended the day with all wickets intact but they are playing with momentum and conviction. They could win the match on day three but a fourth day is more likely and I still see them winning in Monday's final session at [3.55].

Two hours before the close of play, I feared for England and Andrew Strauss might have thought his team were out of it as Yuvraj Singh and Rahul Dravid looked set to pile on the runs. However, after Broad's superb hat-trick, England will be feeling buoyant.

It's now up to the batsman to make the most of the platform that Broad has give them. Jonathan Trott's injury is a big blow - he's going to be sore and will probably not be able to do much more than come in and block - but England must bat 90 overs. If they can do that they will win this match. They should look to make around 270 on Sunday and then let the attack go all out at India on Monday.

So who will get the runs? Ian Bell may relish his chance to perform at number three and Strauss could do with a captain's innings. However, I have a feeling that someone further down the order could come in and succeed with a bold, aggressive innings, similar to the way Broad did on day one. I won't back the Nottinghamshire man though; instead, I'll have a bet on Any Other Batsman at [3.9] because I can see Matt Prior coming in and smashing it.

After that it will be down to England's bowlers. Dravid and Yuvraj showed their class on Saturday but the Indian tail is woefully long, as Broad demonstrated. Mahendra Dhoni is out of sorts with the bat and the gloves and the tourists are lacking leadership. The pitch is a bit of a gremlin too and the bounce is working in England's favour. Put simply, India don't like it and I can't see things improving for them. Game on, England.

Recommended Bets
Back England @ [2.46] 3pts
Back Day Four Evening @ [2.7] in the Test Match End Market 2pts
Back Any Other Batsman @ [3.9] to England Second Innings Top Bat 1pt

Another thrilling day's cricket draws to a close with India on top, but only just. Andrew Hughes has the details of Saturday's play and looks ahead to tomorrow.

It was hard to take your eye off the action on a dramatic opening day to this Second Test. Andrew Hughes brings us up to date with Friday's events and looks ahead to Saturday's action.

The momentum is with England after Monday evening's events and they can go 2-0 when we head to Nottingham, where conditions will assist the bowlers and mean the match is unlikely to go the distance....

Play Casino & Poker here

Serie A Betting Preview: New philosophy means goals in Florence

Italian Football / Dave Farrar / 18 February 2011 / Leave a Comment

Will Alberto Gilardino be celebrating on Sunday?

The last three matches between Bologna and Palermo point to a feast at the Dall’Ara, and there’s every reason to play over 3.5 goals at [3.4]

Both Fiorentina and Sampdoria look sharp in front of goal so it's worth backing overs when they meet this weekend, says Dave Farrar. Meanwhile, how fortunes have changed since the last time Udinese met Brescia and an entertaining Saturday night is expected in Emilia-Romagna.

Fiorentina v Sampdoria

It's not a vintage Serie A weekend, and so this game at the Artemio Franchi probably counts as the most attractive tie. Fiorentina have had quite a week: Sinisa Mihaijlovic's previously dour side suddenly turned into the great entertainers, producing an astonishing performance by coming from behind to win 4-2 at Palermo, and then counting themselves a little unlucky to lose at home against Inter.

There's no question that Mihaijlovic has decided, perhaps momentarily, to change his footballing philosophy. He's realised that the players that La Viola have are more suited to going forward, and there's certainly a sense that the Serb has let the team off the leash: great news for the likes of Adrian Mutu, Alberto Gilardino, Riccardo Montolivo and Adem Ljajic. Despite losing, Fiorentina created chances against Inter, and are likely to do so again against a Sampdoria side which has also found some much needed threat in front of goal.

Samp scored three in a single half against Bologna last weekend, and yet reverted to type in the Derby della Lanterna against Genoa in midweek, losing 1-0 and failing to show any kind of creativity. It's always been my opinion, though, that you can pretty much discount form from the Genoa derby, as the pressure on both sets of players is unbelievably high, and I expect beleagured coach Mimmo Di Carlo will once again send his team out to attack.

Over 2.5 goals is understandably trading at odds against, as neither of these sides is renowned for being involved in high scoring games, but the change of philosophy from the home team, coupled with Di Carlo's determination to potentially go down fighting, means that we could be set for a surprisingly open game in Tuscany this weekend.

Recommended bets: Back over 2.5 Goals in Fiorentina v Sampdoria @ [2.34]

Udinese v Brescia

I've raved in this column before about the wonderful job that has been done by the Udinese coach Francesco Guidolin and the Zebrette's revival continued under him as last week's victory against Cesena made it four wins out of five and took Udinese to within two points of fourth place.

Guidolin knows that if his team can keep going then they're in with a major chance of a Champions League place, something that seemed an impossible dream when they played Brescia in October: back then, Udinese were bottom of the table. Brescia's fortunes have waned as Udinese's have waxed, and Beppe Iachini's team is now in the bottom three. I don't think that things will get any better for them at the Friuli, but with the excellent Alexis Sanchez suspended, Udinese may not be their usual fluent attacking force and could take a little bit longer than usual to break Brescia down. Over 2.5 goals is trading at [1.85] at the moment and that's too short, although may be worth a look in Betfair's in-play market.

I prefer to think that Udinese will win relatively comfortably and, even though Brescia have managed to grab some unlikely goals away from home this season, backing the home side at [7.0] to win by two goals to nil, with at least one of them almost certainly scored by Antonio Di Natale, is the most intelligent play.

Recommended bet: Udinese to win 2-0 @ [7.0]

Bologna v Palermo

Palermo have been doing the job for us in recent weeks in terms of the over 2.5 goals market, and there's no reason to desert them as they travel to another side who are a threat in front of goal. Four of Bologna's last six matches in all competitions have featured at least three goals, and with Palermo determined to bounce back to form after their humiliating defeat at home against Fiorentina last week, we could be set for some real entertainment in Emilia-Romagna on Saturday evening.

Palermo have a defensive injury crisis heading into the game, and with the knowledge that they're in danger of conceding, Delio Rossi seems certain to send his team out in an attacking frame of mind. The last three matches between these teams also point to a feast at the Dall'Ara, and there's every reason to play over 3.5 goals at [3.4]

Recommendation Over 3.5 Goals in Bologna v Palermo @ [3.4]

Both Fiorentina and Sampdoria look sharp in front of goal so it's worth backing overs when they meet this weekend, says Dave Farrar. Meanwhile, how fortunes have changed since the last time Udinese met Brescia and an entertaining Saturday night...

Napoli's trip to Roma offers good punting opportunities but the even better prospects lie in Palermo v Fiorentina where two selections scream out as big value, says Dave Farrar....

Inter beat Roma 5-3 on Sunday night to further close the gap on rivals AC Milan and prove that Leonardo is the right man to take the team forward. Mind you, he's had a little more help than Rafael Benitez...

Play Casino & Poker here

Cheltenham Festival: Make sure the trends justify the means

Features / Simon Rowlands / 31 January 2011 / Leave a comment Free £25 Bet View Market

Binocular prepped for the Champion Hurdle at Sandown in February 2010 and may do so again this year

Our resident blogger Simon Rowlands points out the shortcomings of some types of conventional trends analysis...

"The fact is that “trends” often seem to exist when they are looked at crudely and weaken or disappear altogether when the data is looked at in a more sophisticated manner. This is a point well worth bearing in mind at this time of year more than most."

Mark Twain is most often cited as the source of the phrase "...there are lies, damned lies, and statistics..." Whether or not it was he who first said it, it is a good job that the author of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer did not then cast his sceptical eye over racing, else he might have added "...and, finally, there are trends."

It is not that all trends are worthless, any more than that all statistics are worthless, just that rather a lot of them are. Their value depends not only on the information that is used but on how that information is interrogated and the conclusions that are drawn from it. Trends frequently fall down in this area.

Views about trends are never so much in evidence than in the lead up to the Cheltenham Festival. There is some justification in this. No race meeting in Britain - and possibly in the world - exerts the kind of pull that the Festival in March does. Horses are targeted at it from months, and sometimes years, in advance. Only good horses win there - well, almost only - and any systemic biases are likely to be crucial.

With that in mind, I thought I would do a quick reprise of some of the possible pitfalls of so-called trends analysis with six "golden" rules. My apologies to anyone who has read something similar from me before, but bad trends analysis seemingly won't go away.

1. Beware of small samples. If you look at most data on a microscopic basis you could easily convince yourself that a trend exists. I backed three winners out of four bets yesterday, but it would be wrong (VERY wrong!) to take that as representative of my betting as a whole.

2. Beware of big samples. The way to offset small samples is not to go so far back into history that the information you are using has little or no relevance to what is about to happen now. Trends, if they exist at all, tend to change over time. Keep things as contemporary as seems suitable.

3. Do not consider only winners. This is a common mistake. While winners are what most people get paid out on, a trend (if it exists) should potentially apply to all horses under consideration. Winners represent only a small fraction of the runners in races.

4. Take into account not just whether a horse wins or loses, but the degree to which it wins or loses. Should a non-winner that was beaten a short head be accorded the same significance as a non-winner that was tailed off? No.

5. Compare realisation with expectation. Horses of a certain age group might have won a given race 80% of the time, but that is neither here nor there if 80% of the time is exactly what you could expect from that age group's representation.

6. Do not apply filtering techniques unless they are strictly justified. The flawed reasoning is that you should rule horses out successively according to whether they "pass" certain criteria until only one or a few "qualifiers" are left. As an example of the folly of this, one criterion could be that a horse is rated a certain figure or higher, another could be that it had been born in a certain month. It is very unlikely that the criteria are of equal worth, and yet crude filtering implies that they are.

I was reminded of the pitfalls of conventional trends analysis by a recent internet discussion as to the worth of a horse prepping for the Champion Hurdle in a given month, a discussion that seems more significant than usual in view of the number of horses already having been put away for the Festival.

Seven of the nine winners of the Champion Hurdle since 2000 had their previous race in February. Then again, more horses - both winners and losers - had run most recently in February than in any other month. However, that is still a strike-rate roughly twice what could be expected.

Sixteen of the twenty-seven placed horses in the Champion Hurdle in the same period had prepped in February. That is roughly one and a half times what could be expected from that age group's representation.

However, if you consider all horses over the period - and the degree to which losers were beaten, not just simply that they were beaten - things become less cut and dried still. In terms of percentage of rivals beaten, which is usually a better way of looking at such matters, horses running in the Champion Hurdle that had prepped in February came out top again, but only just and not to a degree that should be a cause for excitement or a betting strategy.

The figures were: February 52.8%; December 51.8%; January 50.1%; and other months well behind. There is little in it between those three months, which provided over 90% of all runners, in other words.

The fact is that "trends" often seem to exist when they are looked at crudely and weaken or disappear altogether when the data is looked at in a more sophisticated manner.

This is a point well worth bearing in mind at this time of year more than most.

Play Casino & Poker here

Cheltenham Festival: Make sure the trends justify the means

Features / Simon Rowlands / 31 January 2011 / Leave a comment Free £25 Bet View Market

Binocular prepped for the Champion Hurdle at Sandown in February 2010 and may do so again this year

Our resident blogger Simon Rowlands points out the shortcomings of some types of conventional trends analysis...

"The fact is that “trends” often seem to exist when they are looked at crudely and weaken or disappear altogether when the data is looked at in a more sophisticated manner. This is a point well worth bearing in mind at this time of year more than most."

Mark Twain is most often cited as the source of the phrase "...there are lies, damned lies, and statistics..." Whether or not it was he who first said it, it is a good job that the author of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer did not then cast his sceptical eye over racing, else he might have added "...and, finally, there are trends."

It is not that all trends are worthless, any more than that all statistics are worthless, just that rather a lot of them are. Their value depends not only on the information that is used but on how that information is interrogated and the conclusions that are drawn from it. Trends frequently fall down in this area.

Views about trends are never so much in evidence than in the lead up to the Cheltenham Festival. There is some justification in this. No race meeting in Britain - and possibly in the world - exerts the kind of pull that the Festival in March does. Horses are targeted at it from months, and sometimes years, in advance. Only good horses win there - well, almost only - and any systemic biases are likely to be crucial.

With that in mind, I thought I would do a quick reprise of some of the possible pitfalls of so-called trends analysis with six "golden" rules. My apologies to anyone who has read something similar from me before, but bad trends analysis seemingly won't go away.

1. Beware of small samples. If you look at most data on a microscopic basis you could easily convince yourself that a trend exists. I backed three winners out of four bets yesterday, but it would be wrong (VERY wrong!) to take that as representative of my betting as a whole.

2. Beware of big samples. The way to offset small samples is not to go so far back into history that the information you are using has little or no relevance to what is about to happen now. Trends, if they exist at all, tend to change over time. Keep things as contemporary as seems suitable.

3. Do not consider only winners. This is a common mistake. While winners are what most people get paid out on, a trend (if it exists) should potentially apply to all horses under consideration. Winners represent only a small fraction of the runners in races.

4. Take into account not just whether a horse wins or loses, but the degree to which it wins or loses. Should a non-winner that was beaten a short head be accorded the same significance as a non-winner that was tailed off? No.

5. Compare realisation with expectation. Horses of a certain age group might have won a given race 80% of the time, but that is neither here nor there if 80% of the time is exactly what you could expect from that age group's representation.

6. Do not apply filtering techniques unless they are strictly justified. The flawed reasoning is that you should rule horses out successively according to whether they "pass" certain criteria until only one or a few "qualifiers" are left. As an example of the folly of this, one criterion could be that a horse is rated a certain figure or higher, another could be that it had been born in a certain month. It is very unlikely that the criteria are of equal worth, and yet crude filtering implies that they are.

I was reminded of the pitfalls of conventional trends analysis by a recent internet discussion as to the worth of a horse prepping for the Champion Hurdle in a given month, a discussion that seems more significant than usual in view of the number of horses already having been put away for the Festival.

Seven of the nine winners of the Champion Hurdle since 2000 had their previous race in February. Then again, more horses - both winners and losers - had run most recently in February than in any other month. However, that is still a strike-rate roughly twice what could be expected.

Sixteen of the twenty-seven placed horses in the Champion Hurdle in the same period had prepped in February. That is roughly one and a half times what could be expected from that age group's representation.

However, if you consider all horses over the period - and the degree to which losers were beaten, not just simply that they were beaten - things become less cut and dried still. In terms of percentage of rivals beaten, which is usually a better way of looking at such matters, horses running in the Champion Hurdle that had prepped in February came out top again, but only just and not to a degree that should be a cause for excitement or a betting strategy.

The figures were: February 52.8%; December 51.8%; January 50.1%; and other months well behind. There is little in it between those three months, which provided over 90% of all runners, in other words.

The fact is that "trends" often seem to exist when they are looked at crudely and weaken or disappear altogether when the data is looked at in a more sophisticated manner.

This is a point well worth bearing in mind at this time of year more than most.

Play Casino & Poker here