After two years in the uncertain and unforgiving world of Conference football, Torquay United came back up out of purgatory last season. Soap stars, artificial pitches and coaches who couldn’t speak the lingo were all in the past, but their first season back almost ended in relegation again after a run of terrible results.
This year, however, looks like it will be different. They are the last club in England to retain a 100% record, with the obvious exception of Chelsea, and they are the only club at this time to win their first four matches. They only conceded their first league goal of the season in the 37th minute of their fourth game. They narrowly lost in the league cup to a team two divisions higher (Reading) after keeping the game at 0-0 until the 121st minute. Tonight they went through to the next round of the JP Trophy after beating a team from a division higher (Bournemouth, 5th in Division One) on penalties after another 0-0 draw.
The fans will be forgiven for being optimistic and good luck to them.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
2011 - not Inter Milan's year
So Rafa Benítez has gone to Inter Milan. That’s Inter without a trophy this year, then.
Sure enough, they started by losing the European Super Cup to Atlético de Madrid (2-0) and drawing their first league game 0-0 away at Bologna. Counting the Italian Super Cup as a major trophy is the sort of straw that Rafa and his followers cling to on a regular basis. A bit like the 2006 Community Shield, the last trophy that Liverpool won.
Benítez took a huge club like Liverpool, highly successful in Europe and famous the world over as a standard to aspire to, and turned it into a series of mediocre teams which could only dream of Champions’ League football this season.
Inter have won the last five Scudetti; last season they won the domestic double and their third European Cup/Champions’ League trophy. This season, with Rafa in charge, they will be lucky to stay in the top three. When he joined Liverpool, Rafa took Houllier's team to CL success; Mourinho's team without Mourinho won't be as lucky for Rafa or for Inter.
Sure enough, they started by losing the European Super Cup to Atlético de Madrid (2-0) and drawing their first league game 0-0 away at Bologna. Counting the Italian Super Cup as a major trophy is the sort of straw that Rafa and his followers cling to on a regular basis. A bit like the 2006 Community Shield, the last trophy that Liverpool won.
Benítez took a huge club like Liverpool, highly successful in Europe and famous the world over as a standard to aspire to, and turned it into a series of mediocre teams which could only dream of Champions’ League football this season.
Inter have won the last five Scudetti; last season they won the domestic double and their third European Cup/Champions’ League trophy. This season, with Rafa in charge, they will be lucky to stay in the top three. When he joined Liverpool, Rafa took Houllier's team to CL success; Mourinho's team without Mourinho won't be as lucky for Rafa or for Inter.
Monday, August 30, 2010
2011 - Spurs' year again
Spurs seem to have a reputation in the British press of being also-rans, and yet they are one of our most successful football clubs. They have won seventeen major trophies, leaving them in fifth place in the list of overall trophy winners (behind Liverpool, United, the Arsenal and Villa). Three of those trophies were won in Europe (in the football sense; geographically they all were), including the first ever UEFA Cup in 1972.
They have won something every six years or so since their first FA Cup triumph in 1901; in the last forty-nine seasons (1951-2010) they have won something every three and a half years. Their last trophy was in 2008 – perhaps they are due another one this season?
Much has been made of the fact that Spurs often win a trophy in a year ending in a one – eight out of seventeen trophies, to be precise. They are certainly a force to be reckoned with at the start of a decade – thirteen of their seventeen trophies came in years one, two and three of each decade. This season ends in a one.
However, statistics of this type are no more than interesting titbits for the football nerd that lives inside all fans. The fact of the matter is that like all clubs Spurs go through cycles. They have been improving steadily for the last few years (in spite of that hiccough at the start of 2008-09), finishing inside the top five three times in the last five seasons and reaching consecutive League Cup finals. Their squad is undergoing fewer and fewer changes, and the players appear to be happy and performing well. And, after the managerial merry-go-round, in Harry Redknapp they have not so much a manager as a magician.
Finally they are playing in the Champions’ League, a crusade which will bring more money into an already well-run club. They are the first club in five years to break the monopoly of the so-called “Big Four” in the CL, and with a weakened Inter side (weaker for the managerial change, if nothing else) and fellow debutants Twente in their group they should progress to the knock-out stages. Even if they didn’t they can be sure of making it into the UEFA Cup and would have an excellent chance of bringing the trophy back to London.
So North London starts the season with increased optimism – but this time it’s not just Arsenal who are hoping to go all the way.
They have won something every six years or so since their first FA Cup triumph in 1901; in the last forty-nine seasons (1951-2010) they have won something every three and a half years. Their last trophy was in 2008 – perhaps they are due another one this season?
Much has been made of the fact that Spurs often win a trophy in a year ending in a one – eight out of seventeen trophies, to be precise. They are certainly a force to be reckoned with at the start of a decade – thirteen of their seventeen trophies came in years one, two and three of each decade. This season ends in a one.
However, statistics of this type are no more than interesting titbits for the football nerd that lives inside all fans. The fact of the matter is that like all clubs Spurs go through cycles. They have been improving steadily for the last few years (in spite of that hiccough at the start of 2008-09), finishing inside the top five three times in the last five seasons and reaching consecutive League Cup finals. Their squad is undergoing fewer and fewer changes, and the players appear to be happy and performing well. And, after the managerial merry-go-round, in Harry Redknapp they have not so much a manager as a magician.
Finally they are playing in the Champions’ League, a crusade which will bring more money into an already well-run club. They are the first club in five years to break the monopoly of the so-called “Big Four” in the CL, and with a weakened Inter side (weaker for the managerial change, if nothing else) and fellow debutants Twente in their group they should progress to the knock-out stages. Even if they didn’t they can be sure of making it into the UEFA Cup and would have an excellent chance of bringing the trophy back to London.
So North London starts the season with increased optimism – but this time it’s not just Arsenal who are hoping to go all the way.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Don't worry Spain - you've won already
Ask any Spaniard about cheating in football and they will explode into passionate response, citing South Korea as the worst robbery in World Cup history. (Then mention Tassoti and Luis Enrique and stand back a few paces.) Ask anyone outside Spain about cheating in football and the same three names will come up time and time again: Italy, Argentina and Spain.
This is perhaps unfair; or rather, it would be unfair only to blame these three, as even the World Cup has a rich history of doubtful victories … http://rustictaverner.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-far-will-they-go.html ... involving the likes of Germany and England too. However, it is inescapable that if a player goes down like he’s been shot you know it’s the likes of Marco Materazzi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Fernando Torres or Javier Mascherano.
Of course the concept of cheating is itself a moot point, open to cultural interpretations. Certain practices like diving, intimidating the referee or feigning injury are respectively seen as a legitimate response to contact, demanding justice and precaution in many countries such as Italy, Argentina and of course Spain. This blog contains many posts on what is seen to be cheating in my country; Spanish readers are at a loss as to why these practices cause such a fuss in England.
(A small interlude here. Those of you who don’t follow the Premier League through the British media and forums like the BBC’s 606 may not be aware of the constant needling between Liverpool and Man United fans about which team cheats more. These fans spend all season claiming Gerrard or Rooney dives more than anybody, only to conveniently forget this when the players play for England. Let us be in no doubt of the truth: both Gerrard and Rooney treat a football pitch like a swimming pool – they are both serial divers. Perhaps if they had dived more at this World Cup England would have got further. Having said that, England were playing so badly that had either of those two tried to throw themselves to the ground they probably would have missed.)
The other side of cheating is the incompetence of referees. Many players will try to get away with whatever they can; if the referee or the linesman doesn’t spot it, unlucky. Think Thierry Henry. People as uptight as the English think it is cheating to take advantage of the weakness of a referee; people as canny as the Spanish or the Argentineans shrug and carry on playing.
This World Cup has seen its fair share of incidents involving unscrupulous players and incompetent referees and linesmen. Luis Fabiano’s second goal against the Ivory Coast came after he handled the ball; in the same game Kaká was sent off through Keita’s histrionics. England had a legitimate goal disallowed in the Germany stuffing because the linesman didn’t see it. Argentina’s first goal against Mexico was scored from a position so offside that Tévez was sitting in the lap of some guy in row Z. And of course FIFA did a country as poor at football as England a favour simply by letting them play with professionals.
But by the far the biggest beneficiary of the poor standard of refereeing – and that is the generous description of events – has been Spain. A poor Spanish side was beaten in the first game and scraped past Honduras and were left needing a victory against a surprisingly good Chile side. After going ahead through a lucky hit-and-hope, Spain used their many “talents” to secure the upper hand. Torres tripped himself up – perhaps not deliberately, as this is a common occurrence and the subject of many jokes floating around the internet between Spanish fans – and Gerard Piqué ran screaming to the referee demanding a card. The referee allowed himself to be fooled by Torres and intimidated by Piqué: instead of Torres receiving a yellow card for diving and there being no goal, Chile suddenly found themselves one man and two goals down. Spain, undeservedly, qualified for the next round.
There they faced a dogged Portugal side who spurned many chances to go ahead against an anonymous Spain. Fortunately for Spain David Villa was on hand; unfortunately for Portugal the linesman wasn’t. Villa’s offside goal stood, and there was worse to come. Joan Capdevila suddenly threw himself to the ground behind the referee’s back. The cameras showed that there was no contact from any Portuguese player, but of course little Sepp refuses to implement video technology, so the whole stadium knew that nothing had happened but looked on aghast as the referee sent off the nearest Portuguese player. The whole stadium? Not quite – the linesman was absent again.
So Spain had lucked (cheated, Capdevila – when somebody does it to you you’ll be singing a different tune) their way through again. In the next round they faced a Paraguay side that will be ruing a lost opportunity in a game that had some of the worst refereeing in the whole tournament. First Nelson Valdez scored from close range, only for the linesman to flag for an offside that didn’t exist. Spain, off the hook again. Then came the three penalties, and admittedly here it’s difficult to tell who benefitted the most. First Paraguay were given a penalty, which they missed, but the referee didn’t demand it be re-taken after players had encroached in the area. Then Spain were awarded a penalty for an offence which as yet nobody has managed to see in any of the television images. Spain scored this non-existent penalty, only for the referee to order a re-take because of encroachment. Spain missed the penalty but then Fabregas went down and no penalty was given – perhaps the referee was doing what many do and none should, using the technique of trying to compensate for one mistake (or in this case two: the legitimate Paraguay goal and Spain’s non-penalty) with another (not awarding Spain a legitimate penalty). Eventually Spain scored the luckiest goal of the tournament via both posts and again lucked through.
In the semi-final they met the mighty Germany, who had put four past minnows England and Australia and giants Argentina, yet had inexplicably lost to Serbia. This was the first time that Spain had met anybody decent in the whole tournament and yet they needed less help to get past them. Germany had two direct free-kicks on the edge of the area – with the corresponding yellow cards to Spanish players – waved away by the referee and again the Spanish went through untested.
In short, they have passed each round by taking advantage of inept referees and linesmen.
It must be more than coincidence. As I pointed out earlier, quite a few teams have had one chance given to them or taken away from them by a referee, but to pass each and every round thanks to the referee is suspicious. It brings to mind some of the generous refereeing in the European Championships, the sending-off of the Arsenal goalkeeper in the 2006 Champions’ League final and the embarrassingly blatant insistence of the referee in the 2009 Champions’ League semi-final to send Barcelona through whatever the cost to the integrity of the competition. It’s as if UEFA and FIFA have done everything in their power to see Barcelona and Spain in their finals. Makes you wonder what they owe them.
Have the referees been instructed to allow Spain to pass to make up for South Korea? Is this the tendency of some referees to try to make up for one mistake with another, but on a much larger scale? Is this the same as Germany in 1954, a nation desperately in need of impulse being given a boost? On a wider scale have all the South American and African teams suffered because the Euro-centric FIFA is tired of meddling domestic associations? Or is it because Europe is where the money is, Sepp? Whatever the reason, FIFA wanted Spain in this final.
Far-fetched? Sycophants like Dunphy and Hansen will tell you that the other teams simply bottled it because they had too much respect for Spain. They will argue that you could play Villa on his own and still beat anybody (which is actually plausible). All the bandwagon-jumpers in the press will ignore all the evidence and still talk about Spain’s superior quality because they can’t go back on all the hype they have created over the last four years or so.
Biased Spanish fans – obviously – will shout “so what!” and refuse to see what is on front of them. Perhaps they are afraid it may be true. Of course there is a large proportion of the Spanish population who are so desperate for a trophy that they will not care how it is won. They are the forty-year-old virgins who will go home with anything for the sake of a shag, the umbrella-wielding harridans in the sales who will stamp on anyone for a bargain, the children at the table who snatch the biggest piece of cake before anyone else can choose.
More reasonable Spanish fans have already told me how badly they think Spain have played in this World Cup so far, how disappointed they are at del Bosque’s system, how poor Torres is and have gone as far as to admit that Torres and Capdevila’s actions were nothing less than “vergonzoso”, shameless, bare-faced. However, they are quick to point out how Spain have been cheated in the past – there’s that thug Tassoti again – and claim that it’s time Spain were gifted something instead of being robbed, as they were in South Korea.
Compelling arguments, indeed – except that if World Cup finals are about righting the injustice of the past it is surely Holland’s turn to win, having had at least one World Cup trophy stolen from them in the past. (The bandwagon-jumpers have also shot themselves in the foot – now they cannot possibly go back on their claim that Holland is “the greatest country never to win the World Cup”: for them it must be Holland’s turn too.)
I won’t be watching the final tomorrow; I’m going to the cinema instead. I don’t need to see the game because I already know what is going to happen: somebody like Ramos will go down in the box without being touched but the referee will give a penalty to Spain and a red card (not a yellow) to Holland. Then Holland will score a legitimate goal, only for it to be disallowed for an infringement that nobody can see. A couple of Dutch players will see yellows for protesting. Then Spain will score a second with just a “hint” of handball or a “hint” of offside as the BBC commentators put it, and that will be that.
To the Dutch: unlucky guys. This isn’t in your hands and never was. To the more reasonable Spanish fans who have complained about del Bosque’s system: you knew that all along. Supporting Spain is like supporting Atlético or Athletic, you have to suffer, always. To the genuine fans who put football before tribe – what else did you expect? The game is corrupt from top to bottom (in that precise order).
A word of warning: FIFA have thrown the trophy in the gutter. If you go down on your knees and scrabble around in the dirt to pick it up, instead of demanding that your team win it with their head held high, no amount of hype can wash it clean. A trophy picked up from the gutter will always smell of shit. Just ask the English.
This is perhaps unfair; or rather, it would be unfair only to blame these three, as even the World Cup has a rich history of doubtful victories … http://rustictaverner.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-far-will-they-go.html ... involving the likes of Germany and England too. However, it is inescapable that if a player goes down like he’s been shot you know it’s the likes of Marco Materazzi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Fernando Torres or Javier Mascherano.
Of course the concept of cheating is itself a moot point, open to cultural interpretations. Certain practices like diving, intimidating the referee or feigning injury are respectively seen as a legitimate response to contact, demanding justice and precaution in many countries such as Italy, Argentina and of course Spain. This blog contains many posts on what is seen to be cheating in my country; Spanish readers are at a loss as to why these practices cause such a fuss in England.
(A small interlude here. Those of you who don’t follow the Premier League through the British media and forums like the BBC’s 606 may not be aware of the constant needling between Liverpool and Man United fans about which team cheats more. These fans spend all season claiming Gerrard or Rooney dives more than anybody, only to conveniently forget this when the players play for England. Let us be in no doubt of the truth: both Gerrard and Rooney treat a football pitch like a swimming pool – they are both serial divers. Perhaps if they had dived more at this World Cup England would have got further. Having said that, England were playing so badly that had either of those two tried to throw themselves to the ground they probably would have missed.)
The other side of cheating is the incompetence of referees. Many players will try to get away with whatever they can; if the referee or the linesman doesn’t spot it, unlucky. Think Thierry Henry. People as uptight as the English think it is cheating to take advantage of the weakness of a referee; people as canny as the Spanish or the Argentineans shrug and carry on playing.
This World Cup has seen its fair share of incidents involving unscrupulous players and incompetent referees and linesmen. Luis Fabiano’s second goal against the Ivory Coast came after he handled the ball; in the same game Kaká was sent off through Keita’s histrionics. England had a legitimate goal disallowed in the Germany stuffing because the linesman didn’t see it. Argentina’s first goal against Mexico was scored from a position so offside that Tévez was sitting in the lap of some guy in row Z. And of course FIFA did a country as poor at football as England a favour simply by letting them play with professionals.
But by the far the biggest beneficiary of the poor standard of refereeing – and that is the generous description of events – has been Spain. A poor Spanish side was beaten in the first game and scraped past Honduras and were left needing a victory against a surprisingly good Chile side. After going ahead through a lucky hit-and-hope, Spain used their many “talents” to secure the upper hand. Torres tripped himself up – perhaps not deliberately, as this is a common occurrence and the subject of many jokes floating around the internet between Spanish fans – and Gerard Piqué ran screaming to the referee demanding a card. The referee allowed himself to be fooled by Torres and intimidated by Piqué: instead of Torres receiving a yellow card for diving and there being no goal, Chile suddenly found themselves one man and two goals down. Spain, undeservedly, qualified for the next round.
There they faced a dogged Portugal side who spurned many chances to go ahead against an anonymous Spain. Fortunately for Spain David Villa was on hand; unfortunately for Portugal the linesman wasn’t. Villa’s offside goal stood, and there was worse to come. Joan Capdevila suddenly threw himself to the ground behind the referee’s back. The cameras showed that there was no contact from any Portuguese player, but of course little Sepp refuses to implement video technology, so the whole stadium knew that nothing had happened but looked on aghast as the referee sent off the nearest Portuguese player. The whole stadium? Not quite – the linesman was absent again.
So Spain had lucked (cheated, Capdevila – when somebody does it to you you’ll be singing a different tune) their way through again. In the next round they faced a Paraguay side that will be ruing a lost opportunity in a game that had some of the worst refereeing in the whole tournament. First Nelson Valdez scored from close range, only for the linesman to flag for an offside that didn’t exist. Spain, off the hook again. Then came the three penalties, and admittedly here it’s difficult to tell who benefitted the most. First Paraguay were given a penalty, which they missed, but the referee didn’t demand it be re-taken after players had encroached in the area. Then Spain were awarded a penalty for an offence which as yet nobody has managed to see in any of the television images. Spain scored this non-existent penalty, only for the referee to order a re-take because of encroachment. Spain missed the penalty but then Fabregas went down and no penalty was given – perhaps the referee was doing what many do and none should, using the technique of trying to compensate for one mistake (or in this case two: the legitimate Paraguay goal and Spain’s non-penalty) with another (not awarding Spain a legitimate penalty). Eventually Spain scored the luckiest goal of the tournament via both posts and again lucked through.
In the semi-final they met the mighty Germany, who had put four past minnows England and Australia and giants Argentina, yet had inexplicably lost to Serbia. This was the first time that Spain had met anybody decent in the whole tournament and yet they needed less help to get past them. Germany had two direct free-kicks on the edge of the area – with the corresponding yellow cards to Spanish players – waved away by the referee and again the Spanish went through untested.
In short, they have passed each round by taking advantage of inept referees and linesmen.
It must be more than coincidence. As I pointed out earlier, quite a few teams have had one chance given to them or taken away from them by a referee, but to pass each and every round thanks to the referee is suspicious. It brings to mind some of the generous refereeing in the European Championships, the sending-off of the Arsenal goalkeeper in the 2006 Champions’ League final and the embarrassingly blatant insistence of the referee in the 2009 Champions’ League semi-final to send Barcelona through whatever the cost to the integrity of the competition. It’s as if UEFA and FIFA have done everything in their power to see Barcelona and Spain in their finals. Makes you wonder what they owe them.
Have the referees been instructed to allow Spain to pass to make up for South Korea? Is this the tendency of some referees to try to make up for one mistake with another, but on a much larger scale? Is this the same as Germany in 1954, a nation desperately in need of impulse being given a boost? On a wider scale have all the South American and African teams suffered because the Euro-centric FIFA is tired of meddling domestic associations? Or is it because Europe is where the money is, Sepp? Whatever the reason, FIFA wanted Spain in this final.
Far-fetched? Sycophants like Dunphy and Hansen will tell you that the other teams simply bottled it because they had too much respect for Spain. They will argue that you could play Villa on his own and still beat anybody (which is actually plausible). All the bandwagon-jumpers in the press will ignore all the evidence and still talk about Spain’s superior quality because they can’t go back on all the hype they have created over the last four years or so.
Biased Spanish fans – obviously – will shout “so what!” and refuse to see what is on front of them. Perhaps they are afraid it may be true. Of course there is a large proportion of the Spanish population who are so desperate for a trophy that they will not care how it is won. They are the forty-year-old virgins who will go home with anything for the sake of a shag, the umbrella-wielding harridans in the sales who will stamp on anyone for a bargain, the children at the table who snatch the biggest piece of cake before anyone else can choose.
More reasonable Spanish fans have already told me how badly they think Spain have played in this World Cup so far, how disappointed they are at del Bosque’s system, how poor Torres is and have gone as far as to admit that Torres and Capdevila’s actions were nothing less than “vergonzoso”, shameless, bare-faced. However, they are quick to point out how Spain have been cheated in the past – there’s that thug Tassoti again – and claim that it’s time Spain were gifted something instead of being robbed, as they were in South Korea.
Compelling arguments, indeed – except that if World Cup finals are about righting the injustice of the past it is surely Holland’s turn to win, having had at least one World Cup trophy stolen from them in the past. (The bandwagon-jumpers have also shot themselves in the foot – now they cannot possibly go back on their claim that Holland is “the greatest country never to win the World Cup”: for them it must be Holland’s turn too.)
I won’t be watching the final tomorrow; I’m going to the cinema instead. I don’t need to see the game because I already know what is going to happen: somebody like Ramos will go down in the box without being touched but the referee will give a penalty to Spain and a red card (not a yellow) to Holland. Then Holland will score a legitimate goal, only for it to be disallowed for an infringement that nobody can see. A couple of Dutch players will see yellows for protesting. Then Spain will score a second with just a “hint” of handball or a “hint” of offside as the BBC commentators put it, and that will be that.
To the Dutch: unlucky guys. This isn’t in your hands and never was. To the more reasonable Spanish fans who have complained about del Bosque’s system: you knew that all along. Supporting Spain is like supporting Atlético or Athletic, you have to suffer, always. To the genuine fans who put football before tribe – what else did you expect? The game is corrupt from top to bottom (in that precise order).
A word of warning: FIFA have thrown the trophy in the gutter. If you go down on your knees and scrabble around in the dirt to pick it up, instead of demanding that your team win it with their head held high, no amount of hype can wash it clean. A trophy picked up from the gutter will always smell of shit. Just ask the English.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Interference
This week the Nigerian president, Goodluck Jonathan, took the executive decision to withdraw the Nigerian national football team from international competition for a period of two years as a punishment for not winning the World Cup.
The news came as former French coach Raymond Domenech appeared before a parliamentary committee “to explain Les Bleus’ South Africa debacle”; he had previously met French President Nicolas Sarkozy to explain events during the tournament.
FIFA’s response was predictable: “FIFA’S position regarding political interference in football is well known. Our statutes do not allow for any political interference.” This has nothing to do with ethics; they simply don’t want anything to get in the way of making money. The less interference, the better.
Government interference, coupled with intense media pressure, has been a constant factor in African football since the sport became universally popular. Nigeria have had nine managers this decade and have no problem sacking a manager even during a qualification campaign, let alone after third-place finishes at continental tournaments, and the president and other politicians weigh in with their opinions at every opportunity. However, this is more to do with the rules of engagement in African politics than anything else.
In Europe media pressure is the order of the day but such political meddling is much less common. For a national president to call a national captain and his manager for anything other than a congratulatory meal after a medal-winning performance is unheard-of; for a manager to appear before a parliamentary committee is the stuff of fiction.
For once FIFA is right. Football is the working person’s escape from the drudgery of the week; three points mean a tiny victory in a life full of defeats. Most of those defeats are inflicted by the government and its many agencies (the taxman, the police, local authorities) so it is grossly unfair of the government to think that they can take away the one last thing that belongs so exclusively to the people.
The news came as former French coach Raymond Domenech appeared before a parliamentary committee “to explain Les Bleus’ South Africa debacle”; he had previously met French President Nicolas Sarkozy to explain events during the tournament.
FIFA’s response was predictable: “FIFA’S position regarding political interference in football is well known. Our statutes do not allow for any political interference.” This has nothing to do with ethics; they simply don’t want anything to get in the way of making money. The less interference, the better.
Government interference, coupled with intense media pressure, has been a constant factor in African football since the sport became universally popular. Nigeria have had nine managers this decade and have no problem sacking a manager even during a qualification campaign, let alone after third-place finishes at continental tournaments, and the president and other politicians weigh in with their opinions at every opportunity. However, this is more to do with the rules of engagement in African politics than anything else.
In Europe media pressure is the order of the day but such political meddling is much less common. For a national president to call a national captain and his manager for anything other than a congratulatory meal after a medal-winning performance is unheard-of; for a manager to appear before a parliamentary committee is the stuff of fiction.
For once FIFA is right. Football is the working person’s escape from the drudgery of the week; three points mean a tiny victory in a life full of defeats. Most of those defeats are inflicted by the government and its many agencies (the taxman, the police, local authorities) so it is grossly unfair of the government to think that they can take away the one last thing that belongs so exclusively to the people.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
English fans know FA
It wasn’t long before the English faithful turned against their star manager. It was quite obviously his fault that England had been humiliated at the World Cup. He was too strict (even though fans and journalists alike had applauded the new strict regime). His tactics were stilted and jaded (even though everybody had hailed his refreshingly flexible Italian style). He has no proven international experience (even though no England manager has ever had any international managerial experience prior to being the England boss; in fact the previous managers range from men with average managerial experience through those with a frankly skeletal CV to men who have never even managed before).
Let us look at the facts. Capello is the most successful manager that the FA has ever taken on. He has won nine league titles (winning at least one with every club he has managed, and all of them in top leagues), four domestic cups and two European titles, including the Champions’ League. Fifteen titles in sixteen years of club management.
Of nineteen World Cup tournaments, England did not enter three of them and failed to qualify for three others, the most recent being in 1994. Of the thirteen England managed to find their way into, five ended in the first or second rounds. That leaves six quarter-finals, one semi-final and the single most disputed World Cup victory in history.
In the thirteen European Championship tournaments – a priori an easier deal than a World Cup – England did not enter once and failed to qualify five times, the most recent occasion being in 2008. Of the seven times England have participated five have ended in the first round. They have never played a final, let alone won one.
Let us put this into context: Brazil and Germany have appeared in 7 WC finals, winning 5 and 3 times respectively. Germany also have 3 European Championship titles from 6 finals. Argentina have appeared in 4 finals, winning twice, and Italy have appeared in 6 finals, winning 4 times. Italy also have 1 European Championship title from 2 final appearances.
England are not a great football team. They are second-rate; they are also-rans. They are a quarter-finals team at best, and that only when the rest stop playing.
And the FA – an organisation prone to attacks of stupidity that FIFA would envy – is starting to back Capello and ignore the fans’ whinging. If the FA can see the truth, what problem does the rest of the country have?
(For the record – Brazil, Uruguay, Germany (just) will all win and Spain will cheat their way through yet another round.)
Let us look at the facts. Capello is the most successful manager that the FA has ever taken on. He has won nine league titles (winning at least one with every club he has managed, and all of them in top leagues), four domestic cups and two European titles, including the Champions’ League. Fifteen titles in sixteen years of club management.
Of nineteen World Cup tournaments, England did not enter three of them and failed to qualify for three others, the most recent being in 1994. Of the thirteen England managed to find their way into, five ended in the first or second rounds. That leaves six quarter-finals, one semi-final and the single most disputed World Cup victory in history.
In the thirteen European Championship tournaments – a priori an easier deal than a World Cup – England did not enter once and failed to qualify five times, the most recent occasion being in 2008. Of the seven times England have participated five have ended in the first round. They have never played a final, let alone won one.
Let us put this into context: Brazil and Germany have appeared in 7 WC finals, winning 5 and 3 times respectively. Germany also have 3 European Championship titles from 6 finals. Argentina have appeared in 4 finals, winning twice, and Italy have appeared in 6 finals, winning 4 times. Italy also have 1 European Championship title from 2 final appearances.
England are not a great football team. They are second-rate; they are also-rans. They are a quarter-finals team at best, and that only when the rest stop playing.
And the FA – an organisation prone to attacks of stupidity that FIFA would envy – is starting to back Capello and ignore the fans’ whinging. If the FA can see the truth, what problem does the rest of the country have?
(For the record – Brazil, Uruguay, Germany (just) will all win and Spain will cheat their way through yet another round.)
Monday, June 28, 2010
FIFA’s stupidity on the big screen
FIFA should embrace technology because right now it’s making fools of them. Yesterday there was the England none-goal, which although irrelevant to the final score was so far across the line it would have made a truthful man out of a fisherman. Then there was the Argentina goal – the referee and the linesman stood on the line discussing what was ultimately the wrong decision while their incompetence and embarrassment was being played out on the screens around the stadium.
There are little cameras in the back of the goal which only serve to make clowns out of the officials – and more of a clown out of Blatter – and to amuse the crowd, but never to make a coherent decision or achieve justice. The cameras are there because football is addicted to television money – just like Blatter.
There are little cameras in the back of the goal which only serve to make clowns out of the officials – and more of a clown out of Blatter – and to amuse the crowd, but never to make a coherent decision or achieve justice. The cameras are there because football is addicted to television money – just like Blatter.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
What can you do when there’s nothing to be done?
England were rubbish against Egypt, Mexico and Japan, they were rubbish against USA, Algeria and Slovenia, and they were rubbish against Germany. So what is to be done?
Some people maintain that the appalling refereeing cost England the Germany game – that is patently not true, because England only played a bit of football for three minutes before the interval (while Germany were having a little rest in a game they were obviously controlling) and they did have fifty minutes to render the referee’s mistake irrelevant. In the end it was Germany who did that.
Others have mentioned that “Gerrard was ineffective on the wing” – he spent all game choosing to shoot badly from distance with three men in front of him in the box, which has nothing to do with playing out of position and more to do with being a bad footballer. And since when has Gerrard been England’s star player, capable of saving a whole game?
A lot of fans – and so-called experts – are expressing surprise that such “world class” players could have played such an awful game today. First of all, that was not the first awful game from an England team, and especially not from this England team. Secondly, who is “world class”? Milner, Barry, Upson, Wright-Phillips, Johnson and Heskey have never demonstrated anything which suggests they could be good enough to play in the quarter-finals of a world cup (which is why they didn't get there).
Johnson, Terry and Upson were pathetic in the first goal, Johnson was wholly to blame with two awful mistakes in the second and Barry was fleeced in the fourth. Upson’s goal hardly saves him from criticism – he jumped with his eyes closed and the ball hit him, as opposed to the other way round. Even then it took some awful goalkeeping before the ball went in.
There are some players on the team who play reasonably good football, among them Frank Lampard. However, he is the player who took most shots on goal in the whole of the 2006 tournament and didn’t score any goals. He did something similar this time, missing every shot he took, but today he did something even worse – the enduring image of Germany’s third goal is that of Lampard with his arms in the air as a German player scampers past him with the ball, followed by Lampard hanging around on the edge of the England area and totally ignoring Muller in what is generally known as acres of space.
Of course if you put rubbish players on the pitch, you get rubbish football. But this is only half the story. This is what needs doing:
• English xenophobia and arrogance, which is typical among fans, must be eradicated from football – this is the first and most important point and is the one where everyone will stop reading. That just proves the point.
• The media, from the joke that is the BBC to the shower that is ITV, from the unintelligent clichés and sycophancy of Lineker, Hansen and Shearer to the illiterate newspaper hacks, must be silenced as soon as they start hyping each new incarnation of England as anything remotely resembling a first class football team. England are quarter-final material at best.
• The fans have to accept that the English are no good at football. Anyone still reading this is bound to protest here – ok, so what have we won? One dodgy world cup and no Euros. End of. Just because every bar-propping pundit from London to Shanghai licks the Premier League’s arse does not make English football any better.
• Then and only then can we start talking about technique and youth development and everything else. We need to sort the first points out first in order to teach our children these things. Technique is nothing with the wrong attitude.
Of course all this is irrelevant, because nothing is going to be done. And the same thing will happen next time. And the time after that. And all the pundits will be so surprised. And anyone with a modicum of common sense will see stupid Johnny English approach another tournament with his army of obese, beer-swilling, hooligan fans and his illiterate journalists and his idiot sports minister and all their predictions and clean up at the bookies.
Some people maintain that the appalling refereeing cost England the Germany game – that is patently not true, because England only played a bit of football for three minutes before the interval (while Germany were having a little rest in a game they were obviously controlling) and they did have fifty minutes to render the referee’s mistake irrelevant. In the end it was Germany who did that.
Others have mentioned that “Gerrard was ineffective on the wing” – he spent all game choosing to shoot badly from distance with three men in front of him in the box, which has nothing to do with playing out of position and more to do with being a bad footballer. And since when has Gerrard been England’s star player, capable of saving a whole game?
A lot of fans – and so-called experts – are expressing surprise that such “world class” players could have played such an awful game today. First of all, that was not the first awful game from an England team, and especially not from this England team. Secondly, who is “world class”? Milner, Barry, Upson, Wright-Phillips, Johnson and Heskey have never demonstrated anything which suggests they could be good enough to play in the quarter-finals of a world cup (which is why they didn't get there).
Johnson, Terry and Upson were pathetic in the first goal, Johnson was wholly to blame with two awful mistakes in the second and Barry was fleeced in the fourth. Upson’s goal hardly saves him from criticism – he jumped with his eyes closed and the ball hit him, as opposed to the other way round. Even then it took some awful goalkeeping before the ball went in.
There are some players on the team who play reasonably good football, among them Frank Lampard. However, he is the player who took most shots on goal in the whole of the 2006 tournament and didn’t score any goals. He did something similar this time, missing every shot he took, but today he did something even worse – the enduring image of Germany’s third goal is that of Lampard with his arms in the air as a German player scampers past him with the ball, followed by Lampard hanging around on the edge of the England area and totally ignoring Muller in what is generally known as acres of space.
Of course if you put rubbish players on the pitch, you get rubbish football. But this is only half the story. This is what needs doing:
• English xenophobia and arrogance, which is typical among fans, must be eradicated from football – this is the first and most important point and is the one where everyone will stop reading. That just proves the point.
• The media, from the joke that is the BBC to the shower that is ITV, from the unintelligent clichés and sycophancy of Lineker, Hansen and Shearer to the illiterate newspaper hacks, must be silenced as soon as they start hyping each new incarnation of England as anything remotely resembling a first class football team. England are quarter-final material at best.
• The fans have to accept that the English are no good at football. Anyone still reading this is bound to protest here – ok, so what have we won? One dodgy world cup and no Euros. End of. Just because every bar-propping pundit from London to Shanghai licks the Premier League’s arse does not make English football any better.
• Then and only then can we start talking about technique and youth development and everything else. We need to sort the first points out first in order to teach our children these things. Technique is nothing with the wrong attitude.
Of course all this is irrelevant, because nothing is going to be done. And the same thing will happen next time. And the time after that. And all the pundits will be so surprised. And anyone with a modicum of common sense will see stupid Johnny English approach another tournament with his army of obese, beer-swilling, hooligan fans and his illiterate journalists and his idiot sports minister and all their predictions and clean up at the bookies.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
First round over...
One of the great World Cup traditions has been alive and healthy in South Africa, that of cheap punters and hacks bandying about definitive statements and superlatives after only a couple of matches have been played. But now the first round is over, 48 of the 63 games have been played and the initial 32 teams have been reduced to 16, what impressions have the round left us?
First of all, the vuvuzelas are awful. All the pre-tournament criticism, particularly from the Spanish, appeared to be the typical lack of sensitivity towards different cultures; after all, is the CAN not the most colourful and noisiest tournament in the world? It soon became apparent, however, that those horns ruin the atmosphere. They drown out the organic texture of crowd noise with the effect that the game just seems boring. Towards the end of the game, when lungs are fading, the noise simply consists of a series of insolent, raucous blasts. In conclusion, it is as if the whole tournament has been played at Millwall.
As useless as the drone of the horns are the pundits’ predictions. Of course only one African team has gone through – clichés about “the African tournament” do nothing to hide the fact that again the Eurocentric hacks believe African teams are good because each one has a couple of people playing in the Premier League. They choose to ignore the nine mediocre footballers who play alongside the stars.
Of course the so-called big European teams have struggled. France have been in disarray for years; the only reason Domenech has survived so long as coach is because the team fluked its way to the final in the last World Cup. Of course England are struggling – the majority of English footballers are average at best, in spite of the belief among English journalists that the team should win every major trophy. Obviously Italy went out – they are old and predictable, and if they get just one referee who understands how the Italians play they lose the one crutch that has held them up so many times before. Obviously Spain are struggling too – they are perennial bottlers and they only won the last EC because Holland, Russia, Germany, the Czech Republic and Turkey all decided to stop playing before the end. Mourinho showed how simple it can be to tackle Xavi, Iniesta doesn’t have the mentality of Beckenbauer or Butcher when it comes to knocks and Casillas lost his mojo a couple of seasons back. Pujol is old and unfit, Torres is petulant and unreliable and Ramos has no right to be anywhere near a national team. In the end of course they cheated to go through, with Torres tripping himself up and Piqué behaving as disgracefully as only a Spanish footballer can.
Of course Japan and Chile and all the other “little teams” have done well – just because they don’t feature in the Premier League’s Big Four doesn’t mean to say they are rubbish. Have any of those hacks looked at the statistics for each country? Have any of the cheap punters considered anything other than pub quiz clichés? Evidently not.
Of course the statistics leave one thing clear – no team from outside Europe or South America has ever contested a final. Brazil have been in seven finals, winning five times. Germany have been in seven finals too, winning three of them. Argentina have been in four finals, winning twice. (Italy have played in six finals, winning four of them, but two of those wins were way back in the 1930s, and anyway, they entered this tournament in chaos.) The winner will almost certainly come from South America, with the possible exception of Germany.
As for the next round…Uruguay, USA, Holland, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Portugal and…England…
First of all, the vuvuzelas are awful. All the pre-tournament criticism, particularly from the Spanish, appeared to be the typical lack of sensitivity towards different cultures; after all, is the CAN not the most colourful and noisiest tournament in the world? It soon became apparent, however, that those horns ruin the atmosphere. They drown out the organic texture of crowd noise with the effect that the game just seems boring. Towards the end of the game, when lungs are fading, the noise simply consists of a series of insolent, raucous blasts. In conclusion, it is as if the whole tournament has been played at Millwall.
As useless as the drone of the horns are the pundits’ predictions. Of course only one African team has gone through – clichés about “the African tournament” do nothing to hide the fact that again the Eurocentric hacks believe African teams are good because each one has a couple of people playing in the Premier League. They choose to ignore the nine mediocre footballers who play alongside the stars.
Of course the so-called big European teams have struggled. France have been in disarray for years; the only reason Domenech has survived so long as coach is because the team fluked its way to the final in the last World Cup. Of course England are struggling – the majority of English footballers are average at best, in spite of the belief among English journalists that the team should win every major trophy. Obviously Italy went out – they are old and predictable, and if they get just one referee who understands how the Italians play they lose the one crutch that has held them up so many times before. Obviously Spain are struggling too – they are perennial bottlers and they only won the last EC because Holland, Russia, Germany, the Czech Republic and Turkey all decided to stop playing before the end. Mourinho showed how simple it can be to tackle Xavi, Iniesta doesn’t have the mentality of Beckenbauer or Butcher when it comes to knocks and Casillas lost his mojo a couple of seasons back. Pujol is old and unfit, Torres is petulant and unreliable and Ramos has no right to be anywhere near a national team. In the end of course they cheated to go through, with Torres tripping himself up and Piqué behaving as disgracefully as only a Spanish footballer can.
Of course Japan and Chile and all the other “little teams” have done well – just because they don’t feature in the Premier League’s Big Four doesn’t mean to say they are rubbish. Have any of those hacks looked at the statistics for each country? Have any of the cheap punters considered anything other than pub quiz clichés? Evidently not.
Of course the statistics leave one thing clear – no team from outside Europe or South America has ever contested a final. Brazil have been in seven finals, winning five times. Germany have been in seven finals too, winning three of them. Argentina have been in four finals, winning twice. (Italy have played in six finals, winning four of them, but two of those wins were way back in the 1930s, and anyway, they entered this tournament in chaos.) The winner will almost certainly come from South America, with the possible exception of Germany.
As for the next round…Uruguay, USA, Holland, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Portugal and…England…
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Who's going to win?
I decided to look at the last result between each of the teams taking part in the World Cup and imagine that they were the results this time out. The vast majority of these matches have happened during the last decade, and the rest within the previous couple of years. On very few occasions I have had to go back further, for example to the Denmark-Japan game in 1971 or to the Portugal-North Korea clash in 1966.
If the match has never been played, the tie has been decided according to current FIFA world ranking rather than recent results as the importance of the results depends on the opponents and the ranking reflects the long-term reality of each team.
After the first round all the ties have happened since 1999, with 8 of the 15 ties happening in the last four years. There is only one tie which has never been played, South Africa-South Korea, and again I have used the FIFA rankings to decide the game. I have also used FIFA’s list to decide drawn games, which happened on four occasions.
There are certainly no shocks in the first round, which is statistically to be expected, although unfortunate from the point of view of the neutral fan. After the first round anything can happen although there are few, if any, surprises. Portugal beat Spain, although in fairness to Portugal they have only conceded two goals in their last ten games and are unbeaten in twelve (Spain have conceded 7 goals in their last 6 games and lost to the USA in June). Some would say Argentina beating Germany is a surprise considering Argentina’s qualification campaign, but Germany are losing quite a few players to injury and Argentina do have the best player in the world.
As for the eventual winner – no surprises there. As for only picking the last result – Argentina haven’t beaten Brazil since 2005, six games ago. And as for England’s fate – I think you’re all expecting that one, aren’t you?
THE RESULTS FROM THE SECOND ROUND ONWARDS:
SECOND ROUND
SOUTH AFRICA – SOUTH KOREA X-X
ENGLAND – SERBIA 2-1
HOLLAND – PARAGUAY 0-0
BRAZIL – SWITZERLAND 2-1
ARGENTINA – FRANCE 2-0
GERMANY – USA 4-1
ITALY – DENMARK 0-0
SPAIN – PORTUGAL 0-1
QUARTER-FINALS
SOUTH KOREA – ENGLAND 1-1
HOLLAND – BRAZIL 2-2
ARGENTINA – GERMANY 1-0
ITALY – PORTUGAL 3-1
SEMI-FINALS
ENGLAND – BRAZIL 0-1
ARGENTINA – ITALY 2-1
FINAL
BRAZIL – ARGENTINA 3-1
If the match has never been played, the tie has been decided according to current FIFA world ranking rather than recent results as the importance of the results depends on the opponents and the ranking reflects the long-term reality of each team.
After the first round all the ties have happened since 1999, with 8 of the 15 ties happening in the last four years. There is only one tie which has never been played, South Africa-South Korea, and again I have used the FIFA rankings to decide the game. I have also used FIFA’s list to decide drawn games, which happened on four occasions.
There are certainly no shocks in the first round, which is statistically to be expected, although unfortunate from the point of view of the neutral fan. After the first round anything can happen although there are few, if any, surprises. Portugal beat Spain, although in fairness to Portugal they have only conceded two goals in their last ten games and are unbeaten in twelve (Spain have conceded 7 goals in their last 6 games and lost to the USA in June). Some would say Argentina beating Germany is a surprise considering Argentina’s qualification campaign, but Germany are losing quite a few players to injury and Argentina do have the best player in the world.
As for the eventual winner – no surprises there. As for only picking the last result – Argentina haven’t beaten Brazil since 2005, six games ago. And as for England’s fate – I think you’re all expecting that one, aren’t you?
THE RESULTS FROM THE SECOND ROUND ONWARDS:
SECOND ROUND
SOUTH AFRICA – SOUTH KOREA X-X
ENGLAND – SERBIA 2-1
HOLLAND – PARAGUAY 0-0
BRAZIL – SWITZERLAND 2-1
ARGENTINA – FRANCE 2-0
GERMANY – USA 4-1
ITALY – DENMARK 0-0
SPAIN – PORTUGAL 0-1
QUARTER-FINALS
SOUTH KOREA – ENGLAND 1-1
HOLLAND – BRAZIL 2-2
ARGENTINA – GERMANY 1-0
ITALY – PORTUGAL 3-1
SEMI-FINALS
ENGLAND – BRAZIL 0-1
ARGENTINA – ITALY 2-1
FINAL
BRAZIL – ARGENTINA 3-1
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Putting your foot in the can of worms
The unfortunate comments attributed to Lord Triesman, chairman of the FA and head of the 2018 World Cup bid, have opened up a can of worms which the football world has long seemed determined to keep closed. It has still not actually been confirmed whether he said that the Spanish would try and bribe referees at the World Cup with the help of the Russians, but his decision to stand down as chairman of the bid committee may be interpreted not only as an obliged political manoeuvre but also as an admission of guilt.
There are three possibilities – that Lord Triesman made the comments as a throwaway observation, in which case his brain works in truly mysterious ways; that he voiced suspicions that were based on absolutely no evidence, in which case the man is a fool; or that he has evidence to support this serious allegation, in which case the usual powers in the game will silence him faster than you can say “match-fixing”.
Modern football is under constant suspicion of cheating. Declan HiIl’s book “The Fix” lays out in great detail the influence that betting syndicates exert on the modern game; the book was largely ignored in the media, even though it has been demonstrated that the leagues in Portugal, Germany, Brazil and the United States have been affected by bought referees during the last decade. UEFA has been obliged to investigate more than forty European fixtures in the last couple of seasons; all the matches turned out to be in the “poorer” (less influential) football countries of Eastern Europe, even though it has been patently obvious to fans that Barcelona have continually benefitted from refereeing “mistakes” in the Champions’ League. And then there’s Italy.
World Cups are never exempt from controversy either – the tournaments in 1930, 1954, 1966, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1994, 1998, 2002 and 2006 (eleven out of eighteen tournaments) have all been sullied by questionable sportsmanship and refereeing.
So based on the evidence it is possible that attempts will be made to influence the outcome of games in this summer’s tournament. But what about the two countries allegedly mentioned by Lord Triesman?
Russia is widely recognised as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Last year even Russia’s interior minister admitted that “parts of the police had become criminal businesses”, while the court system is under constant scrutiny from Amnesty International. Extortion by corrupt officials is forcing western companies out of the country, while the government admits that bribes in Russian universities have reached a billion dollars a year. Russian football has suddenly become one of the richest leagues in the world, with the new oligarchs pouring money into the game for their own individual reasons. Estimates as to the level of corruption in the world of Russian football leave one thing perfectly clear – there is no doubt that the league is as riddled with cheating as the rest of the country.
On the surface Spain seems to enjoy a much better reputation as a country and as a people; closer scrutiny, however, suggests an alternative reality. The Spanish have a very different idea about what constitutes cheating from the accepted idea in other countries – cheating in university and public employment exams is considered an art form, tax evasion is a way of life, mass political fraud and political influence are rife in every region of the country and in every party and property development has long been a quick way to make a dishonest buck, and yet all those things are considered perfectly acceptable (with the only exception of when the political party is the one you don’t support).
In terms of football, every year for the past few years the RFEF has ordered new investigations into match-fixing. In 2009 a wholesale investigation was started after suspicions arose that Spanish players were betting on matches. The Málaga-Tenerife game which clinched Málaga’s promotion to La Liga in June 2008 was called into question after the Tenerife player Jesuli was accused of throwing the match. The player threatened to sue, but interestingly it was only because a telephone conversation had been recorded, not because the accusation may have been false. The Athletic-Levante game which guaranteed that never-relegated Bilbao would not be sent down on the final day of the 2006-07 season was also under suspicion because of evidence that Levante had thrown the game.
But by far the most unsavoury part of Spanish football is what they call “primas a terceros”, or incentive payments to third parties. Everybody, from the players and managers to the media and the government, admits that it happens, and in ever-increasing quantities. At the end of each season undisclosed and undeclared amounts of money are offered by teams to other teams as an added incentive to achieve a result that would benefit more than one club. It happens in every division and at either end of each one and is now an accepted part of the season. The fans – and more worryingly the authorities – treat the subject with the same lax attitude as they would tax evasion or land fraud and accordingly it is now inherent in the Spanish game.
It is unclear whether Lord Triesman has concrete evidence to accuse the Spanish and the Russians of any wrong-doing; however, it must be said that if the shadow of suspicion were to fall over any country, both Spain and Russia would be high on the list of suspects. Unfortunately, in the case of such influential countries (ie rich within the football world) football’s governing bodies will turn a blind eye and keep the can of worms firmly closed.
There are three possibilities – that Lord Triesman made the comments as a throwaway observation, in which case his brain works in truly mysterious ways; that he voiced suspicions that were based on absolutely no evidence, in which case the man is a fool; or that he has evidence to support this serious allegation, in which case the usual powers in the game will silence him faster than you can say “match-fixing”.
Modern football is under constant suspicion of cheating. Declan HiIl’s book “The Fix” lays out in great detail the influence that betting syndicates exert on the modern game; the book was largely ignored in the media, even though it has been demonstrated that the leagues in Portugal, Germany, Brazil and the United States have been affected by bought referees during the last decade. UEFA has been obliged to investigate more than forty European fixtures in the last couple of seasons; all the matches turned out to be in the “poorer” (less influential) football countries of Eastern Europe, even though it has been patently obvious to fans that Barcelona have continually benefitted from refereeing “mistakes” in the Champions’ League. And then there’s Italy.
World Cups are never exempt from controversy either – the tournaments in 1930, 1954, 1966, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1994, 1998, 2002 and 2006 (eleven out of eighteen tournaments) have all been sullied by questionable sportsmanship and refereeing.
So based on the evidence it is possible that attempts will be made to influence the outcome of games in this summer’s tournament. But what about the two countries allegedly mentioned by Lord Triesman?
Russia is widely recognised as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Last year even Russia’s interior minister admitted that “parts of the police had become criminal businesses”, while the court system is under constant scrutiny from Amnesty International. Extortion by corrupt officials is forcing western companies out of the country, while the government admits that bribes in Russian universities have reached a billion dollars a year. Russian football has suddenly become one of the richest leagues in the world, with the new oligarchs pouring money into the game for their own individual reasons. Estimates as to the level of corruption in the world of Russian football leave one thing perfectly clear – there is no doubt that the league is as riddled with cheating as the rest of the country.
On the surface Spain seems to enjoy a much better reputation as a country and as a people; closer scrutiny, however, suggests an alternative reality. The Spanish have a very different idea about what constitutes cheating from the accepted idea in other countries – cheating in university and public employment exams is considered an art form, tax evasion is a way of life, mass political fraud and political influence are rife in every region of the country and in every party and property development has long been a quick way to make a dishonest buck, and yet all those things are considered perfectly acceptable (with the only exception of when the political party is the one you don’t support).
In terms of football, every year for the past few years the RFEF has ordered new investigations into match-fixing. In 2009 a wholesale investigation was started after suspicions arose that Spanish players were betting on matches. The Málaga-Tenerife game which clinched Málaga’s promotion to La Liga in June 2008 was called into question after the Tenerife player Jesuli was accused of throwing the match. The player threatened to sue, but interestingly it was only because a telephone conversation had been recorded, not because the accusation may have been false. The Athletic-Levante game which guaranteed that never-relegated Bilbao would not be sent down on the final day of the 2006-07 season was also under suspicion because of evidence that Levante had thrown the game.
But by far the most unsavoury part of Spanish football is what they call “primas a terceros”, or incentive payments to third parties. Everybody, from the players and managers to the media and the government, admits that it happens, and in ever-increasing quantities. At the end of each season undisclosed and undeclared amounts of money are offered by teams to other teams as an added incentive to achieve a result that would benefit more than one club. It happens in every division and at either end of each one and is now an accepted part of the season. The fans – and more worryingly the authorities – treat the subject with the same lax attitude as they would tax evasion or land fraud and accordingly it is now inherent in the Spanish game.
It is unclear whether Lord Triesman has concrete evidence to accuse the Spanish and the Russians of any wrong-doing; however, it must be said that if the shadow of suspicion were to fall over any country, both Spain and Russia would be high on the list of suspects. Unfortunately, in the case of such influential countries (ie rich within the football world) football’s governing bodies will turn a blind eye and keep the can of worms firmly closed.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The popularity contest
Tonight's Europa League final in Hamburg features two teams who don't see final action very often; Fulham's last final was the FA Cup in 1975, while Atlético also played in a domestic cup final back in 1996. Indeed, Fulham have never played in a major European final, and while Atlético have played in four European finals the last one was in 1986. As a result most football fans will find it refreshing that tonight's game doesn't feature the usual suspects of European football.
However tonight's game will stand out for much more than that. Typically, any club that reaches a final will enjoy as much animosity as support as their rivals cheer on the opposition. Manchester United fans will certainly not have supported Liverpool in their two Champions' League finals this decade, and by the same token Scousers will have delighted at Barcelona's win last year.
But you would be hard pushed to find any English fans who won't get behind the modest London club tonight; even Chelsea, Fulham's closest rivals, would be delighted for Roy Hodgson's men. At the same time the whole of Spain will be rooting for Atlético. Even Real Madrid fans? As a friend of mine says, "Atlético aren't Real Madrid's rivals, they're the "pupas"; Barcelona are the only rivals in Spain". And most Spanish people recognise that Atlético's fans are the best in Spain.
Whoever wins tonight, a whole country will be delighted. I wonder if the same could have been said of Liverpool and Hamburg?
However tonight's game will stand out for much more than that. Typically, any club that reaches a final will enjoy as much animosity as support as their rivals cheer on the opposition. Manchester United fans will certainly not have supported Liverpool in their two Champions' League finals this decade, and by the same token Scousers will have delighted at Barcelona's win last year.
But you would be hard pushed to find any English fans who won't get behind the modest London club tonight; even Chelsea, Fulham's closest rivals, would be delighted for Roy Hodgson's men. At the same time the whole of Spain will be rooting for Atlético. Even Real Madrid fans? As a friend of mine says, "Atlético aren't Real Madrid's rivals, they're the "pupas"; Barcelona are the only rivals in Spain". And most Spanish people recognise that Atlético's fans are the best in Spain.
Whoever wins tonight, a whole country will be delighted. I wonder if the same could have been said of Liverpool and Hamburg?
Friday, April 30, 2010
Idiots and football
Apparently hacks and pundits alike are queuing up to slaughter both Guardiola and Messi.
Even considering the depths of stupidity to which football appears to have sunk, pillorying one of the most exciting young managers in world football and the best player on the planet simply for losing one tie is a joke.
Not one of the idiots who has criticised either man - not one - is capable of doing a job anywhere near as good as them. Of course, the next time either the Spaniard or the Argentine wins a major trophy the same idiots will be falling over backwards with praise as exaggerated as this week's criticism. It seems the idiots are here to stay.
Even considering the depths of stupidity to which football appears to have sunk, pillorying one of the most exciting young managers in world football and the best player on the planet simply for losing one tie is a joke.
Not one of the idiots who has criticised either man - not one - is capable of doing a job anywhere near as good as them. Of course, the next time either the Spaniard or the Argentine wins a major trophy the same idiots will be falling over backwards with praise as exaggerated as this week's criticism. It seems the idiots are here to stay.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Modesty gets its reward
Roy Hodgson has long been considered one of the nicest people in football. He has also, without any fanfare or boasting, accumulated not only a huge following but some considerable success as a manager. Halmstads, Malmö, Switzerland, Inter Milan, Grasshopper, Viking and now Fulham. Not too many prestigious names there, perhaps, but then success is relative.
Fulham FC is also modest, both in aspirations and budget. A humble club too, certainly enough to take a coach without complaining (Barça divas take note). It has lived in the shadow of its flashy nouveau riche neighbours, surviving on die-hard fans and its status as the favourite club of actors, artists, musicians and comedians.
And over the course of eighteen games in Europe the club has also charted a quiet but devastating course through a swathe of European greats and wannabes. The manager and the club are perfectly matched and deserve all the success they can get.
After all, how many other managers (the late Bobby Robson aside) and clubs enjoy the backing of the whole country on a big night like tonight?
Fulham FC is also modest, both in aspirations and budget. A humble club too, certainly enough to take a coach without complaining (Barça divas take note). It has lived in the shadow of its flashy nouveau riche neighbours, surviving on die-hard fans and its status as the favourite club of actors, artists, musicians and comedians.
And over the course of eighteen games in Europe the club has also charted a quiet but devastating course through a swathe of European greats and wannabes. The manager and the club are perfectly matched and deserve all the success they can get.
After all, how many other managers (the late Bobby Robson aside) and clubs enjoy the backing of the whole country on a big night like tonight?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Circle the bandwagons
OK then: 0-0 tonight, 0-1 in the Campo Nuevo, and then all the people on the bandwagon will moan about anti-football and negative playing styles and refuse to accept that just because they're on that particular bandwagon it doesn't mean they deserve the glory they're hunting.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Mes que Messi
Luis Suárez, the Ballon D’Or in 1960, was sold on immediately for a world record fee. Johan Cruyff, the Ballon D’Or in 1973 and 1974, was later (as manager) hounded out of the club with such devastating effect that he left management forever and in spite of returning to the club with advice has never taken up an official post with them since his departure.
Diego Maradona, the greatest player of all time (con el permiso de Cruyff…) suffered injury and illness so he was sold on for a record fee after the president decided he was no longer any use to the club. Hristo Stoichkov and Romário – Ballon D’Or and FIFA World Player respectively for 1994 – lived through acrimonious departures after falling out with the president and other club directors.
Ronaldo, FIFA World Player in 1996 and 1997, was suddenly dumped out of the club for a world record fee straight after winning the award. Fellow countryman Rivaldo, Ballon D’Or in 1999, was suddenly released from contract at the end of one season.
Ronaldinho, FIFA World Player in 2004 and Ballon D’Or the following year, was thrown out by the president as soon as he was injured. Samuel Eto’o, an excellent player who is by no means out of place with the above names, was forced out after constant rumours in the Catalan press drew a distinct lack of support from within the club, and he was subsequently released only as part of a deal for another player (claiming he was fiddled out of money into the bargain).
It seems FC Barcelona are not just “mès que un club”, they also go to great pains to show they are more than any player. As soon as a player reaches the top, the club proves that they are still higher. So just how long will Leo Messi, FIFA World Player and Ballon D’Or for 2009, survive?
Diego Maradona, the greatest player of all time (con el permiso de Cruyff…) suffered injury and illness so he was sold on for a record fee after the president decided he was no longer any use to the club. Hristo Stoichkov and Romário – Ballon D’Or and FIFA World Player respectively for 1994 – lived through acrimonious departures after falling out with the president and other club directors.
Ronaldo, FIFA World Player in 1996 and 1997, was suddenly dumped out of the club for a world record fee straight after winning the award. Fellow countryman Rivaldo, Ballon D’Or in 1999, was suddenly released from contract at the end of one season.
Ronaldinho, FIFA World Player in 2004 and Ballon D’Or the following year, was thrown out by the president as soon as he was injured. Samuel Eto’o, an excellent player who is by no means out of place with the above names, was forced out after constant rumours in the Catalan press drew a distinct lack of support from within the club, and he was subsequently released only as part of a deal for another player (claiming he was fiddled out of money into the bargain).
It seems FC Barcelona are not just “mès que un club”, they also go to great pains to show they are more than any player. As soon as a player reaches the top, the club proves that they are still higher. So just how long will Leo Messi, FIFA World Player and Ballon D’Or for 2009, survive?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Prima donna
Critics of football talk about how ridiculous it is for twenty-two grown men to chase around after an inflated pig’s bladder trying to kick it between some wooden posts. As much as I love the sport, it is hard to argue. It is even more difficult to claim that football is serious when it is turned into a sensationalist circus as it was on Saturday at Stamford Bridge.
The world – or at least the part of it with nothing better to do and even less to think about – waited with bated breath to see whether Wayne Bridge and John Terry would shake hands. This moment was the final act to push modern football – in England at least – over the edge of mediocrity and into the pit of TV reality.
(And by the way, those people who have lauded Bridge's maturity and his ability to get over it are wrong - if that had been the case he would simply have shaken hands with the man and got on with it. Instead he chose to stare him out, testosterone-fuelled alpha male challenge, showing that he is still disgusted that someone could do the dirty on anyone as important as a Premier League footballer.)
Worse than “the handshake (or lack of)” was Bridge’s decision not to play for England. This over-paid, arrogant, preening, self-centred prima donna has decided that his personal problems are sufficient excuse to abandon the national team, in a World Cup year to boot. These are not personal problems of the magnitude of those currently suffered by Edwin van der Sar, for example, or Carlos Tévez, rather a product of behaving as if he was proud to belong to England’s new underclass.
Playing for England should be an unpaid privilege, an honour with no more payment than the sheer pride of being asked to wear the shirt. The team, the badge and the country should always be above the players, it should be much more than the sum of its human parts, and any player who believes himself to be more important than the national team should never be invited to play for his country again.
Bridge is an embarrassment to the game, but he is simply another person showing the symptoms of the malaise that is poisoning the English game. So much so, in fact, that it is surprising that he should reject the opportunity to join the England camp – he would be well at home in the company of the prima donnas and hooligans who currently play for England.
The world – or at least the part of it with nothing better to do and even less to think about – waited with bated breath to see whether Wayne Bridge and John Terry would shake hands. This moment was the final act to push modern football – in England at least – over the edge of mediocrity and into the pit of TV reality.
(And by the way, those people who have lauded Bridge's maturity and his ability to get over it are wrong - if that had been the case he would simply have shaken hands with the man and got on with it. Instead he chose to stare him out, testosterone-fuelled alpha male challenge, showing that he is still disgusted that someone could do the dirty on anyone as important as a Premier League footballer.)
Worse than “the handshake (or lack of)” was Bridge’s decision not to play for England. This over-paid, arrogant, preening, self-centred prima donna has decided that his personal problems are sufficient excuse to abandon the national team, in a World Cup year to boot. These are not personal problems of the magnitude of those currently suffered by Edwin van der Sar, for example, or Carlos Tévez, rather a product of behaving as if he was proud to belong to England’s new underclass.
Playing for England should be an unpaid privilege, an honour with no more payment than the sheer pride of being asked to wear the shirt. The team, the badge and the country should always be above the players, it should be much more than the sum of its human parts, and any player who believes himself to be more important than the national team should never be invited to play for his country again.
Bridge is an embarrassment to the game, but he is simply another person showing the symptoms of the malaise that is poisoning the English game. So much so, in fact, that it is surprising that he should reject the opportunity to join the England camp – he would be well at home in the company of the prima donnas and hooligans who currently play for England.
Fur coat and dirty knickers
Last Friday morning the inevitable happened for Portsmouth as it was announced that they had gone into administration. Most commentators focused on one interesting question: how could this possibly happen in the richest league in the world?
This reminded me of a comment made by a Spanish journalist about Real Madrid at the turn of the century when one of the Spanish football dailies published a list of the most debt-ridden clubs in the domestic game. The journalist asked something along the lines of this: if your neighbour has a five-bedroom house, three cars in the garage, a yacht and a helicopter, would you consider him to be poor?
The answer must surely be no, the journalist asserted, even though you are sure that your neighbour has all these possessions on a mortgage, on hire purchase, on the never-never. If he has access to these things then he must have sufficient income to justify the banks’ confidence in him. The journalist failed to address what would happen if that income – or even the confidence – disappeared.
The Premier League is indeed the richest league in the world, but it is heavily mortgaged. It is not old money and its wealth has no foundation – it is mortgaged up to the hilt on its own reputation. The Premier League is, as they say where I come from, nothing more than fur coat and dirty knickers.
Almost the worst aspect of this falseness is that the Premier League looks on the clubs as mere playthings, similar to the attractive but expensive toys of the wealthy neighbour, and allows prospective owners to do the same. And by far the worst part of this charade is the fact that the Premier League has absolutely no regard for the fans.
And now one of its toys is broken, and the fans are left to pick up the pieces.
This reminded me of a comment made by a Spanish journalist about Real Madrid at the turn of the century when one of the Spanish football dailies published a list of the most debt-ridden clubs in the domestic game. The journalist asked something along the lines of this: if your neighbour has a five-bedroom house, three cars in the garage, a yacht and a helicopter, would you consider him to be poor?
The answer must surely be no, the journalist asserted, even though you are sure that your neighbour has all these possessions on a mortgage, on hire purchase, on the never-never. If he has access to these things then he must have sufficient income to justify the banks’ confidence in him. The journalist failed to address what would happen if that income – or even the confidence – disappeared.
The Premier League is indeed the richest league in the world, but it is heavily mortgaged. It is not old money and its wealth has no foundation – it is mortgaged up to the hilt on its own reputation. The Premier League is, as they say where I come from, nothing more than fur coat and dirty knickers.
Almost the worst aspect of this falseness is that the Premier League looks on the clubs as mere playthings, similar to the attractive but expensive toys of the wealthy neighbour, and allows prospective owners to do the same. And by far the worst part of this charade is the fact that the Premier League has absolutely no regard for the fans.
And now one of its toys is broken, and the fans are left to pick up the pieces.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Privileges of the elite
The Argentine Football Federation has a habit of controlling the game in favour of the biggest clubs or those of the Buenos Aires area. When Boca lost a championship in the 1991 grand final (between the winners of the Apertura and Clausura) the rules were changed so that there would always be two separate champions each year, and the big teams would never have to fear a one-off game.
There may be two champions every season but there are never two relegations, as River Plate would hate to be reminded after finishing last in the 2008-2009 Apertura. Of course the rules governing relegation are one of the most controversial aspects of league football in Argentina – in 1983 the AFA changed the laws controlling relegation from the first division in order to base the demotion on the average result of three years’ worth of statistics. The first beneficiaries of this rule change were River Plate, who would have been relegated that very season but escaped the usual punishment for their poor football.
Recently-promoted teams may stay up one year but they will be hard pushed to accumulate the necessary statistics to continue at the top flight. Conversely, if any of the big teams should have a bad year, they know their pedigree and elite position in Argentine football will always protect them from the drop.
Since that change in the rules none of The Big Five – Boca, River, Independiente, San Lorenzo or Racing – have ever been relegated, in spite of nine relegation finishes between them in the Clausura. (Racing controversially did go down in 1983, but it was essentially because AFA president Julio Grondona was a founding member of Racing’s most hated rivals, Arsenal de Sarandí.)
The Premier League has proposed play-offs for the fourth Champions’ League place. The only possible result if this suggestion became reality would be The Big Four retaining their elite positions forever more. Even if any of the teams had a bad season, like Liverpool this year, they would always be sure of a second chance to stay at the top. If the seventh-placed team had the temerity to beat one of TBF earlier in the season, they would be punished at the end.
When the teams at the bottom don’t cut it the first time around they aren’t given a second chance – why should the teams at the top be treated any differently?
There may be two champions every season but there are never two relegations, as River Plate would hate to be reminded after finishing last in the 2008-2009 Apertura. Of course the rules governing relegation are one of the most controversial aspects of league football in Argentina – in 1983 the AFA changed the laws controlling relegation from the first division in order to base the demotion on the average result of three years’ worth of statistics. The first beneficiaries of this rule change were River Plate, who would have been relegated that very season but escaped the usual punishment for their poor football.
Recently-promoted teams may stay up one year but they will be hard pushed to accumulate the necessary statistics to continue at the top flight. Conversely, if any of the big teams should have a bad year, they know their pedigree and elite position in Argentine football will always protect them from the drop.
Since that change in the rules none of The Big Five – Boca, River, Independiente, San Lorenzo or Racing – have ever been relegated, in spite of nine relegation finishes between them in the Clausura. (Racing controversially did go down in 1983, but it was essentially because AFA president Julio Grondona was a founding member of Racing’s most hated rivals, Arsenal de Sarandí.)
The Premier League has proposed play-offs for the fourth Champions’ League place. The only possible result if this suggestion became reality would be The Big Four retaining their elite positions forever more. Even if any of the teams had a bad season, like Liverpool this year, they would always be sure of a second chance to stay at the top. If the seventh-placed team had the temerity to beat one of TBF earlier in the season, they would be punished at the end.
When the teams at the bottom don’t cut it the first time around they aren’t given a second chance – why should the teams at the top be treated any differently?
Monday, February 1, 2010
Time(s) for a change
The two main stories which have excited football journalists recently appear to have been Tevez’s criticism of Gary Neville and John Terry’s extra-marital relationship, and both stories have served to emphasise once more the huge difference between professional journalists and second-rate hacks.
First of all, “tarao” does not mean “moron”, rather something similar to moving your forefinger round in a circle next to the side of your head – “crazy”, perhaps, or “off his head”. Of course, things like correct translations – or the truth – get in the way of selling newspapers, so the hacks had to change the translation, safe in the knowledge that even if somebody who speaks the language can gainsay them that person will never be able to put out the fire. If it says it in the papers, it must be true.
Of course Manchester football fans need no encouragement to continue their rivalry between red and blue, some in a good-natured way and others with coins and lighters, so in the end it hardly matters. However, the chief sports writer of a newspaper already well-known for its spelling mistakes and grammatical errors “crossed an important line” in an article about John Terry in yesterday’s edition. He wrote:
"And still, this case crosses an important line. Not by virtue of Terry’s marriage to his childhood sweetheart, Toni, and their two young children, because many men and women have affairs. There is no judgment on that basis. What matters here is that Terry has had a relationship with the partner of a teammate — a teammate who happened to be one of his closest friends."
In other words, cheating on your partner is neither here nor there, and neither is hurting your children, but never cheat on a teammate – never, ever do the dirty on somebody as important as a footballer.
If that is what the man believes, he is an idiot. In his defence, perhaps he expressed himself badly, although as a professional journalist supposedly good enough to be a “chief sports writer” at a major newspaper he should have a better grasp of language. The mediocrity of his article continues in the next paragraph:
"It is said that a number of England players believe their captain has behaved badly and that Bridge has no wish to play in the same team as his former friend."
“It is said” is almost as bad as the word “could” in the world of serious journalism – it is the drunken man’s lamppost, the floundering of the man who never learned how to swim.
Is it any wonder that the world of football appears to be losing its credibility when the players end up in prison, the fans throw coins at the players, and the people who are supposedly intelligent treat the fans like fools? Time for a change.
First of all, “tarao” does not mean “moron”, rather something similar to moving your forefinger round in a circle next to the side of your head – “crazy”, perhaps, or “off his head”. Of course, things like correct translations – or the truth – get in the way of selling newspapers, so the hacks had to change the translation, safe in the knowledge that even if somebody who speaks the language can gainsay them that person will never be able to put out the fire. If it says it in the papers, it must be true.
Of course Manchester football fans need no encouragement to continue their rivalry between red and blue, some in a good-natured way and others with coins and lighters, so in the end it hardly matters. However, the chief sports writer of a newspaper already well-known for its spelling mistakes and grammatical errors “crossed an important line” in an article about John Terry in yesterday’s edition. He wrote:
"And still, this case crosses an important line. Not by virtue of Terry’s marriage to his childhood sweetheart, Toni, and their two young children, because many men and women have affairs. There is no judgment on that basis. What matters here is that Terry has had a relationship with the partner of a teammate — a teammate who happened to be one of his closest friends."
In other words, cheating on your partner is neither here nor there, and neither is hurting your children, but never cheat on a teammate – never, ever do the dirty on somebody as important as a footballer.
If that is what the man believes, he is an idiot. In his defence, perhaps he expressed himself badly, although as a professional journalist supposedly good enough to be a “chief sports writer” at a major newspaper he should have a better grasp of language. The mediocrity of his article continues in the next paragraph:
"It is said that a number of England players believe their captain has behaved badly and that Bridge has no wish to play in the same team as his former friend."
“It is said” is almost as bad as the word “could” in the world of serious journalism – it is the drunken man’s lamppost, the floundering of the man who never learned how to swim.
Is it any wonder that the world of football appears to be losing its credibility when the players end up in prison, the fans throw coins at the players, and the people who are supposedly intelligent treat the fans like fools? Time for a change.
The dangers of Eurocentric journalism
So Egypt won again. Obviously.
For some reason a horde of European journalists – the average ones – had the Ivory Coast and Cameroon as favourites to win the tournament, presumably because Ivory Coast have two Chelsea players, one Gunner and some guy who plays for “Barsa” and Cameroon have Samuel Eto’o.
These so-called “experts” appear to avoid any in-depth analysis of African football when they write their opinions, looking only at the European context. In spite of the logic of analysing teams according to certain accepted criteria, they fail to lay any importance on the lack of depth in the squad, the lack of quality players in most positions or even on the fact that footballers who play away from home understandably play differently on their own continent and in front of their own fans. How can having Drogba or Eto’o make you the favourites if they are backed up by a bunch of players who are average at best? What does the Premier League or Serie A matter in an African competition?
Before the quarter-finals a lot of European journalists had Angola, Ivory Coast, Cameroon and Nigeria as the semi-finalists, completely against the evidence of history, statistics and form. Of course the first three lost while Nigeria only scraped through on penalties after a goalless draw. Ivory Coast offered no more than cynical kicks and girly scratching (Nkoulou, Song and Bedimo) while Cameroon divas Eto’o and Geremi were not so much average as almost instrumental in their side’s defeat.
Commentators pointed to one refereeing decision in the Egypt-Cameroon game but even they had to grudgingly admit that two of the goals were down to goalkeeping blunders while the other goal was Geremi’s fault and his alone. Egypt played the better football, their only weakness being a certain level of sloppiness in front of goal during the ninety minutes.
A note to the Eurocentric hacks: find answers to the following questions – before this year’s CAN, who had won the most tournaments? Who was second in the rankings (finish reading the questions before you wet yourselves)? Who had appeared in the most finals? Who had won the last two tournaments? That way you won’t be surprised at the names of this year’s finalists.
And perhaps that way you can avoid picking Australia or Honduras as favourites for the World Cup just because they have a handful of players in England.
For some reason a horde of European journalists – the average ones – had the Ivory Coast and Cameroon as favourites to win the tournament, presumably because Ivory Coast have two Chelsea players, one Gunner and some guy who plays for “Barsa” and Cameroon have Samuel Eto’o.
These so-called “experts” appear to avoid any in-depth analysis of African football when they write their opinions, looking only at the European context. In spite of the logic of analysing teams according to certain accepted criteria, they fail to lay any importance on the lack of depth in the squad, the lack of quality players in most positions or even on the fact that footballers who play away from home understandably play differently on their own continent and in front of their own fans. How can having Drogba or Eto’o make you the favourites if they are backed up by a bunch of players who are average at best? What does the Premier League or Serie A matter in an African competition?
Before the quarter-finals a lot of European journalists had Angola, Ivory Coast, Cameroon and Nigeria as the semi-finalists, completely against the evidence of history, statistics and form. Of course the first three lost while Nigeria only scraped through on penalties after a goalless draw. Ivory Coast offered no more than cynical kicks and girly scratching (Nkoulou, Song and Bedimo) while Cameroon divas Eto’o and Geremi were not so much average as almost instrumental in their side’s defeat.
Commentators pointed to one refereeing decision in the Egypt-Cameroon game but even they had to grudgingly admit that two of the goals were down to goalkeeping blunders while the other goal was Geremi’s fault and his alone. Egypt played the better football, their only weakness being a certain level of sloppiness in front of goal during the ninety minutes.
A note to the Eurocentric hacks: find answers to the following questions – before this year’s CAN, who had won the most tournaments? Who was second in the rankings (finish reading the questions before you wet yourselves)? Who had appeared in the most finals? Who had won the last two tournaments? That way you won’t be surprised at the names of this year’s finalists.
And perhaps that way you can avoid picking Australia or Honduras as favourites for the World Cup just because they have a handful of players in England.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
"BENITEZ INSISTS REDS ARE UNITED"
That was the BBC headline after the Liverpool manager's post-match interview. I listened to the interview just in case, but fortunately he said nothing of the sort.
Not only would that have surpassed Robinho's belief that he was signing for another team, it would have been the final nail in the coffin of every die-hard Liverpool fan.
Not only would that have surpassed Robinho's belief that he was signing for another team, it would have been the final nail in the coffin of every die-hard Liverpool fan.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The art of innuendo
I know nothing about Robbie Savage apart from the comments that are usually made about his behaviour by self-righteous hacks, so when I saw the headline “Savage fury at criticism of Rams staff” and “Savage fury at criticism of Derby coaching staff” I was interested to hear him speak. Neither do I know anything about the journalist (Colin Gibson maybe, but I didn’t catch the name) so both contestants started off fair and square.
The headline suggested that there would be screaming and abusive language and possibly sounds of violence being done to the journalist. Certainly there was the suggestion of the footballer going postal on the journalist, and yet he came across as quite a reasonable person.
I know nothing about Derby's and Savage's performances this season because I don't follow the club, but I do know that journalists rely on rumour-mongering and sly suggestiveness and petty innuendo to sell newspapers/radio shows and the initial reaction from that journalist (before he rallied later in the interview in the face of Savage’s calmness) proved that he knew that he had been caught out.
And the unintelligent – and just plain wrong – BBC headlines simply underline Savage's point, that journalists use whatever rubbish they want to grab people's attention. Fair play to Savage (and Lampard before him) for challenging the mediocre innuendo-merchants who poison the game.
The headline suggested that there would be screaming and abusive language and possibly sounds of violence being done to the journalist. Certainly there was the suggestion of the footballer going postal on the journalist, and yet he came across as quite a reasonable person.
I know nothing about Derby's and Savage's performances this season because I don't follow the club, but I do know that journalists rely on rumour-mongering and sly suggestiveness and petty innuendo to sell newspapers/radio shows and the initial reaction from that journalist (before he rallied later in the interview in the face of Savage’s calmness) proved that he knew that he had been caught out.
And the unintelligent – and just plain wrong – BBC headlines simply underline Savage's point, that journalists use whatever rubbish they want to grab people's attention. Fair play to Savage (and Lampard before him) for challenging the mediocre innuendo-merchants who poison the game.
Monday, January 11, 2010
The spoilt child
Arsène Wenger has a history of making surprising statements, but during the last few weeks he has surpassed himself. On Christmas Day the Arsenal website published a quote about Stoke City’s Rory Delap which ran as follows:
“For example at Stoke, for Rory Delap it is like kicking the ball. It is a little bit of an unfair advantage. He is using a strength that is usually not a strength in football. So [the rule I would change would be] maybe to play throw-ins by foot.”
This would be the same as saying that passing should be outlawed because Xavi passes the ball with a far superior accuracy, or that shooting should be against the rules because Torres is lethal in front of goal. Of course, that isn’t the problem. As one popular BBC journalist put it, “Is it me or is he basing this on the fact that the Gunners haven’t got a player who can lob it into the penalty area?”
When a number of matches were postponed because of the extreme weather conditions last week Mr Wenger was back on his high horse. One part of his complaint ran like this:
“The question you can ask is, for the fairness of the Premier League, if there are two or three games postponed, should the whole day be re-scheduled? Because if you play one team now who fights not to go down, and you play them again in May when they are already safe or already down, it is not the same game.”
As any fan knows, the essential characteristic of a league is that it is a marathon not a sprint, so one game should not make that much difference – unless you are in the habit of dropping points to clubs in the bottom three that your main title rivals thrash. The difference in matches played may be important in countries where there is a strict schedule and every team has always played the same number of games (for example France and Spain), but in England there can be as many as three games in hand for some clubs over some others (right now, for Bolton over Manchester United and Birmingham) and nobody has complained up until now. It all sorts itself out in the end. And quite how cancelling even more matches benefits the game is quite beyond logic.
However, without doubt the worst part of the Arsenal Manager’s complaint was the following:
“Personally I know only the inside of the stadiums - I don't know the surroundings well enough, but I must say it is the price we pay for living in a society where everybody wants 100 per cent security. Nobody accepts any risk any more and everybody is always guided by fear. If one of 60,000 people has an accident, you feel very guilty and nobody accepts any more that the slightest insecurity could exist in our society and that is why the games are postponed when there is no real need for it.”
These were the worst weather conditions in England for many decades and the authorities were urging people to stay at home and only make trips that were absolutely necessary – football is not necessary. It is an irrelevant bagatelle when placed opposite the loss of life or serious injury. Mr Wenger lives in a privileged ivory tower, far removed from the realities of the person in the (icy) street and has the arrogance to assume that we should be obliged to leave our houses just to watch his prancing ponies.
There is no reason to wonder why most of his players behave like petulant children – their manager is a spoilt brat and is fast losing any credibility he once had.
“For example at Stoke, for Rory Delap it is like kicking the ball. It is a little bit of an unfair advantage. He is using a strength that is usually not a strength in football. So [the rule I would change would be] maybe to play throw-ins by foot.”
This would be the same as saying that passing should be outlawed because Xavi passes the ball with a far superior accuracy, or that shooting should be against the rules because Torres is lethal in front of goal. Of course, that isn’t the problem. As one popular BBC journalist put it, “Is it me or is he basing this on the fact that the Gunners haven’t got a player who can lob it into the penalty area?”
When a number of matches were postponed because of the extreme weather conditions last week Mr Wenger was back on his high horse. One part of his complaint ran like this:
“The question you can ask is, for the fairness of the Premier League, if there are two or three games postponed, should the whole day be re-scheduled? Because if you play one team now who fights not to go down, and you play them again in May when they are already safe or already down, it is not the same game.”
As any fan knows, the essential characteristic of a league is that it is a marathon not a sprint, so one game should not make that much difference – unless you are in the habit of dropping points to clubs in the bottom three that your main title rivals thrash. The difference in matches played may be important in countries where there is a strict schedule and every team has always played the same number of games (for example France and Spain), but in England there can be as many as three games in hand for some clubs over some others (right now, for Bolton over Manchester United and Birmingham) and nobody has complained up until now. It all sorts itself out in the end. And quite how cancelling even more matches benefits the game is quite beyond logic.
However, without doubt the worst part of the Arsenal Manager’s complaint was the following:
“Personally I know only the inside of the stadiums - I don't know the surroundings well enough, but I must say it is the price we pay for living in a society where everybody wants 100 per cent security. Nobody accepts any risk any more and everybody is always guided by fear. If one of 60,000 people has an accident, you feel very guilty and nobody accepts any more that the slightest insecurity could exist in our society and that is why the games are postponed when there is no real need for it.”
These were the worst weather conditions in England for many decades and the authorities were urging people to stay at home and only make trips that were absolutely necessary – football is not necessary. It is an irrelevant bagatelle when placed opposite the loss of life or serious injury. Mr Wenger lives in a privileged ivory tower, far removed from the realities of the person in the (icy) street and has the arrogance to assume that we should be obliged to leave our houses just to watch his prancing ponies.
There is no reason to wonder why most of his players behave like petulant children – their manager is a spoilt brat and is fast losing any credibility he once had.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
