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 SarandÃ.)
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?
Saturday, February 20, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
