Any reader who has more than a passing acquaintance with the game of golf will quite easily tell that the writer of this article knows very little about the sport. Calling golf a sport is likely to cause many of the non-golfers reading this to laugh at such a label. To those who do not play or follow golf, it may seem no more sporty than darts or tiddlywinks (although the writer would like to say that the former of these is definitely a sport of kings while the latter, well, he is unsure if he has even spelled it correctly.)
And with that somewhat bizarre introduction, I would like to put forward the following argument; golf can be one of the most exciting sports on the planet.
The only golf tournament in the calendar which I watch in its entirety, or at least as much as I possibly can, is the Ryder Cup. The Europe vs USA rivalry, with its tactics, choice of pairings and captain's press conferences has me hooked. But when it comes to the other tournaments, even the Majors, as they are called, I only watch a few hours if any. But these few hours are often gripping.
And so, as I sat down in front of the TV on Sunday night, I switched on BBC Two, relatively uninformed as to what had gone on in the first 3 1/2 days of the 4 day Masters from Augusta in the US. The first scene was Tiger Woods, paired with his arch-rival Phil Mickelson, both of whom were making a strong push up the leaderboard. It looked like Chad Campbell, leader for a good portion of the tournament, Angel Cabrera and 48 year old Kenny Perry might be pipped at the post by Tiger or the left-handed Mickelson.
But a couple of dropped shots by both Woods and Mickelson on the final few holes, meant that the race was down to three; Perry, Cabrera and Campbell. And as for me, I was hooked. The demise of Woods may well have had the lukewarm golf fans switching off, but I was in for the long haul. I knew it would be midnight before this contest was sorted out.
Cabrera and Perry were the final pair, meaning they would be the last to finish, so Chad Campbell would be back in the hut by the time the other two were finishing. When Kenny Perry holed his putt for a birdie at the 16th hole, I was ready to go to bed. It was over. Perry had a two shot lead with two holes to play.
But it is not as easy as that as I have discovered on a number of occasions. Golf has the habit of creating Zeros out of Heroes at the swish of a club. Almost unlike any other sport, the man at the top of the leaderboard in a big golf tournament, can, with one bad shot, undo all of his hard work in the previous 15 hours spent on the course (or more like 20 hours the rate some of the golfers saunter around the course these days).
And so, Kenny Perry, with an inevitability that still does not detract from the tension created, proceeded to drop shots at the final two holes, handing his playing partner, Angel Cabrera, who had held his nerve superbly on the last couple of holes, as well as Chad Campbell the chance in a three way play-off. For those unfamiliar with golf, this is a sudden-death penalty shoot-out style finish, where extra holes are played until someone comes out victorious. Cabrera held his nerve, and the Argentinian denied what had been a leaderboard full of Americans on the final day.
Great finishes are possible in all sports, whether it is a team sport or an individual one. But the latter stages of golf tournaments are truly gripping. One can watch the back nine of the final round of the Masters without having seen the previous 63 holes, and it still makes for exciting, edge-of-your-seat stuff. Sometimes in other sports, missing over three-quarters of the action is a serious hindrance. But not here. If you have never watched the final couple of hours of a major golf tournament, then look out for one in the future; you will not regret it.
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Monday, 13 April 2009
Thursday, 9 April 2009
FOOTBALL: Barcelona are brilliant but not unbeatable
As Thierry Henry slotted in Barcelona's fourth goal at Camp Nou on Wednesday night, their opponents, the German champions Bayern Munich, must have thought it could not get any worse. 4-0 down after 43 minutes. But it could have been worse.
As Henry peeled away to celebrate the 51st Champions League goal of his career, his teamate Lionel Messi was lying on the floor just outside the 'D' of the penalty area, face in his hands. In the build-up to the goal, Bayern captain Mark van Bommel had thrust his shoulder at the oncoming Messi, who seemed to connect face-first. It was a red card offence, but English referee Howard Webb, who had called play-on to allow the advantge and the subsequent Henry strike, chose not to take any action.
Had the Dutch international van Bommel seen red, or had Barcelona been given a penalty kick earlier in the half when Christain Lell felled Lionel Messi, it could have been much worse for Bayern. As it was, Bayern goalkeeper Hans-Jorg Butt, who had taken a boot in the face from Henry in the first half, pulled of a couple of good stops in the second and Bayern's heaviest Champions League defeat is only 4-0.
Barcelona's front three- Samuel Eto'o, Thierry Henry and Lionel Messi- were sublime. They carved open Bayern's defence, even if it was a makeshift one lacking Lucio, Phillip Lahm and Daniel van Buyten and consisting of a Brazilian named Breno who has played only a few games all season. The Barcelona trio are capable of slicing open any defence; should Terry, Ferdinand or Carragher, to name a few, face Messi and co. later in the competition, it is likely to be how few goals they concede rather than keeping a clean sheet.
However, Barcelona are not unbeatable. Their midfield (Xavi, Iniesta etc.) and their forwards are among the best, but their defence is not in the same league as those of the English sides (although William Gallas' injury, that puts him out for the rest of the season, seriously weakens an Arsenal defence that is certainly the weaker of the four). Carlos Puyol, Barca's experienced centre-half, was forced to play at full-back and the Mexican Rafael Marquez played in the centre. Marquez is not a naturally defensive player and his forward wanderings leave holes in Barcelona's backline.
Barcelona are surely favourites to win the competition. When they are on form, it is difficult to see how they can be beaten. Nevertheless, if one of the English sides is organised in defence, particularly not allowing Henry or Messi to cut inside as they flow forward, keeps close tabs on the string-pullers Xavi and Iniesta as well as poking holes in Barcelona's less-than-secure defence, then Josep Guardiola's men will be denied.
As Henry peeled away to celebrate the 51st Champions League goal of his career, his teamate Lionel Messi was lying on the floor just outside the 'D' of the penalty area, face in his hands. In the build-up to the goal, Bayern captain Mark van Bommel had thrust his shoulder at the oncoming Messi, who seemed to connect face-first. It was a red card offence, but English referee Howard Webb, who had called play-on to allow the advantge and the subsequent Henry strike, chose not to take any action.
Had the Dutch international van Bommel seen red, or had Barcelona been given a penalty kick earlier in the half when Christain Lell felled Lionel Messi, it could have been much worse for Bayern. As it was, Bayern goalkeeper Hans-Jorg Butt, who had taken a boot in the face from Henry in the first half, pulled of a couple of good stops in the second and Bayern's heaviest Champions League defeat is only 4-0.
Barcelona's front three- Samuel Eto'o, Thierry Henry and Lionel Messi- were sublime. They carved open Bayern's defence, even if it was a makeshift one lacking Lucio, Phillip Lahm and Daniel van Buyten and consisting of a Brazilian named Breno who has played only a few games all season. The Barcelona trio are capable of slicing open any defence; should Terry, Ferdinand or Carragher, to name a few, face Messi and co. later in the competition, it is likely to be how few goals they concede rather than keeping a clean sheet.
However, Barcelona are not unbeatable. Their midfield (Xavi, Iniesta etc.) and their forwards are among the best, but their defence is not in the same league as those of the English sides (although William Gallas' injury, that puts him out for the rest of the season, seriously weakens an Arsenal defence that is certainly the weaker of the four). Carlos Puyol, Barca's experienced centre-half, was forced to play at full-back and the Mexican Rafael Marquez played in the centre. Marquez is not a naturally defensive player and his forward wanderings leave holes in Barcelona's backline.
Barcelona are surely favourites to win the competition. When they are on form, it is difficult to see how they can be beaten. Nevertheless, if one of the English sides is organised in defence, particularly not allowing Henry or Messi to cut inside as they flow forward, keeps close tabs on the string-pullers Xavi and Iniesta as well as poking holes in Barcelona's less-than-secure defence, then Josep Guardiola's men will be denied.
Monday, 6 April 2009
CRICKET: Strauss' Twenty20 exclusion may hinder England's overall progress
The omission of captain Andrew Strauss from England's provisional 30-man squad for the ICC World Twenty20 tournament in June was not a surprise. National selector Geoff Miller has said that Strauss accepts he is "not comfortable" in the super-short format of the game.
Like it or not though, Twenty20 cricket now makes up a substantial part of the cricket calendar, both in the form of internationals and in domestic competitions like the Indian Premier League. Is there any place in the game these days for an England captain who is "not comfortable" with the twenty-over game?
Twenty20 cricket is taking over. All the big money is in the IPL, and the ICC seems intent on fitting as many Twenty20 matches and tournaments into the calendar. The argument that having a different captain in the 50-over game to the Test arena causes problems, as neither can truly stamp his authority on the team, may well become increasingly relevant to the 20-over format as well.
The foundation of success, not just in cricket but in any sport, is continuity in selection. Since 1985, the very successful Australia have had four permanent captains- Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting- and although they have had some periods where the captain of the ODI team has been different to the Test captain, there has always been a sense that the next captain is being groomed.
England's history of captains in the same period is very different and it is commendable that England have now decided to choose Andrew Strauss as captain in both Tests and ODIs, rather than attempting to juggle two captains. It is true that the Twenty20 window in the cricket calendar offers Strauss some respite from the stressful job, and England are not alone in making huge changes to their sides for Twenty20 competitions.
However, Ricky Ponting, captain of Australia, skippers the side in all three forms of the game. There is absolutely no confusion as to who is the leader and when Michael Clarke is forced to deputise, Australia are something of a different team. Conversely, Graeme Smith, captain of South Africa and who captained in his country's first few Twenty20 games, has not skippered the side in the super-short format for the last 15 months and in that period South Africa have nearly knocked Australia off their perch as the number one Test nation.
So is it just a case of Ricky Ponting and MS Dhoni being suited to the Twenty20 game, while other Test and ODI captains are simply "not comfortable"? It is hard to believe that Mike Atherton or even Nasser Hussein would have been good Twenty20 players, so perhaps one should not make a big deal of who is Twenty20 captain.
It has been shown in cricket history that it is not essential for an international side to have the same captain for all forms of the game, but there is a strong case that the same figurehead and leader across the board can improve the chances of success. The question is, should Andrew Strauss, who is "better suited" to longer forms of the game, captain the England Twenty20 side, not necessarily on merit but for the greater good?
Like it or not though, Twenty20 cricket now makes up a substantial part of the cricket calendar, both in the form of internationals and in domestic competitions like the Indian Premier League. Is there any place in the game these days for an England captain who is "not comfortable" with the twenty-over game?
Twenty20 cricket is taking over. All the big money is in the IPL, and the ICC seems intent on fitting as many Twenty20 matches and tournaments into the calendar. The argument that having a different captain in the 50-over game to the Test arena causes problems, as neither can truly stamp his authority on the team, may well become increasingly relevant to the 20-over format as well.
The foundation of success, not just in cricket but in any sport, is continuity in selection. Since 1985, the very successful Australia have had four permanent captains- Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting- and although they have had some periods where the captain of the ODI team has been different to the Test captain, there has always been a sense that the next captain is being groomed.
England's history of captains in the same period is very different and it is commendable that England have now decided to choose Andrew Strauss as captain in both Tests and ODIs, rather than attempting to juggle two captains. It is true that the Twenty20 window in the cricket calendar offers Strauss some respite from the stressful job, and England are not alone in making huge changes to their sides for Twenty20 competitions.
However, Ricky Ponting, captain of Australia, skippers the side in all three forms of the game. There is absolutely no confusion as to who is the leader and when Michael Clarke is forced to deputise, Australia are something of a different team. Conversely, Graeme Smith, captain of South Africa and who captained in his country's first few Twenty20 games, has not skippered the side in the super-short format for the last 15 months and in that period South Africa have nearly knocked Australia off their perch as the number one Test nation.
So is it just a case of Ricky Ponting and MS Dhoni being suited to the Twenty20 game, while other Test and ODI captains are simply "not comfortable"? It is hard to believe that Mike Atherton or even Nasser Hussein would have been good Twenty20 players, so perhaps one should not make a big deal of who is Twenty20 captain.
It has been shown in cricket history that it is not essential for an international side to have the same captain for all forms of the game, but there is a strong case that the same figurehead and leader across the board can improve the chances of success. The question is, should Andrew Strauss, who is "better suited" to longer forms of the game, captain the England Twenty20 side, not necessarily on merit but for the greater good?
Friday, 6 February 2009
CRICKET: What todays multi-milion auction means...
Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff hit the headlines again this morning, but unfortunately not for their performances in the First Test against the West Indies in Jamaica. Both have fetched approximately £1.1 million each in the second Indian Premier League auction in Goa. But what exactly does this mean?
The India Premier League will run for six weeks in April/May. It is a Twenty20 tournament of 8 franchised teams, which are based in cities like Delhi and Mumbai. Therefore all players remain on contracts at the home clubs, in England or South Africa or Australia for instance, but their services are bought for the duration of the tournament, for a certain number of years. The players are auctioned to the highest bidder, but each franchise has a budget. Most players were auctioned last year, on contracts of more than one year. With a limit of ten foreign (non-Indian) players per squad, most franchises already had seven or eight such players.
Therefore, all the attention was on Freddie and KP, because no franchise was likely to take on a foreign player unless he was a world class player. However, the pair can only play for three weeks of the six-week tournament, so they only earn half of the auction fee: about £550,000. That is still over £180,000 a week; eat your heart out Robinho. However, because the players are released from their central contract with the England Cricket Board for those three weeks, they are technically contracted to their respective counties- Lancashire and Hampshire respectively- for that time. And the counties want compensation.
The compensation was set at 10% of their fee, which for Flintoff and Pietersen is £55,000 each. Not bad for missing one County Championship match. Paul Collingwood, the other centrally contracted England player, was bought for $275,000, so Durham can expect about £15,000. Collingwood was not the third most expensive England player though. All-rounder Ravi Bopara fetched $450,000. These are massive sums, so one can understand the English players scrambling to be part of it.
The IPL was exciting last year, and will undoubtedly be enhanced by Flintoff and Pietersen, as well as South African JP Duminy who has had a superb recent series against Australia and was auctioned for just shy of $1,000,000. What is more in doubt, is the preparedness of England's two best players for the First Test against the West Indies at Lords in May, after bashing the ball around in a Twenty20 tournament for three weeks. Is five days is long enough to get back into Test mode or does it not matter when you bat like Kevin Pietersen or Andrew Flintoff? Only time will tell.
The India Premier League will run for six weeks in April/May. It is a Twenty20 tournament of 8 franchised teams, which are based in cities like Delhi and Mumbai. Therefore all players remain on contracts at the home clubs, in England or South Africa or Australia for instance, but their services are bought for the duration of the tournament, for a certain number of years. The players are auctioned to the highest bidder, but each franchise has a budget. Most players were auctioned last year, on contracts of more than one year. With a limit of ten foreign (non-Indian) players per squad, most franchises already had seven or eight such players.
Therefore, all the attention was on Freddie and KP, because no franchise was likely to take on a foreign player unless he was a world class player. However, the pair can only play for three weeks of the six-week tournament, so they only earn half of the auction fee: about £550,000. That is still over £180,000 a week; eat your heart out Robinho. However, because the players are released from their central contract with the England Cricket Board for those three weeks, they are technically contracted to their respective counties- Lancashire and Hampshire respectively- for that time. And the counties want compensation.
The compensation was set at 10% of their fee, which for Flintoff and Pietersen is £55,000 each. Not bad for missing one County Championship match. Paul Collingwood, the other centrally contracted England player, was bought for $275,000, so Durham can expect about £15,000. Collingwood was not the third most expensive England player though. All-rounder Ravi Bopara fetched $450,000. These are massive sums, so one can understand the English players scrambling to be part of it.
The IPL was exciting last year, and will undoubtedly be enhanced by Flintoff and Pietersen, as well as South African JP Duminy who has had a superb recent series against Australia and was auctioned for just shy of $1,000,000. What is more in doubt, is the preparedness of England's two best players for the First Test against the West Indies at Lords in May, after bashing the ball around in a Twenty20 tournament for three weeks. Is five days is long enough to get back into Test mode or does it not matter when you bat like Kevin Pietersen or Andrew Flintoff? Only time will tell.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
CRICKET: IPL prepares to auction the soul of English cricket
It has been widely reported in the last couple of days that Kevin Pietersen is likely to 'bought' in the IPL auction for a record fee, eclipsing the $1.5 million paid for the services of Indian wicketkeeper MS Dhoni in last year's inaugural auction. The Indian Premier League, a competition of Twenty20 cricket between 8 franchised teams in India, runs for a six-week period in April/May every year. Players are auctioned off before the tournament to the highest bidding franchise.
The IPL is backed by a variety of multi-millionaire Indians and has seen unprecedented amounts of money pumped into it. For six weeks work, some of the players can earn more money than they would have previously earned in six years.
It is not difficult to understand, then, why every top cricketer in the world wants to play in this competition. Even those commentators of a purist view concede that the players cannot be blamed for wanting to play in the IPL. Twenty20 cricket is undoubtedly exciting and attracts bigger crowds and television audiences than Test cricket. It is also more attractive to advertisers, who will pay more money for adverts during the games.
Indeed, there are many winners in this new era of Twenty20 cricket. Obviously, all of the players involved are earning the kind of money never before seen in cricket. The organisers are very happy with their attractive product; the advertisers are delighted to be associated with it. And with high viewing figures, everyone seems to be a winner.
There is at least one high profile loser: English cricket. English cricket's soul will be sold off next week in the IPL auction.
And while it is being sold, the England cricket team will be half way through the First Test against the West Indies in Jamaica. Are the players minds going to be 100% on the game as the tough arena of Test cricket requires? Or are the top England players going to be desperate to get off the field to ring their agent and find out who they will be playing for in India, and more importantly, for how much?
The ECB gave in to the demands of both the IPL top brass and England players by releasing them to play for three weeks of the six-week IPL tournament, instead of the originally proposed two-week release. The result of this, is that the players who do play, certainly Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff, and possibly a few others, will arrive back from three weeks of Twenty20 crash-bang-wallop with only 5 days until the first Test match of the summer, again against the West Indies. It is not exactly good preparation for a summer which includes the highly-anticipated Ashes.
The IPL is changing the face of cricket and hence affecting every country in the Test arena. But the effects are far more acute in England because the IPL runs at the start of our cricket season. No other nation has this problem, indeed many others, including Australia and South Africa, are just winding down their seasons in April, so the IPL is in a perfect window. Not for us though.
Twenty20 cricket will march on in the coming years, especially in the form of the rival Premier League in England, which is to be bankrolled by Texan billionaire Sir Allen Stanford. But cricket tours of 4 or 5 Tests with ample preparation time for both teams is likely to be a thing of the past. In England's case, the future is likely to be a few Twenty20 slogs in preparation for five-day game. RIP English cricket.
The IPL is backed by a variety of multi-millionaire Indians and has seen unprecedented amounts of money pumped into it. For six weeks work, some of the players can earn more money than they would have previously earned in six years.
It is not difficult to understand, then, why every top cricketer in the world wants to play in this competition. Even those commentators of a purist view concede that the players cannot be blamed for wanting to play in the IPL. Twenty20 cricket is undoubtedly exciting and attracts bigger crowds and television audiences than Test cricket. It is also more attractive to advertisers, who will pay more money for adverts during the games.
Indeed, there are many winners in this new era of Twenty20 cricket. Obviously, all of the players involved are earning the kind of money never before seen in cricket. The organisers are very happy with their attractive product; the advertisers are delighted to be associated with it. And with high viewing figures, everyone seems to be a winner.
There is at least one high profile loser: English cricket. English cricket's soul will be sold off next week in the IPL auction.
And while it is being sold, the England cricket team will be half way through the First Test against the West Indies in Jamaica. Are the players minds going to be 100% on the game as the tough arena of Test cricket requires? Or are the top England players going to be desperate to get off the field to ring their agent and find out who they will be playing for in India, and more importantly, for how much?
The ECB gave in to the demands of both the IPL top brass and England players by releasing them to play for three weeks of the six-week IPL tournament, instead of the originally proposed two-week release. The result of this, is that the players who do play, certainly Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff, and possibly a few others, will arrive back from three weeks of Twenty20 crash-bang-wallop with only 5 days until the first Test match of the summer, again against the West Indies. It is not exactly good preparation for a summer which includes the highly-anticipated Ashes.
The IPL is changing the face of cricket and hence affecting every country in the Test arena. But the effects are far more acute in England because the IPL runs at the start of our cricket season. No other nation has this problem, indeed many others, including Australia and South Africa, are just winding down their seasons in April, so the IPL is in a perfect window. Not for us though.
Twenty20 cricket will march on in the coming years, especially in the form of the rival Premier League in England, which is to be bankrolled by Texan billionaire Sir Allen Stanford. But cricket tours of 4 or 5 Tests with ample preparation time for both teams is likely to be a thing of the past. In England's case, the future is likely to be a few Twenty20 slogs in preparation for five-day game. RIP English cricket.
Friday, 23 January 2009
FOOTBALL: The behaviour of Premier League players has to improve
Manchester United's 3-0 win over Chelsea on 11th January was, in the main, an excellent advert for the Premier League. There were lots of classy, expensive, world-renowned players competing in England's largest club stadium and they produced a good, competitive game with 3 goals.
Both teams passed the ball crisply and accurately. Chelsea dominated the first half hour's possession, but with Drogba relatively isolated, looked lacking going forward. With the introduction of Anelka for Deco at half-time, Chelsea began to lose the midfield battle and were ultimately outclassed. Luiz Felipe Scolari has been criticised for having no Plan B and this game was yet another piece to add to the mounting evidence that Anelka and Drogba struggle to play together, whether in Plan A, B or Z.
For United's part, everything went to plan. Ryan Giggs, a surprise choice in the starting XI, was superb and Darren Fletcher more than matched the muscle of Michael Ballack and John Mikel Obi. Both Wayne Rooney and Dimitar Berbatov got on the scoresheet and young Jonny Evans looks increasingly like a future United centre-back.
Overall, Richard Scudamore and friends can be happy with what was broadcast to hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide. Even referee Howard Webb had a good afternoon, even if he did have to dish out quite a number of yellow cards.
But with all the increases that there have been in the Premier Lague in the last few seasons- player's wages, number of foreign players, quality of football, ticket prices, pitch standards- it has seen no such increase in disciplinary standards. I am going to single out Wayne Rooney, but he is far from the only overpaid ego to conduct himself well below the level of acceptability, nevermind sportsmanship.
With 20 minutes on the clock in the United-Chelsea encounter, Rooney was ajudged by referee Howard Webb of committing a foul in Manchester United's right back area. Seeing that the decision had gone against him, Rooney gave Webb an aggressive torrent of bad language, including "f*&k off!" Webb strode over to the spot where the free-kick was to be taken and called Rooney over. The referee called Wayne by his first name, just as everyone could hear on the pitchside television microphone, but Rooney walked away, raising his arm in the air a couple of times to signal that he had heard the referee but did not care. When Rooney eventually turned around, he listened to a couple of words before turning around again and sulking like a 5 year old.
No more than 10 minutes later, Rooney was at it again. Whilst I can understand the England International's frustration at Ronaldo's headed 'goal' being disallowed, despite Rooney and Giggs' clever corner routine being within the rules, his response was a disgrace. He sprinted over to the assistant referee and shouted abuse at the official from half a metre away, using the widest range of his foul language. How referee Webb had the patience during these two incidents to put up with Rooney, without even cautioning him, is a testament to England's best referee.
I despair at how normal such behaviour has become. I don't want to see games reduced to nine-on-nine by half-time because the referees have punished every piece of dissent, but Webb's tolerance of Rooney does nothing to stop him from doing it next time and makes a mockery of the FA's already ridiculed 'Respect' campaign. The FA need to bring retrospective fines or even bans for persistent dissenters (as well as divers and other offenders) or simply start cautioning dissenters during games. I accept the short term effect would be numerous sendings-off, but something has to be done, otherwise the game is likely to continue in this rut of very poor discipline.
Both teams passed the ball crisply and accurately. Chelsea dominated the first half hour's possession, but with Drogba relatively isolated, looked lacking going forward. With the introduction of Anelka for Deco at half-time, Chelsea began to lose the midfield battle and were ultimately outclassed. Luiz Felipe Scolari has been criticised for having no Plan B and this game was yet another piece to add to the mounting evidence that Anelka and Drogba struggle to play together, whether in Plan A, B or Z.
For United's part, everything went to plan. Ryan Giggs, a surprise choice in the starting XI, was superb and Darren Fletcher more than matched the muscle of Michael Ballack and John Mikel Obi. Both Wayne Rooney and Dimitar Berbatov got on the scoresheet and young Jonny Evans looks increasingly like a future United centre-back.
Overall, Richard Scudamore and friends can be happy with what was broadcast to hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide. Even referee Howard Webb had a good afternoon, even if he did have to dish out quite a number of yellow cards.
But with all the increases that there have been in the Premier Lague in the last few seasons- player's wages, number of foreign players, quality of football, ticket prices, pitch standards- it has seen no such increase in disciplinary standards. I am going to single out Wayne Rooney, but he is far from the only overpaid ego to conduct himself well below the level of acceptability, nevermind sportsmanship.
With 20 minutes on the clock in the United-Chelsea encounter, Rooney was ajudged by referee Howard Webb of committing a foul in Manchester United's right back area. Seeing that the decision had gone against him, Rooney gave Webb an aggressive torrent of bad language, including "f*&k off!" Webb strode over to the spot where the free-kick was to be taken and called Rooney over. The referee called Wayne by his first name, just as everyone could hear on the pitchside television microphone, but Rooney walked away, raising his arm in the air a couple of times to signal that he had heard the referee but did not care. When Rooney eventually turned around, he listened to a couple of words before turning around again and sulking like a 5 year old.
No more than 10 minutes later, Rooney was at it again. Whilst I can understand the England International's frustration at Ronaldo's headed 'goal' being disallowed, despite Rooney and Giggs' clever corner routine being within the rules, his response was a disgrace. He sprinted over to the assistant referee and shouted abuse at the official from half a metre away, using the widest range of his foul language. How referee Webb had the patience during these two incidents to put up with Rooney, without even cautioning him, is a testament to England's best referee.
I despair at how normal such behaviour has become. I don't want to see games reduced to nine-on-nine by half-time because the referees have punished every piece of dissent, but Webb's tolerance of Rooney does nothing to stop him from doing it next time and makes a mockery of the FA's already ridiculed 'Respect' campaign. The FA need to bring retrospective fines or even bans for persistent dissenters (as well as divers and other offenders) or simply start cautioning dissenters during games. I accept the short term effect would be numerous sendings-off, but something has to be done, otherwise the game is likely to continue in this rut of very poor discipline.
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
CRICKET: Another retirement as Australia continue to go through transition
The retirement from international cricket of Matthew Hayden was not a complete surprise. His exclusion from the squad for the upcoming one-day series against South Africa, despite being the ICC one-day player of the year in 2007 and Australian one-day player of the year in 2008, indicated that the selectors were going pick by form and Hayden would not be allowed to play through to this summer's Ashes on reputation.
With this summer's big series in mind, the retirement of Australia's most succesful opening batsmen; a man who set a world record individual score of 380 against Zimbabwe during his career, can be placed in the context of a far greater sea change in Australian international cricket.
Since Australia's 5-0 whitewash of England 2 years ago, Hayden, who averaged 50.73 in test matches, is the second batsmen to retire after an illustrious record-breaking career. Wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist, who retired this time last year, reinvented what it meant to be a wicketkeeper-batsmen, scoring 100 sixes in his career, as well as the second fastest test hundred, off only 57 balls, and averaging 47.60.
Australia have also lost the attractive batting of Damien Martyn along with Justin Langer, who as opening partner with the retiring Hayden, struck up with the latter, the second best opening partnership of all time, scoring 5,655 runs together at an average of 51.88 for the first wicket.
In the batting department, however, Australia have coped quite well in the wake of these retirements, especially in the form of Michael Hussey. Hussey has been a revelation in world cricket, currently averaging just below 60 in 34 tests and a quite amazing 57.13 in ODIs (one-day internationals), the latter being an astonishing record, as many of the greatest batsmen have failed to break the 50 barrier for an average in one-day cricket.
Michael Clarke has moulded himself into a vice-captain and Andrew Symonds has proved that, when not causing on- and off-the-field headaches for the administrators, he is not just a one-day player, but a very useful Test all-rounder.
The Aussies recent 2-1 series defeat to South Africa was their first on home turf since they lost by the same margin to a Mike Gatting-led England in 1986-1987. 22 years unbeaten was a very impressive record. The series against the Proteas that led to the demise of the unbeaten record, was characterised not necessarily by lacklustre batting, although the batter's failed to show their usual dominance at home, but infact by the bowling.
Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, both of whom have very strong cases for being included in a Greatest Ever Australian XI, retired from Test cricket in the last Ashes series with their farwell test at the SCG in January 2007. They left an impossible void to fill and Australia's inability to even come close to replacing the pair was ruthlessly exposed by the South Africans.
Sure, Australia have some good bowlers. Left-armer Mitchell Johnson has really shown his worth in the last two series; against India in the sub-continent before Christmas and against Graeme Smith's South Africa over Christmas time. He has bowled with accuracy, swing and sometimes genuine pace.
However, Australia have really missed the injured Stuart Clark, another man who has come to the fore since the 2005 Ashes series. Brett Lee, who was left as the experienced leader of the attack with the retirement of McGrath and Warne, looked very ineffective in the last two series, taking 8 wickets at 61.62 runs each in India and only a solitary wicket for 249 runs in two tests against South Africa.
Stuart MacGill, the leg-spinner who spent his career in the permanent shadow of Warne, failed to perform after the latter's retirement, and has now retired himself despite an impressive record of 208 Test wickets in only 44 matches. Given the number of wickets taken by Warne during the Ashes in England in 2005, this must count as a massive void that South Africa have expolited, and England must look to target during the summer.
And so, the upheavals in Australian cricket should point to England having a good chance at taking back the Ashes on home turf, especially as Marcus Trescothick and Ahley Giles are the only two players from the 2005 side to have retired for England.
But the last two weeks have shown that when it comes to the England cricket team, if it is not one thing it is another, and the diverse range of characters within the dressing room seem to have fought a power struggle, the result being the sacking of Peter Moores as coach at Kevin Pietersen as captain. England seem determined to give the transitional Australia as good a chance as possible, by shooting themselves in the foot during the run-up to the Big One this summer.
With this summer's big series in mind, the retirement of Australia's most succesful opening batsmen; a man who set a world record individual score of 380 against Zimbabwe during his career, can be placed in the context of a far greater sea change in Australian international cricket.
Since Australia's 5-0 whitewash of England 2 years ago, Hayden, who averaged 50.73 in test matches, is the second batsmen to retire after an illustrious record-breaking career. Wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist, who retired this time last year, reinvented what it meant to be a wicketkeeper-batsmen, scoring 100 sixes in his career, as well as the second fastest test hundred, off only 57 balls, and averaging 47.60.
Australia have also lost the attractive batting of Damien Martyn along with Justin Langer, who as opening partner with the retiring Hayden, struck up with the latter, the second best opening partnership of all time, scoring 5,655 runs together at an average of 51.88 for the first wicket.
In the batting department, however, Australia have coped quite well in the wake of these retirements, especially in the form of Michael Hussey. Hussey has been a revelation in world cricket, currently averaging just below 60 in 34 tests and a quite amazing 57.13 in ODIs (one-day internationals), the latter being an astonishing record, as many of the greatest batsmen have failed to break the 50 barrier for an average in one-day cricket.
Michael Clarke has moulded himself into a vice-captain and Andrew Symonds has proved that, when not causing on- and off-the-field headaches for the administrators, he is not just a one-day player, but a very useful Test all-rounder.
The Aussies recent 2-1 series defeat to South Africa was their first on home turf since they lost by the same margin to a Mike Gatting-led England in 1986-1987. 22 years unbeaten was a very impressive record. The series against the Proteas that led to the demise of the unbeaten record, was characterised not necessarily by lacklustre batting, although the batter's failed to show their usual dominance at home, but infact by the bowling.
Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, both of whom have very strong cases for being included in a Greatest Ever Australian XI, retired from Test cricket in the last Ashes series with their farwell test at the SCG in January 2007. They left an impossible void to fill and Australia's inability to even come close to replacing the pair was ruthlessly exposed by the South Africans.
Sure, Australia have some good bowlers. Left-armer Mitchell Johnson has really shown his worth in the last two series; against India in the sub-continent before Christmas and against Graeme Smith's South Africa over Christmas time. He has bowled with accuracy, swing and sometimes genuine pace.
However, Australia have really missed the injured Stuart Clark, another man who has come to the fore since the 2005 Ashes series. Brett Lee, who was left as the experienced leader of the attack with the retirement of McGrath and Warne, looked very ineffective in the last two series, taking 8 wickets at 61.62 runs each in India and only a solitary wicket for 249 runs in two tests against South Africa.
Stuart MacGill, the leg-spinner who spent his career in the permanent shadow of Warne, failed to perform after the latter's retirement, and has now retired himself despite an impressive record of 208 Test wickets in only 44 matches. Given the number of wickets taken by Warne during the Ashes in England in 2005, this must count as a massive void that South Africa have expolited, and England must look to target during the summer.
And so, the upheavals in Australian cricket should point to England having a good chance at taking back the Ashes on home turf, especially as Marcus Trescothick and Ahley Giles are the only two players from the 2005 side to have retired for England.
But the last two weeks have shown that when it comes to the England cricket team, if it is not one thing it is another, and the diverse range of characters within the dressing room seem to have fought a power struggle, the result being the sacking of Peter Moores as coach at Kevin Pietersen as captain. England seem determined to give the transitional Australia as good a chance as possible, by shooting themselves in the foot during the run-up to the Big One this summer.
Wednesday, 31 December 2008
FOOTBALL: Robinho, Torres, Van Nistelrooy and ... Gomez?
It was one of those ‘what were you doing when…?’ moments. I was sitting in a pub on Tottenham Court Road, confronting my second pint. Dave, a friend from school, was describing some wonderful adventure he had had recently in New Zealand or Fiji or somewhere. However, the television screen on the wall was trying to catch my attention. A Sky Sports News presenter was standing outside Eastlands, with swathes of happy Manchester City fans behind him. I had heard of the takeover of City by Abu Dhabi United Group on the bus down to London from Newcastle earlier that day.
Then the moment came. ‘MAN CITY SIGN ROBINHO.’ I did a Rowan Atkinson-style double-take, but Dave continued. The pub had become a little quieter as people started to take notice of the screen. There was a gasp here and a ‘No way!’ there. Finally I had to stop Dave in mid-flow. I asked him to confirm that I was not seeing things. Manchester City had signed Robinho from Real Madrid for the best part of £35 million.
A few weeks on, the reality has sunk in, and thankfully sports programmes on television, radio and paper format have stopped the incessant talk of the new ‘richest club in the world.’ Whatever your opinion on how Man City will fare in the future, it is the relationship between Mark Hughes, one of England’s best young managers, and the new owners, that intrigues me. After seeing the power struggle between Jose Mourinho and Roman Abramovich at Chelsea, it begs the question how much interference will Hughes accept from the owners over the question of transfers. How much influence did Hughes really have over the signing of Robinho?
The Daily Telegraph seemed to shed some light on this in an article on Friday September 19th. It is claimed that Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan personally insisted that one of a list of six players be signed on transfer deadline day, in order for the deal to go through. The eventual signing, Robinho, was one of the six. Another was Dimitar Berbatov, who City reportedly agreed to meet in Manchester before he was whisked away from under their noses by the team from the red side of Manchester. Former Manchester United striker Ruud Van Nistelrooy was on the list, as was Liverpool striker Fernando Torres. David Villa, Euro 2008 top scorer and reported Real Madrid replacement for Robinho, also made the shortlist.
It was the sixth man on this so-called ‘galactico’ list that intrigued me. Mario Gomez, born in Germany to a Spanish father and German mother, has acquired the nickname ‘Mr Reliable’ in Germany for his consistent goal-scoring, no-matter the form of his club, Vfb Stuttgart. While the media speculated that Drogba was leaving Chelsea at the end of last season, Gomez was mooted as a replacement. Coincidentally, the 6ft 3in striker made his Stuttgart debut against Chelsea in the Champions League in 2004.
Gomez’ Bundesliga scoring record is excellent. In his second full season for Stuttgart, he netted 14 goals in 25 games, helping them to win the Bundesliga. Last season, while his team struggled and eventually scraped into the Inter-Toto Cup, Gomez managed 19 league goals in the same number of games, as well as 3 Champions League goals. This is all very impressive, but I am still surprised to see him in the ‘galactico’ list. He is 23 year old, with only two full seasons behind, playing in a league that, while I enjoy watching the Bundesliga, offers a staggering number of high-scoring games for a top European league. The reason: most of the defences are mediocre at best, (note Bayern Munich, the team with by far the most money and historical success, conceding 5 at home to Werder Bremen on September 20th 2008.)
Gomez is undoubtedly an excellent prospect, and every Stuttgart fan I have spoken to is resigned to him leaving the Swabian side at the end of the season. But how on earth did this young star, who unfortunately vastly underperformed while in the spotlight of Euro 2008 for Germany, get on to Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s list? Regardless, barring injury, Gomez has a very bright future. Will we get the pleasure of watching him in the Premier League sometime? I have a feeling we will…
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
FOOTBALL: Taking a Stand: Should standing areas be re-introduced into top-flight English football?
One of my earliest football memories is being in the Roker End for a thumping 6-0 win for Sunderland against Millwall. Prior to the game at Roker Park, Millwall were top of the First Division, only to be replaced by the Rokerites at full time. I vaguely remember a Craig Russell hat-trick as well as goals from Martin Scott (almost certainly a penalty) and Phil Gray. Doing a bit of research, I also discovered that the manager of Millwall at the time was none other than Mick McCarthy. The game took place on Saturday December 9 1995 and within two months McCarthy had replaced Jack Charlton as Republic of Ireland manager. McCarthy later became Sunderland manager.
As great a result as this undoubtedly was, it is not the main reason that I remember that particular game (this result paled into relative insignificance compared to the record-breaking 9-0 win that I had witnessed nine months earlier at Old Trafford, where a ruthless Manchester United had made Ipswich Town look totally hapless). No, as far as I can remember, this was my first game on the terraces and remains one of very few games in which I have stood.
It was the events of April 15 1989 and the subsequent Taylor Report into the Hillsborough disaster which sealed the fate of the terrace in top flight football. As a response to a number of hooligan and crowd segregation problems in the 1980s, it became increasingly popular to erect impenetrable fences around the separate fans. Such a system was in place for the Liverpool-Nottingham Forest FA Cup semi final at Hillsborough in 1989. However, as the gates at the back of the Lepping Lane End were opened at kick-off to prevent problems outside the ground, the rush of people onto the terrace crushed the people nearer the front. 96 fans died.
The Taylor Report into the tragic incident, recommended that all top flight stadia should be all-seater, and by the end of the following decade the move was implemented. (I can remember trying to get into the Roker End in the 1996-1997 Premier League season for a game against Tottenham Hotspur. Sunderland was given grace to use terracing that season because they had a new all-seater stadium being built to be ready for the next season.)
Although all-seater stadia are now the norm in top-flight English football, especially to the younger generation, there remains a significant minority who continue to push for safe standing-areas at Premier League football grounds. In 2000, as reported by the BBC, Kate Hoey, the then Sports Minister, angered the families of Hillsborough victims by suggesting safe standing areas could be introduced. Last year 145 MPs signed a motion in Parliament for a rule change to allow for small, safe, standing areas in football grounds in the top two divisions. Even David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, said in January 2007 that "there may be some more modern ways of organising the limited standing areas."
The top German league, the Bundesliga, is the most common example given by pro-standing lobbyists of effective and safe terracing at large football stadia. The Bundesliga boasts some fantastic grounds, especially as many were revamped for the 2006 World Cup. There are certainly more 50,000+ capacity club stadiums in Germany than in England, all of which offer standing areas. With this in mind, I was very happy to accept the chance to experience standing in the Bundesliga. The Gottlieb-Daimler Stadion in Stuttgart hosted the 3rd/4th place play-off between Germany and Portugal in the 2006 World Cup, as well as England’s 2nd round tie against Ecuador. It has 4,187 spaces for standing out of a stadium capacity of 55,896. And I was there for Stuttgart’s home Bundesliga tie with Hamburg on Saturday 5th April.
The terraced area is different to the old Roker End at Sunderland. Every three steps, space enough in depth probably for two grown men or maybe three younger fans, is regimentally divided up by a railing about stomach-height of a grown man. They span the whole width of the standing area so that the only way in and out, is via the steps to the extreme left or right-hand side. The railings have temporary seats built into them, so that it can be used as a seating area, as was required during the World Cup.
Never for a second on the terrace at the Gottlieb-Daimler Stadion did I feel unsafe. Nevertheless, that is not my whole-hearted endorsement of the re-introduction of standing areas in the Premier League. As a young adult, I have largely grown up with all-seater stadia, and before my trip to Stuttgart’s stadium, I would certainly have said I was happy with the Premier League rules on football grounds. But my experience at the Gottlieb Daimler Stadion made me realise that safe standing areas in large football stadia is possible, workable and it seems, judging by the support for the idea in England, desirable.
The atmosphere in the standing area was fantastic; incomparable with seating areas. Due to the closeness of supporters to each other, the songs resounded in a way that would not be possible in the seats and the German tradition (and in other continental European countries) of jumping in unison was a sight I will never forget. It also encourages conversation between strangers much better than seating areas, and even yours truly with poor German managed a bit of talk with the locals, albeit most of it reverting to English. I am sure anyone who has experienced standing at football knows what I am talking about.
I was not alive for the Heysel disaster, and too young to remember the tragedy at Hillsborough. I did not experience any of the football hooliganism of the 1970s and 1980s, and can only rely on the memories of others, such as those penned in Nick Hornby’s fantastic book, Fever Pitch. It seems to me however that banning terracing in the Premier League was a simple blanket way of giving police greater control over fans. There is no doubt that the policing at matches is much easier nowadays, but the football experience has suffered. And football is entertainment. If supporters behave and clubs are prepared to create safe, standing areas such as those in the Bundesliga (of course clubs may be reluctant after spending so much money on erecting all-seater environments), then maybe there is a future for the terrace at the top of English football. Would a Cameron Conservative government fulfil their promise to "have a really good look at this"? Only time will tell.
As great a result as this undoubtedly was, it is not the main reason that I remember that particular game (this result paled into relative insignificance compared to the record-breaking 9-0 win that I had witnessed nine months earlier at Old Trafford, where a ruthless Manchester United had made Ipswich Town look totally hapless). No, as far as I can remember, this was my first game on the terraces and remains one of very few games in which I have stood.
It was the events of April 15 1989 and the subsequent Taylor Report into the Hillsborough disaster which sealed the fate of the terrace in top flight football. As a response to a number of hooligan and crowd segregation problems in the 1980s, it became increasingly popular to erect impenetrable fences around the separate fans. Such a system was in place for the Liverpool-Nottingham Forest FA Cup semi final at Hillsborough in 1989. However, as the gates at the back of the Lepping Lane End were opened at kick-off to prevent problems outside the ground, the rush of people onto the terrace crushed the people nearer the front. 96 fans died.
The Taylor Report into the tragic incident, recommended that all top flight stadia should be all-seater, and by the end of the following decade the move was implemented. (I can remember trying to get into the Roker End in the 1996-1997 Premier League season for a game against Tottenham Hotspur. Sunderland was given grace to use terracing that season because they had a new all-seater stadium being built to be ready for the next season.)
Although all-seater stadia are now the norm in top-flight English football, especially to the younger generation, there remains a significant minority who continue to push for safe standing-areas at Premier League football grounds. In 2000, as reported by the BBC, Kate Hoey, the then Sports Minister, angered the families of Hillsborough victims by suggesting safe standing areas could be introduced. Last year 145 MPs signed a motion in Parliament for a rule change to allow for small, safe, standing areas in football grounds in the top two divisions. Even David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, said in January 2007 that "there may be some more modern ways of organising the limited standing areas."
The top German league, the Bundesliga, is the most common example given by pro-standing lobbyists of effective and safe terracing at large football stadia. The Bundesliga boasts some fantastic grounds, especially as many were revamped for the 2006 World Cup. There are certainly more 50,000+ capacity club stadiums in Germany than in England, all of which offer standing areas. With this in mind, I was very happy to accept the chance to experience standing in the Bundesliga. The Gottlieb-Daimler Stadion in Stuttgart hosted the 3rd/4th place play-off between Germany and Portugal in the 2006 World Cup, as well as England’s 2nd round tie against Ecuador. It has 4,187 spaces for standing out of a stadium capacity of 55,896. And I was there for Stuttgart’s home Bundesliga tie with Hamburg on Saturday 5th April.
The terraced area is different to the old Roker End at Sunderland. Every three steps, space enough in depth probably for two grown men or maybe three younger fans, is regimentally divided up by a railing about stomach-height of a grown man. They span the whole width of the standing area so that the only way in and out, is via the steps to the extreme left or right-hand side. The railings have temporary seats built into them, so that it can be used as a seating area, as was required during the World Cup.
Never for a second on the terrace at the Gottlieb-Daimler Stadion did I feel unsafe. Nevertheless, that is not my whole-hearted endorsement of the re-introduction of standing areas in the Premier League. As a young adult, I have largely grown up with all-seater stadia, and before my trip to Stuttgart’s stadium, I would certainly have said I was happy with the Premier League rules on football grounds. But my experience at the Gottlieb Daimler Stadion made me realise that safe standing areas in large football stadia is possible, workable and it seems, judging by the support for the idea in England, desirable.
The atmosphere in the standing area was fantastic; incomparable with seating areas. Due to the closeness of supporters to each other, the songs resounded in a way that would not be possible in the seats and the German tradition (and in other continental European countries) of jumping in unison was a sight I will never forget. It also encourages conversation between strangers much better than seating areas, and even yours truly with poor German managed a bit of talk with the locals, albeit most of it reverting to English. I am sure anyone who has experienced standing at football knows what I am talking about.
I was not alive for the Heysel disaster, and too young to remember the tragedy at Hillsborough. I did not experience any of the football hooliganism of the 1970s and 1980s, and can only rely on the memories of others, such as those penned in Nick Hornby’s fantastic book, Fever Pitch. It seems to me however that banning terracing in the Premier League was a simple blanket way of giving police greater control over fans. There is no doubt that the policing at matches is much easier nowadays, but the football experience has suffered. And football is entertainment. If supporters behave and clubs are prepared to create safe, standing areas such as those in the Bundesliga (of course clubs may be reluctant after spending so much money on erecting all-seater environments), then maybe there is a future for the terrace at the top of English football. Would a Cameron Conservative government fulfil their promise to "have a really good look at this"? Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
