The issue is no longer racism, the issue is respect. It is naive to believe that other forms of slurring do not happen during matches. Comments may not always be racist but can be potentially offensive. However, accusing another player, or in this case official, of racism appears to be the “in” thing, a way of gaining an advantage over an opponent in a bid to unsettle the opposing player and team by inciting public hatred for the abuser.
This peer pressure tactic is employed throughout life, helping to maintain order and conformity, but really it is a technique used for children.
But then again, children are exactly what most footballers are. Rio Ferdinand refused to wear the “Kick It Out” t-shirt against Stoke feeling that the campaign is not doing enough to stop racism in football yet what more can they actually do?
If Chelsea sack John Terry, someone else would snap up the player, Joey Barton and Adrian Mutu have seen enough clubs to prove that.
However, Rio is now apparently more than happy with the changes that have not been implemented over the past week, as he warmed up donning the “Kick It Out” t-shirt before the game at Chelsea. A wise decision considering he himself encouraged a racist tweet sent to him about Ashley Cole.
"Looks like Ashley Cole's going to be their choc ice," it read. "Then again he's always been a sell out. Shame on him."
Ferdinand responded: "I hear you fella! Choc ice is classic! hahahahahahha!!" Double standards some may say from a player who is making a stand against racism.
There is no place for racism in football but is there a place for threatening referees when they make a decision or for branding all fans as hooligans after one already banned fan assaults your keeper and others sing offensive songs.
The last point does seem to illustrate just how ad hoc and fruitless the battle to gain respect on a football pitch has become. Aaron Crawley has already been banned numerous times from football matches yet if he can still go to games, why can’t other banned supporters sneak in also?
The solution is not to make a rash statement where there is going to be no follow-up, like Dave Jones and Rio Ferdinand. An effective strategy needs to be implemented that targets individuals, both players and supporters.
Maybe clubs need to pay for microchips to be implemented inside a banned supporter’s leg, or provide eye recognition for all fans? These may sound like expensive solutions but surely with so much money in football they can be achieved if desired.
Perhaps, one potential option would be to place a ban on players appearing on televised matches or in front of a paying crowd if they bring the sport into disrepute. If Chelsea could not gain TV revenue or gate receipts due to naming him Terry in the squad they would no doubt be quick to release the player, and most clubs would not value Terry’s assets highly enough to lose most of their revenue.
Realistically though, if every offensive comment that was made on a football pitch was highlighted, there would be no space in our newspapers for other issues of the day. We have known about these problems in football for years, everyone remembers Zidane’s headbutt in the World Cup final in 2006 after Materazzi made racial slurs towards the French player. Nothing was done then. Something needs to be done now.
Tuesday 30 October 2012
Tuesday 9 October 2012
St.George's Park or St.George's Prank?
St. George’s Park - the new elite training complex in the heart of Staffordshire was unveiled by the FA today. Costing a mere £105million the training facility will house all 24 English national teams from junior level to women’s football. With a replica pitch that matches blade for blade the exact size, shape and consistency of the pitch at Wembley. With such a complex surely we will become the unbeatable force in world football once again.
It makes sense. The players will know the feel of the pitch. Each time they make a pass or a run they will be able to mark the exact place they would be at Wembley. The precise amount of energy will be retained so that they can make that burst forward at the optimum moment to score the winning goal. At Wembley, England will become unplayable.
It almost feels a bit of a shame that precisely none of the matches held during a World Cup or European Championship held outside of England are played at Wembley. In fact, even if one of those competitions was held in England, the national side would still not play every match there. It appears to have been recreated for all of about four international qualifications games and a couple of low key friendly matches played each year. I wonder if concerts will be held on it to give it a more realistic feel.
Never fear though, for the FA has thought of everything for this multi-complex of innovative creation – like an altitude chamber. This enables the players to gain valuable experience getting use to playing conditions up mountains, just in case they draw an away game against Bolivia. By which point they would have no time to use the chamber and would instead be on a plane to La Paz no doubt.
But this is beside the point. The FA Director of Football, Sir Trevor Brooking, wants the centre to create winning teams. Trophies are the long term aim of the project. He wants players to feel “just as passionate when they put on an England shirt” as they would do when playing for their club. There are famous sporting quotes placed on the walls, suites named after former England players and managers, inspiration is a key factor.
The FA wants St.George’s Park to develop coaches throughout England in a bid to challenge the might of France and Spain, both of which have similar facilities. They want the focus to shift at an early age from winning to enjoyment and, therefore, to improvement on a technical side.
The alarm bells are certainly ringing. Clearly national pride, representing your country and the opportunity to conquer the rest of the World is evidently not enough inspiration for these global superstars. They need to know that a room could be named after them.
The first manager to be appointed England manager, Roy Hodgson, got the top job potentially after Harry Redknapp refused to make the journey to St.George’s Park, as it was in the middle of nowhere. A great start too providing top quality coaching.
And the final message, the most contradictory one, is that the centre has been built with the aim to provide winning teams as they announce that they want to make youth football not about winning. How can the FA effectively implement such ideology when opening a £105million training complex focused solely on winning?
The facilities are undoubtedly world-class. Yet is it all a bit over the top? Do professional footballers really need such a complex to improve their game? Will St.George’s Park really help develop the young players of tomorrow? It is clear that club football plays an integral role in the life of a player. Yet, whether the FA have provided a solution for international success will probably be reasoned on the back of the result in Qatar.
It makes sense. The players will know the feel of the pitch. Each time they make a pass or a run they will be able to mark the exact place they would be at Wembley. The precise amount of energy will be retained so that they can make that burst forward at the optimum moment to score the winning goal. At Wembley, England will become unplayable.
It almost feels a bit of a shame that precisely none of the matches held during a World Cup or European Championship held outside of England are played at Wembley. In fact, even if one of those competitions was held in England, the national side would still not play every match there. It appears to have been recreated for all of about four international qualifications games and a couple of low key friendly matches played each year. I wonder if concerts will be held on it to give it a more realistic feel.
Never fear though, for the FA has thought of everything for this multi-complex of innovative creation – like an altitude chamber. This enables the players to gain valuable experience getting use to playing conditions up mountains, just in case they draw an away game against Bolivia. By which point they would have no time to use the chamber and would instead be on a plane to La Paz no doubt.
But this is beside the point. The FA Director of Football, Sir Trevor Brooking, wants the centre to create winning teams. Trophies are the long term aim of the project. He wants players to feel “just as passionate when they put on an England shirt” as they would do when playing for their club. There are famous sporting quotes placed on the walls, suites named after former England players and managers, inspiration is a key factor.
The FA wants St.George’s Park to develop coaches throughout England in a bid to challenge the might of France and Spain, both of which have similar facilities. They want the focus to shift at an early age from winning to enjoyment and, therefore, to improvement on a technical side.
The alarm bells are certainly ringing. Clearly national pride, representing your country and the opportunity to conquer the rest of the World is evidently not enough inspiration for these global superstars. They need to know that a room could be named after them.
The first manager to be appointed England manager, Roy Hodgson, got the top job potentially after Harry Redknapp refused to make the journey to St.George’s Park, as it was in the middle of nowhere. A great start too providing top quality coaching.
And the final message, the most contradictory one, is that the centre has been built with the aim to provide winning teams as they announce that they want to make youth football not about winning. How can the FA effectively implement such ideology when opening a £105million training complex focused solely on winning?
The facilities are undoubtedly world-class. Yet is it all a bit over the top? Do professional footballers really need such a complex to improve their game? Will St.George’s Park really help develop the young players of tomorrow? It is clear that club football plays an integral role in the life of a player. Yet, whether the FA have provided a solution for international success will probably be reasoned on the back of the result in Qatar.
Saturday 6 October 2012
Winning Mentality
The world has become your oyster. You can travel wherever you like, study whatever you like and apparently be whatever you like. It is your choice. All it takes it is effort, dedication. If you work hard enough you will get there. Yet, is this overly optimistic output, exactly that?
The obvious answer is yes. Thousands upon thousands of amateurs take part in sport each week, whether it be in your local pub team or in a friendly game of squash against a fellow colleague. Many competitors would have dreamed of playing sport in a professional capacity.
But by the time you have reached this stage, the chances are you have already accepted that your sporting stardom is over before it ever began. The day you watch a competitor younger than yourself grace their chosen sport is the day you realise you need to pick a new career.
However, in the days when the grass is still green and standard grades feel like the be-all and end-all in life, there is still a significant amount of emphasis on dictating your own future. Yet, with many professional athletes being scouted as young as 8, it is getting clearer that what you really require is natural talent coupled with a desire to win.
Now, obviously you have to train hard to reach the top. Sport stars put in hours of training doing lengths of the pool or weights in the gym yet without the natural talent or the desire to win, the chances of making it are slim.
All this combined means that whether a child has talent or not, world protocol is to tell them they can achieve, they can become whatever they set their mind to. Yet, to do this provides false hope to many. Not everyone is good enough to make it, even with hours of effort. The simple fact is there are only 24 cars in Formula 1 and only one of them will win the race. Simply maths dictates not everyone can be a driver.
However, whatever your sport the desire to win is still essential. Those that make it do so because they strive to greater things, to build upon the talent they naturally possess.
This system does produce winners. In an interview with Tony Adams on Football Focus, the ex-Arsenal defender states that he refuses to play backgammon with his wife because he loses, and he cannot face losing. Victoria Pendleton broke down on Strictly Come Dancing because she lost her way during a routine, she did not produce a winning performance. Not that I watched of course...
Yet, this essential element, unlike natural talent, is one that can be forced into children. However, does this emphasis on winning mean that the thousands of people who play sport from a young age focus their attention on not enjoying the sport, or looking at ways to improve their game, but on what they can do to win, even when they have no real opportunity to do so?
In an effort to change this mentality the FA are looking at introducing the policy of giving no medals, no trophies, no acknowledgement to teams below the age of 12 for their achievements. The idea is to change the focus from wining towards enjoyment and improvement. Yet, will this achieve anything?
Come 12, the focus will once again return to winning. In fact the desire may be there even more, given the fact the children had to wait so long before their chance of glory. Also, sport is about competition. Without competition sport is somewhat pointless. And with all their idols talking constantly about winning at all costs, the message is simply not going to get through.
Instead of creating another level playing field, making all teams equal as nobody “wins”, providing more false hope to many who cannot physically become a professional, what children really need to be taught is how to cope with losing. For this to happen though, someone needs to win.
Adams may be an England international, Pendleton an Olympic Champion, but the example they set to children by their actions – not playing backgammon because he loses and crying because she got her dance routine wrong – is surely not a good one.
By coping with loss, realising that it is not the end of the world, children can then focus on enjoyment and potentially on improvement. Winning will still be enjoyable, and something competitors of all ages will still want to achieve, but it won’t be essential because they can deal with losing.
Despite what people suggest not everybody can be whatever they want. A certain amount of realism is required. Yes, a winning mentality is important. But, what is more important for many children around the UK partaking in sporting events is how they handle loss because most will never become a famous sport star. If the FA take away the opportunity to win from an early age it may affect the winning mentality of a few but it may also produce thousands of children who are unable to lose.
The obvious answer is yes. Thousands upon thousands of amateurs take part in sport each week, whether it be in your local pub team or in a friendly game of squash against a fellow colleague. Many competitors would have dreamed of playing sport in a professional capacity.
But by the time you have reached this stage, the chances are you have already accepted that your sporting stardom is over before it ever began. The day you watch a competitor younger than yourself grace their chosen sport is the day you realise you need to pick a new career.
However, in the days when the grass is still green and standard grades feel like the be-all and end-all in life, there is still a significant amount of emphasis on dictating your own future. Yet, with many professional athletes being scouted as young as 8, it is getting clearer that what you really require is natural talent coupled with a desire to win.
Now, obviously you have to train hard to reach the top. Sport stars put in hours of training doing lengths of the pool or weights in the gym yet without the natural talent or the desire to win, the chances of making it are slim.
All this combined means that whether a child has talent or not, world protocol is to tell them they can achieve, they can become whatever they set their mind to. Yet, to do this provides false hope to many. Not everyone is good enough to make it, even with hours of effort. The simple fact is there are only 24 cars in Formula 1 and only one of them will win the race. Simply maths dictates not everyone can be a driver.
However, whatever your sport the desire to win is still essential. Those that make it do so because they strive to greater things, to build upon the talent they naturally possess.
This system does produce winners. In an interview with Tony Adams on Football Focus, the ex-Arsenal defender states that he refuses to play backgammon with his wife because he loses, and he cannot face losing. Victoria Pendleton broke down on Strictly Come Dancing because she lost her way during a routine, she did not produce a winning performance. Not that I watched of course...
Yet, this essential element, unlike natural talent, is one that can be forced into children. However, does this emphasis on winning mean that the thousands of people who play sport from a young age focus their attention on not enjoying the sport, or looking at ways to improve their game, but on what they can do to win, even when they have no real opportunity to do so?
In an effort to change this mentality the FA are looking at introducing the policy of giving no medals, no trophies, no acknowledgement to teams below the age of 12 for their achievements. The idea is to change the focus from wining towards enjoyment and improvement. Yet, will this achieve anything?
Come 12, the focus will once again return to winning. In fact the desire may be there even more, given the fact the children had to wait so long before their chance of glory. Also, sport is about competition. Without competition sport is somewhat pointless. And with all their idols talking constantly about winning at all costs, the message is simply not going to get through.
Instead of creating another level playing field, making all teams equal as nobody “wins”, providing more false hope to many who cannot physically become a professional, what children really need to be taught is how to cope with losing. For this to happen though, someone needs to win.
Adams may be an England international, Pendleton an Olympic Champion, but the example they set to children by their actions – not playing backgammon because he loses and crying because she got her dance routine wrong – is surely not a good one.
By coping with loss, realising that it is not the end of the world, children can then focus on enjoyment and potentially on improvement. Winning will still be enjoyable, and something competitors of all ages will still want to achieve, but it won’t be essential because they can deal with losing.
Despite what people suggest not everybody can be whatever they want. A certain amount of realism is required. Yes, a winning mentality is important. But, what is more important for many children around the UK partaking in sporting events is how they handle loss because most will never become a famous sport star. If the FA take away the opportunity to win from an early age it may affect the winning mentality of a few but it may also produce thousands of children who are unable to lose.
Thursday 4 October 2012
England’s Greatest Defensive Partnership
With the retirement of John Terry and the continual absence of Rio Ferdinand from the national squad the end has now seemingly come for perhaps one of the most talented centre-back pairings England has ever produced. With qualifying for Brazil 2014 now well underway, it seems only fitting to look back over former World Cup partnerships to evaluate what exactly has just been lost.
England’s first World Cup outing came in 1950 at a time when, not only were they hot favourites, but having five strikers on the pitch was common place therefore leaving defenders to a minimal. Alf Ramsay and captain William “Billy” Wright were the men predominantly in charge of dealing with any opposition threats.
Although Wright was the first man ever to reach 100 caps, the 1-0 loss to the USA, a then amateur side, during the campaign, ending the presumption of English dominance on the international stage, meaning this pairing’s credentials are somewhat tarnished.
In 1954 England faired a little better with Wright still at the helm. The lifelong Wolverhampton Wanderers player led England to a 4-4 draw against Belgium, a 2-0 victory against the hosts Switzerland and a 4-2 loss in the quarter-finals against Uruguay. The other two defenders Ron Staniforth and Roger Byrne both only had three caps prior to the tournament, maybe one reason for the numerous amount of balls hitting the England net.
Don Howe of West Bromwich Albion and Tommy Banks of Bolton Wanderers were the two defenders in the 1958 starting XI that went to Sweden. However, draws against the Soviet Union (2-2), eventual winners Brazil (0-0) and Austria (2-2) meant the side failed to progress from the group stage. England also recorded their first ever dropped points in qualifying by only managing to draw 1-1 in Dublin.
In 1962 Chile hosted the World Cup in what turned out to be an influential tournament, changing the mentality of the game. For the first time the average amount of goals per game fell to below 3. England started with four defenders for the first time creating the central defensive partnership of Maurice Norman and Bobby Moore.
The new concept failed to add stability however as England still managed to concede 6 goals in 4 matches, going out once again in the quarter-finals to Brazil.
We meet the first potential greatest-ever English partnership unsurprisingly in 1966.
Jack Charlton and Bobby Moore were a constant fixture to Alf Ramsey’s team after Charlton’s introduction to the side in a friendly against Scotland in 1965. Moore is considered one of the greatest footballers of all time, with even the likes of Pele saying that he was “the greatest defender I ever played against” and Franz Beckenbauer stating that he was “the best defender in the history of the game”.
With Charlton by his side the pair conceded only three times in six matches during the tournament. Moore became the first ever Englishman to lift the World Cup and was also picked as one of the two central defenders in FIFA’s all-time world cup team in 1994.
Charlton’s age however, meant that by 1970, he would be 35, making the partnership he had created with Moore was less likely to remain. Everton’s Brain Labone therefore played alongside Moore for three out of the four games in Mexico. However the pairing was less successful with England losing two of those games, including a 3-2 quarter-final loss to West Germany.
England’s exile from the World Cup scene until 1982 brought about the need for another formidable defensive partnership, enter Terry Butcher and Phil Thompson. The tough-tackling twosome conceded one goal in four matches in Spain. Yet, with two group stages in the 1982 tournament, goalless draws against West Germany and Spain, saw England eliminated without conceding a goal since the opening match in a 3-1 win against the French.
Terry Fenwick became Terry Butcher’s new partner as Phil Thompson lost his place at Liverpool to Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson. Mexico 86 was a topsy-turvy tournament with an opening 1-0 defeat to Portugal and goalless draw with Morocco followed by two 3-0 wins against Poland and Paraguay setting-up a quarter-final meeting with Argentina and Maradona. We all know what happened there.
However, given one goal was a handball and the other was perhaps the greatest goal ever to be scored at a world cup, England’s defensive record begins to look a lot stronger. Fenwick’s discipline may be of issue though, as he holds the English record of three yellow cards during one World Cup campaign.
Terry Butcher remained a defensive figurehead for England during Italia 90 playing alongside Des Walker and Mark Wright in an effective three man unit. All three men put in impressive performances during the tournament with Wright scoring the crucial goal against Egypt to progress to the next stage. Whereas Walker went on to become the fastest player in history to reach 50caps for his country.
England reached the semi-final of Italia 90, getting knocked out on penalties by West Germany. But given the fact England played three defenders, it feels slightly unfair to call this the greatest English central defensive pairing.
Another failure to qualify for the World Cup in 1994 meant England needed to form a dominate force at the heart of the defence for France 98. Tony Adams and Sol Campbell more than filled that void. The pair provided power, strength, fight and tactical awareness. Campbell thought he had scored the golden goal against Argentina with a determined header passed Carlos Roa yet the referee had already blown for a foul by Alan Shearer.
Campbell returned for the 2002 World Cup and once again contributed to England’s strong defensive performance, scoring the opening goal of the campaign against Sweden. With Tony Adams now retired, Campbell was partnered by an up-and-coming defender in the name of Rio Ferdinand. The pair kept three clean sheets but couldn’t prevent Ronaldinho’s free-kick looping over David Seamen’s head. Campbell was however named in FIFA’s squad of the tournament.
In 2006 the defensive pairing of Terry and Ferdinand was another success. England only conceded two goals during the tournament, one of which was when Ferdinand was no longer on the pitch. Eventually losing out in the quarter-final stage to Portugal on penalties England once more failed to meet expectations yet this was not due to defensive issues. John Terry was named in the squad of the tournament.
The latest World Cup saw England visit Africa for the first time. With Rio Ferdinand injured John Terry was partnered by no less than three different partners, Ledley King, Jamie Carragher and Matthew Upson. This lack of continuity perhaps was one reason why England had a higher number in the goals against column than the goals for column the first time since 1962.
It is clear that England has produced some formidable centre-back partnerships, Moore and Charlton, Butcher and Thompson, Campbell and Adams and Terry and Ferdinand. Whether Gary Cahill, Phil Jagielka, Joleon Lescott or Ryan Shawcross are good enough to join this elusive club is debatable. Safe to safe though, whatever you think of Terry and Ferdinand, they certainly deserve the reputation of forming one of England’s greatest ever defensive pairings. However, Moore and Butcher, with perhaps Sol Campbell on the bench, would potentially have been the greatest ever England defensive partnership.
England’s first World Cup outing came in 1950 at a time when, not only were they hot favourites, but having five strikers on the pitch was common place therefore leaving defenders to a minimal. Alf Ramsay and captain William “Billy” Wright were the men predominantly in charge of dealing with any opposition threats.
Although Wright was the first man ever to reach 100 caps, the 1-0 loss to the USA, a then amateur side, during the campaign, ending the presumption of English dominance on the international stage, meaning this pairing’s credentials are somewhat tarnished.
In 1954 England faired a little better with Wright still at the helm. The lifelong Wolverhampton Wanderers player led England to a 4-4 draw against Belgium, a 2-0 victory against the hosts Switzerland and a 4-2 loss in the quarter-finals against Uruguay. The other two defenders Ron Staniforth and Roger Byrne both only had three caps prior to the tournament, maybe one reason for the numerous amount of balls hitting the England net.
Don Howe of West Bromwich Albion and Tommy Banks of Bolton Wanderers were the two defenders in the 1958 starting XI that went to Sweden. However, draws against the Soviet Union (2-2), eventual winners Brazil (0-0) and Austria (2-2) meant the side failed to progress from the group stage. England also recorded their first ever dropped points in qualifying by only managing to draw 1-1 in Dublin.
In 1962 Chile hosted the World Cup in what turned out to be an influential tournament, changing the mentality of the game. For the first time the average amount of goals per game fell to below 3. England started with four defenders for the first time creating the central defensive partnership of Maurice Norman and Bobby Moore.
The new concept failed to add stability however as England still managed to concede 6 goals in 4 matches, going out once again in the quarter-finals to Brazil.
We meet the first potential greatest-ever English partnership unsurprisingly in 1966.
Jack Charlton and Bobby Moore were a constant fixture to Alf Ramsey’s team after Charlton’s introduction to the side in a friendly against Scotland in 1965. Moore is considered one of the greatest footballers of all time, with even the likes of Pele saying that he was “the greatest defender I ever played against” and Franz Beckenbauer stating that he was “the best defender in the history of the game”.
With Charlton by his side the pair conceded only three times in six matches during the tournament. Moore became the first ever Englishman to lift the World Cup and was also picked as one of the two central defenders in FIFA’s all-time world cup team in 1994.
Charlton’s age however, meant that by 1970, he would be 35, making the partnership he had created with Moore was less likely to remain. Everton’s Brain Labone therefore played alongside Moore for three out of the four games in Mexico. However the pairing was less successful with England losing two of those games, including a 3-2 quarter-final loss to West Germany.
England’s exile from the World Cup scene until 1982 brought about the need for another formidable defensive partnership, enter Terry Butcher and Phil Thompson. The tough-tackling twosome conceded one goal in four matches in Spain. Yet, with two group stages in the 1982 tournament, goalless draws against West Germany and Spain, saw England eliminated without conceding a goal since the opening match in a 3-1 win against the French.
Terry Fenwick became Terry Butcher’s new partner as Phil Thompson lost his place at Liverpool to Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson. Mexico 86 was a topsy-turvy tournament with an opening 1-0 defeat to Portugal and goalless draw with Morocco followed by two 3-0 wins against Poland and Paraguay setting-up a quarter-final meeting with Argentina and Maradona. We all know what happened there.
However, given one goal was a handball and the other was perhaps the greatest goal ever to be scored at a world cup, England’s defensive record begins to look a lot stronger. Fenwick’s discipline may be of issue though, as he holds the English record of three yellow cards during one World Cup campaign.
Terry Butcher remained a defensive figurehead for England during Italia 90 playing alongside Des Walker and Mark Wright in an effective three man unit. All three men put in impressive performances during the tournament with Wright scoring the crucial goal against Egypt to progress to the next stage. Whereas Walker went on to become the fastest player in history to reach 50caps for his country.
England reached the semi-final of Italia 90, getting knocked out on penalties by West Germany. But given the fact England played three defenders, it feels slightly unfair to call this the greatest English central defensive pairing.
Another failure to qualify for the World Cup in 1994 meant England needed to form a dominate force at the heart of the defence for France 98. Tony Adams and Sol Campbell more than filled that void. The pair provided power, strength, fight and tactical awareness. Campbell thought he had scored the golden goal against Argentina with a determined header passed Carlos Roa yet the referee had already blown for a foul by Alan Shearer.
Campbell returned for the 2002 World Cup and once again contributed to England’s strong defensive performance, scoring the opening goal of the campaign against Sweden. With Tony Adams now retired, Campbell was partnered by an up-and-coming defender in the name of Rio Ferdinand. The pair kept three clean sheets but couldn’t prevent Ronaldinho’s free-kick looping over David Seamen’s head. Campbell was however named in FIFA’s squad of the tournament.
In 2006 the defensive pairing of Terry and Ferdinand was another success. England only conceded two goals during the tournament, one of which was when Ferdinand was no longer on the pitch. Eventually losing out in the quarter-final stage to Portugal on penalties England once more failed to meet expectations yet this was not due to defensive issues. John Terry was named in the squad of the tournament.
The latest World Cup saw England visit Africa for the first time. With Rio Ferdinand injured John Terry was partnered by no less than three different partners, Ledley King, Jamie Carragher and Matthew Upson. This lack of continuity perhaps was one reason why England had a higher number in the goals against column than the goals for column the first time since 1962.
It is clear that England has produced some formidable centre-back partnerships, Moore and Charlton, Butcher and Thompson, Campbell and Adams and Terry and Ferdinand. Whether Gary Cahill, Phil Jagielka, Joleon Lescott or Ryan Shawcross are good enough to join this elusive club is debatable. Safe to safe though, whatever you think of Terry and Ferdinand, they certainly deserve the reputation of forming one of England’s greatest ever defensive pairings. However, Moore and Butcher, with perhaps Sol Campbell on the bench, would potentially have been the greatest ever England defensive partnership.
Schumacher Re-Retires
Following the arrival of Lewis Hamilton at Mercedes the next domino to fall was the inevitable departure of the former world champion Michael Schumacher. The German driver has now officially announced his second retirement from Formula 1 after three disappointing seasons at Mercedes.
Schumacher, 43, struggled to make an impact after returning from his three year absence spending the majority of races battling within the pack or walking back to the pits due to crashes or mechanical faults. Neither of which he was accustomed too.
Yet, in a sport that is won through superior design by the mechanics, tactical genius from the team principal and a combination of accuracy and quick reactions from the driving, is it any surprise that Schumacher has only obtained one podium finish since his return.
The reason Schumacher retired in the first place is not because his desire was no longer there, but simply the fact that his body is not physical, and mentally, as capable or agile as it use to be. At 43 he is no spring chicken.
The German, who has partaken in over 300 grand prix’s, appears to have become frustrated at his own inability. At times he has appeared to be, at best, a little clumsy, driving into the back of both Kamui Kobayashi and Jean-Eric Vergne after misjudgements, unlike in 1994 and 1997 when he deliberately hit Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve in a bid to effect the outcome of the championship.
Yet, he is not the only high profile returnee to come out of retirement in recent years. Lance Armstrong finished 3rd in his comeback Tour de France with Astana and a disappointing 23rd in his final tour in 2010 with RadioShack before once again getting off his bike. Paul Scholes’ reappearance for Manchester United though seems nothing short of inspired.
However, despite both Formula 1 and cycling being team sports, how the driver, or rider, performs is very much the deciding factor. And even though both Schumacher and Armstrong produced strong performances, neither retained that killer ability when left alone that had previously helped them conquer their sports.
Scholes’ return came much sooner after his retirement, and although he still controls matches and his talent is unquestionable, the nature of football has allowed him to modify his game in order to perform when required with the aid of his teammates.
Michael Schumacher remains a seven times world champion, with the past three seasons being a mere blip on his unchallenged record. There will be no third return for the German master yet when old heroes finally back down new ones arise and with Hamilton’s move to Mercedes, we could certainly witness a new champion if his replacement is that of the Mexican Sergio Perez.
Schumacher, 43, struggled to make an impact after returning from his three year absence spending the majority of races battling within the pack or walking back to the pits due to crashes or mechanical faults. Neither of which he was accustomed too.
Yet, in a sport that is won through superior design by the mechanics, tactical genius from the team principal and a combination of accuracy and quick reactions from the driving, is it any surprise that Schumacher has only obtained one podium finish since his return.
The reason Schumacher retired in the first place is not because his desire was no longer there, but simply the fact that his body is not physical, and mentally, as capable or agile as it use to be. At 43 he is no spring chicken.
The German, who has partaken in over 300 grand prix’s, appears to have become frustrated at his own inability. At times he has appeared to be, at best, a little clumsy, driving into the back of both Kamui Kobayashi and Jean-Eric Vergne after misjudgements, unlike in 1994 and 1997 when he deliberately hit Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve in a bid to effect the outcome of the championship.
Yet, he is not the only high profile returnee to come out of retirement in recent years. Lance Armstrong finished 3rd in his comeback Tour de France with Astana and a disappointing 23rd in his final tour in 2010 with RadioShack before once again getting off his bike. Paul Scholes’ reappearance for Manchester United though seems nothing short of inspired.
However, despite both Formula 1 and cycling being team sports, how the driver, or rider, performs is very much the deciding factor. And even though both Schumacher and Armstrong produced strong performances, neither retained that killer ability when left alone that had previously helped them conquer their sports.
Scholes’ return came much sooner after his retirement, and although he still controls matches and his talent is unquestionable, the nature of football has allowed him to modify his game in order to perform when required with the aid of his teammates.
Michael Schumacher remains a seven times world champion, with the past three seasons being a mere blip on his unchallenged record. There will be no third return for the German master yet when old heroes finally back down new ones arise and with Hamilton’s move to Mercedes, we could certainly witness a new champion if his replacement is that of the Mexican Sergio Perez.
Monday 24 September 2012
Terry Retires over Potential Guilty Verdict
Nearly a year after John Terry allegedly used “abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour” towards Anton Ferdinand during a premier league football match on October 23rd 2011 and the debacle is still ongoing. Terry, 31, decided that the night before his FA hearing was the perfect time to announce his international retirement, claiming that the FA made his position untenable, merely hours after Patrice Evra and Luis Suarez shook hands in an attempt to finally put aside their own personal issues over race.
Terry was charged by the FA on July 27th 2012 and has since represented his country in the world cup qualifying match against Moldova, underlining the fact that the FA has not made his position in the national side “untenable.” The timing of the announcement is clearly a well thought-out and somewhat tactically decision in a bid to place extreme pressure on the FA disciplinary panel whom have a conviction rate last year of 99.5%.
The consequences of such a decision will be a lengthy ban for a player whose career is beginning to dwindle. After already witnessing the humiliation of being stripped of his captaincy back in February, the player has decided to remove himself from international selection before being dropped by manager Roy Hodgson. He has effectively, spat the dummy.
Terry said: “It breaks my heart to make this decision.” Yet, when you consider that both Wayne Bridge and Rio Ferdinand were effectively forced to remove themselves from the international scene due to John Terry’s inclusion in the England squad then there is little sympathy.
Terry feels aggrieved that the FA are not following the criminal court verdict of “not guilty” when his case was heard in July. In the FA’s own rule book it does state that court verdicts will indeed be followed so maybe John Terry, and his legal team, have a point.
Rule 6.8 states. "Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case".
It does seem rather black and white. However, in a court of law the burden of proof required to make a conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt” whereas in the FA hearing the burden of proof is lower, with a conviction occurring on the “balance of probability”.
Therefore, the facts could be exactly the same, with the same evidence presented, yet differing outcomes may be reached. And given that the chief magistrate Howard Riddle stated that it was "possible that what was said was not intended as an insult but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him" it does suggest that the court does not deny that something unseemly was stated.
Therefore, one could suggest that the FA is indeed complying with Rule 6.8 as they are accepting that the facts, matters and result of the criminal case are all correct. However, when you lessen the burden of proof, a charge could be brought.
Also, the FA is an autonomous body, they are not bound by the law in sporting issues. For instance, the players who represent the English national side have to be English. That may seem obvious, but when you consider that the manager is not bound by the same constrictions, it does suggest that without the ruling that enforces clear discrimination, there would be nothing to prevent the English team being made up of foreigners.
As the autonomous body that it is, the FA has to conduct their own separate hearing in this case. Luis Suarez received an eight match ban for his alleged racial comments. If that case would have gone to court with the higher burden of proof, would Suarez have been convicted? Probably not. The FA cannot allow one player to get off for free, whilst another received such a lengthy ban. It would encourage players to take footballing issues to court, potentially allowing players to escape punishments for clear breaches of the game.
The FA needs to follow the precedent it set with the Evra/Suarez situation by banning the Chelsea skipper. Terry was fined two weeks’ wages back in 2001 for allegedly shouting abuse at U.S tourists the day after 9/11 and let’s face it, we have all seen the footage with Anton Ferdinand. On the balance of probabilities, we all know he is guilty.
Terry was charged by the FA on July 27th 2012 and has since represented his country in the world cup qualifying match against Moldova, underlining the fact that the FA has not made his position in the national side “untenable.” The timing of the announcement is clearly a well thought-out and somewhat tactically decision in a bid to place extreme pressure on the FA disciplinary panel whom have a conviction rate last year of 99.5%.
The consequences of such a decision will be a lengthy ban for a player whose career is beginning to dwindle. After already witnessing the humiliation of being stripped of his captaincy back in February, the player has decided to remove himself from international selection before being dropped by manager Roy Hodgson. He has effectively, spat the dummy.
Terry said: “It breaks my heart to make this decision.” Yet, when you consider that both Wayne Bridge and Rio Ferdinand were effectively forced to remove themselves from the international scene due to John Terry’s inclusion in the England squad then there is little sympathy.
Terry feels aggrieved that the FA are not following the criminal court verdict of “not guilty” when his case was heard in July. In the FA’s own rule book it does state that court verdicts will indeed be followed so maybe John Terry, and his legal team, have a point.
Rule 6.8 states. "Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case".
It does seem rather black and white. However, in a court of law the burden of proof required to make a conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt” whereas in the FA hearing the burden of proof is lower, with a conviction occurring on the “balance of probability”.
Therefore, the facts could be exactly the same, with the same evidence presented, yet differing outcomes may be reached. And given that the chief magistrate Howard Riddle stated that it was "possible that what was said was not intended as an insult but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him" it does suggest that the court does not deny that something unseemly was stated.
Therefore, one could suggest that the FA is indeed complying with Rule 6.8 as they are accepting that the facts, matters and result of the criminal case are all correct. However, when you lessen the burden of proof, a charge could be brought.
Also, the FA is an autonomous body, they are not bound by the law in sporting issues. For instance, the players who represent the English national side have to be English. That may seem obvious, but when you consider that the manager is not bound by the same constrictions, it does suggest that without the ruling that enforces clear discrimination, there would be nothing to prevent the English team being made up of foreigners.
As the autonomous body that it is, the FA has to conduct their own separate hearing in this case. Luis Suarez received an eight match ban for his alleged racial comments. If that case would have gone to court with the higher burden of proof, would Suarez have been convicted? Probably not. The FA cannot allow one player to get off for free, whilst another received such a lengthy ban. It would encourage players to take footballing issues to court, potentially allowing players to escape punishments for clear breaches of the game.
The FA needs to follow the precedent it set with the Evra/Suarez situation by banning the Chelsea skipper. Terry was fined two weeks’ wages back in 2001 for allegedly shouting abuse at U.S tourists the day after 9/11 and let’s face it, we have all seen the footage with Anton Ferdinand. On the balance of probabilities, we all know he is guilty.
Thursday 20 September 2012
Brazilian Armadillo v Clyde the Thistle
In the past few days we have had the honour of witnessing two of the most exciting revelations since the strictly come dancing line-up was announced just over a week ago. I know what you are thinking, what could be so exciting that it could eclipse the announcement that Lisa Riley would be slipping into a sparkling, skimpy outfit in order to samba the night away? Well, hold your breath no more, for we now know the 2014 World Cup and Commonwealth Games mascots!
World Cup hosts Brazil have created a yet to be named armadillo mascot. The armadillo looks modern, cool, loveable. It wears the tradition colours of the Brazilian flag in yellow, green and blue. It even rolls up into a ball shape, a rather handy added extra for a mascot representing the world’s biggest football tournament. You can imagine children throughout the world idealising the armadillo the way their parents’ idealised the footballing star who helped unveil the mascot, Ronaldo.
The three-banded armadillo is an endangered creature native to Brazil bringing comments from FIFA Secretary General Jerome Valcke about how the world cup in 2014 will be an event used to “communicate the importance of the environment and ecology”. It brings meaning to an otherwise commercial tool, even if those words are carefully selected PR.
Come November we will know whether the mascot will be christened Amijubi, Fuleco or Zuzeco. Amijubi is meant to represent “friendliness and joy”, whereas Fuleco and Zuzeco provide a link to the “ecological message” that the tournament wants to represent.
Compare this to the Commonwealth Games mascot for Glasgow 2014 – Clyde the Thistle. 12-year-old Beth Gilmour’s design was selected out of 4,000 entries. It represents Scotland strongly, with both the Thistle and the name Clyde being iconic to both Glasgow and Scotland. The animated design looks bright and colourful yet it fails to really inspire.
But the real downfall of the mascot is the fact that in real life it looks like a man has been dressed up as a giant turnip, only to get the order of colours slightly wrong, dressed in jogging bottoms with felt arms that have been slipped on over a t-shirt with a pair of shorts that appear too tight. It just looks amateur.
Beth’s idea is a strong one yet the people implementing it have done such a poor job it does send warning signals about just how professional the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow is going to be.
With such high expectations after the London Olympics went so well, will Scotland be able to represent their country on a global scale in the manner that they desire. Given the look of the two mascots unveiled this week, both for major sporting events occurring in 2014, it is clear that Scotland may have a lot of work to do.
World Cup hosts Brazil have created a yet to be named armadillo mascot. The armadillo looks modern, cool, loveable. It wears the tradition colours of the Brazilian flag in yellow, green and blue. It even rolls up into a ball shape, a rather handy added extra for a mascot representing the world’s biggest football tournament. You can imagine children throughout the world idealising the armadillo the way their parents’ idealised the footballing star who helped unveil the mascot, Ronaldo.
The three-banded armadillo is an endangered creature native to Brazil bringing comments from FIFA Secretary General Jerome Valcke about how the world cup in 2014 will be an event used to “communicate the importance of the environment and ecology”. It brings meaning to an otherwise commercial tool, even if those words are carefully selected PR.
Come November we will know whether the mascot will be christened Amijubi, Fuleco or Zuzeco. Amijubi is meant to represent “friendliness and joy”, whereas Fuleco and Zuzeco provide a link to the “ecological message” that the tournament wants to represent.
Compare this to the Commonwealth Games mascot for Glasgow 2014 – Clyde the Thistle. 12-year-old Beth Gilmour’s design was selected out of 4,000 entries. It represents Scotland strongly, with both the Thistle and the name Clyde being iconic to both Glasgow and Scotland. The animated design looks bright and colourful yet it fails to really inspire.
But the real downfall of the mascot is the fact that in real life it looks like a man has been dressed up as a giant turnip, only to get the order of colours slightly wrong, dressed in jogging bottoms with felt arms that have been slipped on over a t-shirt with a pair of shorts that appear too tight. It just looks amateur.
Beth’s idea is a strong one yet the people implementing it have done such a poor job it does send warning signals about just how professional the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow is going to be.
With such high expectations after the London Olympics went so well, will Scotland be able to represent their country on a global scale in the manner that they desire. Given the look of the two mascots unveiled this week, both for major sporting events occurring in 2014, it is clear that Scotland may have a lot of work to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)