Official - footballer's brains don't matter

   

My original post on this subject was published back in 2014 having seen a challenge by Lauren Koscielny - as the debate on brain injury in football rages - this is my update.:

Ryan Mason retired from professional football in 2018,  two years after his skull was fractured in a challenge by Chelsea’s Gary Cahill. Headlines shortly after the incident, speculated as to whether Mason would even survive. Nearly three years later, there is endless discussion as to how the game can respond to a brain injury crisis in football. Potential solutions include compulsory substitution in the case of head injury and concussion subs, but I’m staggered that the most obvious response isn’t discussed at all. 

 

You can watch the Mason/Cahill incident here:

Hull v Chelsea, January 2016 

 

Mason clears the ball before Cahill arrives and makes contact with the back of his head. I’d simply ask what the reaction would have been had the challenge been with a foot at ground level but the time lapse between Mason’s touch on the ball and Cahill’s contact with Mason had been the same as in this video?

 

There’d be uproar. It would be described as an appallingly late challenge – a reckless, career threatening assault. Yet because contact was made with the head, the pundits agreed – “Cahill went for the ball. Nothing to see here.” 

 

The distinction is completely lost on me. Football appears to be losing the plot generally right now – as referees go for arcane interpretations of an increasingly complex rules book over the consistent application of common sense. In this instance it could literally be a matter of life of death. Why not start with a principle – a late challenge is treated in the same way, regardless of where it happens on the pitch and which parts of the body are involved. Had Cahill been vilified for his recklessness and faced a lengthy ban – other defenders  might think twice before launching themselves into a similar assault.  

 Concussion subs may be a partial solution – but the root of the problem is clear – it is not OK to throw your head at the ball regardless of what might be in the way. The principle is well established and beyond question when players’ feet are involved – it makes no sense at all to treat their heads differently. Unless, of course, footballer’s brains don’t matter.

Season ends? This is how West Ham get relegated and it's Spurs v Arsenal again

As each day passes, it seems more and more likely that the Premier League season will be unable to complete its fixtures. Some suggest that we should defer the start of next season - but with other European leagues closing off this season and preparing for next, it's not an option if English clubs want to play in the next Champions and Europa Leagues. The null and void option would not reward (or punish) clubs for their performance in the games played to date. Taking the current positions is unfair to those clubs with games in hand. So the preferred solution now appears to be "points per game." This assumes that we can say that teams will continue to accumulate points at the same average rate as they have since the start of the season. Obviously it takes no account of whether the games that teams have already played are against tougher or easier options than those that remain - and it's beyond me to imagine a calculation that could account for that. All football fans will also recognise the fact that a team's performance is often very different at the end of the season -that's the nature of football. It's why the season's close is often thrilling. It is NOT predictable.
So maybe points per game is the fairest - but there is a wrinkle. It is possible to look at one aspect of those games in hand. Evaluating the difficulty of those fixtures by opponent its too subjective - but there is a valid refinement to the average points. What if we were to look at whether the points we are "averaging" are from home or away games and extrapolate them separately?
The tables below show the calculations.
At the top it makes no difference to European qualification - but if the ban on Man City is upheld, Man United will qualify for the Champions League and either Spurs or Arsenal will replace them in the Europa League. It's Arsenal if we adopt simple points averaging. It's Spurs if you take the table as is - or adjust the extrapolation for home or away games.
It is the bottom of the table where it is far more interesting. Assuming teams are relegated - it is Bournemouth, Aston Villa and Norwich, UNLESS you adjust the points average for the "home or away" factor. Then Bournemouth survive and West Ham go down.
This method takes account of the fact that Bournemouth have been stronger at home than West Ham and more of their remaining games were scheduled for the Vitality Stadium. It's not "right", nothing can be if the season is not completed but just as points per game is better than taking the current table, this eliminates part of the bias of a simple average.  

		HOME RESULTS		AWAY RESULTS		TOTAL
						Played	Goal diff	Point
1	Liverpool	15	45	14	37	29	45	82
2	Man City	13	29	15	28	28	37	57
3	Leicester	15	30	14	23	29	30	53
4	Chelsea	15	24	14	24	29	12	48
5	Man Utd	15	29	14	16	29	14	45
6	Sheff Utd	15	24	13	19	28	5	43
7	Wolves	15	22	14	21	29	7	43
8	Spurs	14	26	15	15	29	7	41
9	Arsenal	15	26	13	14	28	4	40
10	Crystal Palace	15	22	14	17	29	-6	39
11	Burnley	15	23	14	16	29	-6	39
12	Everton	14	25	15	12	29	-9	37
13	Newcastle	14	21	15	14	29	-16	35
14	Southampton	15	14	14	20	29	-17	34
15	Brighton	14	18	15	11	29	-8	29
16	West Ham	14	15	15	12	29	-15	27
17	Watford	14	17	15	10	29	-17	27
18	Bournemouth	14	17	15	10	29	-18	27
19	Aston Villa	13	17	15	8	28	-22	25
20	Norwich	14	15	15	6	29	-27	21
			Simple average			Adjusted
			Pts	Pos.		Pts	Pos.
1	Liverpool		107.45	1		107.21	1
2	Man City		77.36	2		77.85	2
3	Leicester		69.45	3		69.21	3
4	Chelsea		62.90	4		62.97	4
5	Man Utd		58.97	5		58.45	5
6	Sheff Utd		58.36	6		58.17	6
7	Wolves		56.34	7		56.37	7
8	Spurs		53.72	9		54.29	8
9	Arsenal		54.29	8		53.39	9
10	Crystal Palace		51.10	11		50.94	10
11	Burnley		51.10	10		50.85	11
12	Everton		48.48	12		49.13	12
13	Newcastle		45.86	13		46.23	13
14	Southampton		44.55	14		44.88	14
15	Brighton		38.00	15		38.36	15
16	West Ham		35.38	16		35.56	18
17	Watford		35.38	17		35.74	16
18	Bournemouth		35.38	18		35.74	17
19	Aston Villa		33.93	19		34.98	19
20	Norwich		27.52	20		27.96	20

COVID's worst casualties? Footballer's egos.

April Fool?  The award has to go to Sky pundit Gary Neville. Responding to criticism that Premier League footballers are totally disconnected from the real world, have towering egos and are utterly incapable of coping with even a hint of criticism, he showed that actually - Premier League footballers are totally disconnected from the real world, have towering egos and are utterly incapable of coping with even a hint of criticism.

Gary has form as an angry man, so it’s no surprise that when Health Secretary Matt Hancock posed a totally reasonable question; suggesting that Premier League footballers should “do their bit”, Neville “hit back” as most media outlets reported. He could have responded in a reasoned and courteous fashion but, in a sport where every game is described as a clash or a desperate battle, moderate language is not the norm. Mr Neville even tried to draw parallels between the challenges footballers face  in agreeing a short term pay cut, to the logistical issues of organising a rigorous and resilient testing regime for the million or so people who work for the NHS. One of these issues could be resolved with a few phone calls and a bit of goodwill – and only one.

Premier League football exists in its current form only because the fans lash out staggering sums of money for match tickets, merchandise and the vast array of on-line subscriptions required to watch the game on TV. Football receives a large part of its income from commercial sponsorship, the cost of which is then added to the price of the products we buy, so the fan (who may just have been laid off due to COVID), gets to pay that way too. Gary Neville opened his “hit back tweet” with “I wish I was a footballer for ten more minutes.” We all do Gary. His beloved Manchester United reportedly pays Alexei Sanchez £500,000 a week. Assuming a 35-hour week (generous), that is about £15,000 an hour or close to two and a half grand for every ten minutes. Few remember, by the way, the last time Mr Sanchez  pulled on a United shirt.

Since Neville’s outburst, a host of footballers have whined that it is wrong to single them out. “Why us? Why pick on footballers?” Well, they are in a position that few of us will ever know. They are paid eye-watering sums of money to do what most of us would do for nothing. People up and down the country pay subs and buy their own kit to play this game. I’m guessing that if Sainsbury’s asked for a cash contribution from its employees who were told to “bring your own uniform” – it wouldn’t get many takers. Neville is in a particularly fortunate position. A very successful right back, he is now handsomely rewarded (allegedly paid more than £1.5 million a year by Sky) to watch and talk about football. He is arguably one of the better pundits – but is there any other job where someone can retire from “doing” and make a staggeringly good living from talking, whether you have a discernible talent for the new role or not? My generation grew up with Jimmy Hill, Ian St John and Jimmy Greaves. They did their job with style and wit and were chosen because they were intelligent, articulate and insightful and talked about football as a game – rather than as a proxy for armed conflict. I yearn for a return to those days. Any professional footballer is now eligible for a job as a pundit. Most can barely string two sentences together; they appear to find an inability to pronounce the names of foreign players hilarious and often struggle to grasp the rules of the game from which they “earn” a living. Few are able to hide their historic club allegiances, and none seem able to grasp that their opinion (that’s all it is) is worth no more than that being expressed by someone in the stands.

Gary Neville was a good player, he is one of the better pundits, but he appears to believe that we should all sit up and take notice of his views regardless of the subject matter. He is unimpressed that Matt Hancock has been unable to implement a resilient test regime but forgets that the last time he was paid handsomely to “do” rather than “say”, he was an unmitigated disaster. He lasted only three months as manager of Valencia and attributed much of his failure to “bad luck”. He is a consistent pleader for those at the pinnacle of football to be seen as “special”. Bad behaviour by players is excused because of the pressure (elite sportsmen in other fields rarely ever make such a claim), he told us an Arsenal fan was an idiot for criticising  the club he was paying astronomical sums to watch. Fans who questioned Rachel Riley’s qualifications as a football pundit were derided. What right did paying customers have to query the service they were receiving? He also stepped in to defend Jamie Carragher who spat in the face of fans who were almost certainly customers of his employer. Neville can certainly opine on whether Liverpool should play a flat back four – the problem is that he now believes himself to be an authority in general.

He angrily demands that we trust the players – they will come up with something. Several days later we have seen nothing but more special pleading by and on behalf of players. They are different, there’s a whole bunch of people who should be ahead of them in the queue we are told. So why are they “being picked on”?

Primarily, it’s because they are standing by and watching their low paid colleagues being laid off whist they sit back in their luxury homes whinging about how tough it is to stay fit, in case the season ever restarts. They claim that the clubs should do more and their rich owners should be the focus of public ire. It’s true that chairmen like Daniel Levy has acted shamefully by accepting a huge bonus on the same day he laid off hundreds of low paid staff – but the bad behaviour of others is never an excuse for one’s own failings. Since Neville’s demands to back off – Liverpool, currently England’s top club, has also placed the burden of supporting many of their non-playing staff onto the taxpayer.

We have seen plenty of examples of the disdain with which elite footballers treat the fans who pay their salaries. Danny Rose memorably informed the world he would never forgive Spurs fans for questioning his commitment during a lengthy injury spell in which he did little but whinge about how tough it is to be a footballer. Rose had not played for around nine months and in that time had been paid what most of the fans he was criticising would struggle to earn in several lifetimes.

So why are we picking on footballers now? Several players have given examples of those who might be ahead of them in the queue – I list them below with some pretty obvious answers.

Actors?  Actors get paid when they work. Many of the most famous actors in the world are now out of a job because film projects have ceased. They also work in an industry where one bad performance can end their careers.

CEOs?  Sure, the average CEO is paid a handsome salary but most of their remuneration comes in bonuses and income related to the performance of the company’s shares. Both will be hit drastically by the current crisis. 

Other top sportsmen?  Many have already done what is now expected of Premier League footballers. Barcelona players have agreed to a 70% cut so that other staff “can earn their full salaries”. Many sportsmen do not enjoy the cossetted existence of being employed by a club. If golfers and tennis players don’t compete (like now), they don’t get paid. England’s cricketers (paid a fraction of the sums received by footballers) have already agreed to the 30% cut that Premier League clubs are asking of their players.

Investment managers? Another group that rarely garners sympathy, but they too will see a reduction to their incomes as a consequence of this crisis. Most are paid based on stock market values which have dropped, and bonuses are based on profitability which will be ravaged.

Wealthy club owners? Of course they should do more, but most have already seen the value of their club drop dramatically. Some may be unable to sustain the investment they have already made with the commercial future of the game so clearly under threat. Yes – they should do more, that does not excuse players, as a group, offering nothing but excuses.

Other rich people? Wealth is measured by the value of assets one has accumulated to date. It’s possible to be rich without having a commensurate income (if you own a massive estate which generates no revenue). Virtually all rich people will exit this crisis poorer than before. It’s not to say they shouldn’t do something – but footballers have an abundance of what everyone needs right now. Income.  It’s inconceivable that they could not sacrifice a small part of that for a short time to protect the jobs of their lower paid colleagues – and to tide clubs over until the future of the game itself is clearer.

The candidates offered up in the “why not” list will all see their income fall due to COVID, all of them can and should do more, the problem is that players appear to believe they are exempt.

Our Premier League players simply fail to grasp that they have an almost unique privilege. They are paid whether they play or not, most have long term contracts guaranteeing their income years into the future and they appear to believe they should not be asked to behave in a way that the players of Barcelona and the England cricket team have done willingly and without fuss.

Neville said they would respond – subsequent news report are not encouraging. We are told that a one-year sacrifice of 30% would amount to a £500 million loss to the players and a £200 million loss in tax to the Treasury – they claim this will damage the NHS. This is possibly the most egregious distortion of all. Whilst it is true that their pay is subject to tax, it also qualifies for tax relief for their employer. The claim that the net cost is 200 million is quite simply a lie. Suggesting that this would have a direct impact on the NHS is shameful. The government is now in a position where it has no choice but to give the NHS any resources it needs, lower tax revenues from football will not change that. If club owners have asked for 30% of player's annual pay, why have the players not responded with a counter-offer?  Maybe 30% of monthly pay for the duration of the lockdown.  Finally, it is breath-taking that footballers should now show such concern that the government gets its share of their income. I suggest you Google “Premier League tax avoidance” it will take you to a host of links describing the endless measures players have adopted to avoid paying tax in the past. In the words of Gary Neville – “it’s a F&&&king cheek”.

Another contributor to the debate has been Wayne Rooney – who is outraged that footballers are being “scapegoated”. He says that he has a player at Derby who still lives with his mum. How could such an individual be asked to sacrifice part of his pay for a short time? Rooney then goes on to answer his own question. Of course the player is a “young kid” and he doesn’t even play in the Premier League, so nobody has suggested he should take a pay cut. But the clincher is this – Wayne tells us that this vulnerable youngster is only on 2 grand a week. Could the disconnect be more stark?

Footballers play a team game. Many have honours denied to far more talented players simply because they were in a successful squad. They are being asked to make a gesture, not to take the whole burden of this crisis on their own shoulders. They are being asked to be a “team player”. They should offer a pay cut on the condition that clubs protect the jobs of their low paid colleagues. At a time when many people are wondering where the next pay cheque is coming from – it is frankly obscene that some of the luckiest people in the land have offered no coherent response. Gary Neville would be well advised to drop the “but we’re special” attitude. It’s time for a bit of humility and all that is being asked is a gesture that will make little or no difference to the lifestyles of those in the spotlight.

Football is not a business that invests in its future. Neville and his cohorts demand that clubs spend the money they earn on more and more expensive player acquisitions – which may or may not work. The quest for glory is predicated on an ever-increasing flow of cash into the game. That flow has now been interrupted. TV won’t pay for matches it can’t show, sponsors may decide they don’t want to be associated with a sport that is failing to “do its bit” and many fans will either not have the cash for merchandise and season tickets next year or will remember that the players they usually adore, sat out the COVID pandemic and sent them the message – it’s not my problem. Players and pundits should heed the warnings or a few years from now, some of them might have to get a proper job.

Racism in football -another way of dealing with the bully boys.

“Well, something must be done.” It’s the standard reply to every crisis. For most, however, the priority is merely to express the requisite level of outrage to show they care. Some are keen to ensure “something” is done, but they rarely dig deeper to assess whether the response actually deals with the underlying issue. That’s where we are with the current “crisis” of racism in football. Most “initiatives” are little more than gestures. There is another way.

September 1971. My first day at secondary school – I was tall for my age but geeky and painfully shy. A decent target for the school bully. It’s only looking back that I remember he barely looked at me as he grabbed at my sweater, pulled my tie and shoved me around. He was checking for an audience – hoping that someone would spot his macho posturing. Then I spotted the kid standing behind him. He smiled at me, gave a thumbs up and a wink – then went down on all-fours immediately behind my tormentor. The invitation was clear – I shoved the bully in the chest, one step back, he tumbled over my saviour and landed in an ungainly heap on the grass, never to come near me again.

My first instinct was to wonder what I’d done to become the focus of such hatred. Then I realised, it had very little to do with me. The guy was a loser, a sad little loner desperate for someone to take notice and to convince himself he wasn’t at the bottom of the pile. It backfired. The whole thing said little about me – and everything about the person trying to demonstrate a strength they simply did not possess.

The lesson has stood me in good stead. I’ve been on the end of rudeness, aggression and indirect discrimination – and on reflection it’s always pointed up the weakness, insecurity or low self-esteem of the perpetrator. I once intervened on a train when I saw a drunk harassing a female passenger – the man turned his attentions to me and I was treated to a detailed appraisal (not positive) of my looks, my age, my hair, my weight and the clothes I was wearing. I explained to the guy that for insults to have an impact – I’d have to give a toss about the opinion of the person dishing them out and I couldn’t think of anything less important to me than his views on anything. He retreated.

I hope I’ve successfully passed the lesson on to work colleagues and friends, encouraging them to think about the actions of those who treat them badly. Is it from a position of weakness or strength? Is any criticism objective or is it more to do with jealousy, insecurity or just that they’re sick of being on the wrong end of someone else’s ire and are simply lashing out?

So, what’s that got to do with football or racism?

Roll forward forty odd years and my wife and I were returning from Spurs v West Ham. For reasons most have forgotten – the home team has an association with the Jewish religion. The away team’s supporters treated a small group of Spurs fans to some appalling abuse – essentially focusing on the Holocaust (of which my wife’s grandmother was a tragic victim). I’m a confirmed lapsed Catholic so not the best judge but, even my wife agreed – these people were not anti-Semitic per se – they were ignorant, insecure, immature and finding the only way they could to fit in with their mates.

We are told repeatedly that football has a racism problem – and something must be done. Games should be halted – players should walk – Twitter should do more. Sure - but none of those does anything about racism - they are just knee-jerk reactions to make people feel better about doing something… anything. There’s a famous book called How to Win Friends and Influence People. It contains the well-known quote – “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”. Stopping a football match isn’t victory over a “racist” – it’s submission – and the mindset of the villain is unchanged.

There is a way of combatting these imbeciles – and it’s already being led in a low-key way by footballers like Raheem Sterling and Paul Pogba. Sterling laughed when interviewed about racist abuse. “What do you expect from people like that?” he asked. Pogba has said abuse makes him more determined.

I have no solution for club chairmen who won’t appoint a manager for reasons of prejudice, or for aspiring referees who don’t make the Premier League list because they are from a minority group – but the problem of systematic abuse at grounds and on social media can be addressed, in part at least, by a change in mindset. It won’t be stopped by more people saying how upsetting it is.

I cannot put myself in the place of someone who is on the wrong end of vile personal comments regarding their race – but I will venture the, possibly unpopular, opinion that the priority here is not multi-millionaire footballers. They live extraordinarily cossetted lives and whilst chanting or tweeting may be upsetting or irritating – it takes relatively little from their lavish lifestyles. They do however, have the chance to lead the charge on behalf of people who are experiencing the same thing at school or their place of work.

When a footballer vents his anger and says how upset he is – he has given a victory to those who abuse him. If players were to walk off or matches were stopped – that victory is magnified. It could even exacerbate the problem – 2-0 down in a crucial game, stop cheering your own team, start abusing the opposition’s centre-forward. Back to the dressing room. Job done. Who will reimburse those decent fans who might have travelled halfway round the world to see the game?

As a teenager I saw Brighton play an uninspiring match in the old Third Division. Nearly all professional footballers were white – one exception (I regret I don’t remember his name) was playing in that game and being subjected to some foul abuse. In response to the monkey chants – the player turned to the crowd and did a passable impersonation of a  chimp. The tables were turned – he’d demonstrated that he really couldn’t care less. The crowd realised they’d lost – and cheered his every touch to the end of the game. More recently Danny Alves of Real Madrid ate a banana that was thrown at him. Should an insanely well-paid footballer really worry about the actions of a moron they have never met? Better surely, to call these people out for what they are and make it clear that they are not winning. If the idea catches on – it could have an impact in the classroom, the workplace and in social situations for people who are far less privileged than a pro-footballer.

Could we not all take inspiration from Sterling and Pogba? At the heart of the dictionary definition of racism is the idea that a racist believes himself to be superior. Those who chant and tweet this appalling garbage are showing weakness, insecurity and low self-esteem, it’s off the scale “small dick syndrome”. Their comments are borne out of fear, jealousy and their own inadequacies. If only football could change the narrative – if the players could rise above it, understand the perpetrator is a loser – they might just turn the tide for less privileged people who suffer the same abuse.

The remarkable Greta Thunberg, teenage climate change warrior, recently said “When the haters go after your looks and differences, it means they have nowhere left to go – then you know you’re winning.”

Drink drivers were literally shamed into leaving their car keys at home – those who abuse others for any reason need a dose of the same medicine. Of course people should still be banned from grounds and be subject to the full force of the law  for being racist - but first and foremost for being a pathetic, sad little twat.

I’ve discussed this with a number of football fans and most agree the approach has merit. One, however, suggested that I was telling people they had no right to be upset. Nothing could be further from the truth. My argument is simply that focusing on how distressing it might be, will never get the bullies to stop. Footballers are powerful role models – if fans see their heroes mocking the morons who resort to juvenile name calling and pointing out that a verbal attack on an opposing player, because of the colour of his skin, is explicitly an attack on players from their own club too – shame and peer pressure might just make a difference.

And in case you are wondering – my saviour back in 1971. We are still firm friends. 

Matt Carrell

Author of A Matter of Life and Death - a novel set in the English Premier League and Something Must be Done - a short story about unintended consequences

   

Wenger and Fans - with apologies to Cat Stevens

I'm a big fan of Cat Stevens and Father & Son is one of his best tracks.

It's a great expression of an underlying hostility where one party just can't understand where the other guy is coming from. I found myself humming it the other day, while I watched Arsene Wenger being interviewed on TV.

I started to wonder what would happen if Arsene got into the same kind of conversation with the team's fans as the protagonists in the song.

I got together with a very talented young singer/musician called Matt George Lovett and this is what we came up with.

If you enjoy the video - please share -

Wenger & Fans

Wrestling in the penalty box and fashion on the touchline

Watching the QPR v Stoke game today (second half only, I have got a life you know), I was staggered by the leeway offered by referee Martin Atkinson to players defending corners. Ryan Shawcross was picked out by the commentary team as the worst offender, but everyone was guilty.
I've seen drunks being bundled into police vans on a Saturday night under less physical restraint than was being applied to the attacking team. Shawcross was certainly guilty of the worst example. Had the player he was marking scored, the Stoke defender was so firmly attached, he'd have got a piggy back round the ground for the goal celebration. Referees need to apply the rules wherever an incident occurs on the pitch. Right now a shirt tug on the halfway line can be a yellow card, in the box it's ignored. Am I missing something?
For those who say, if you gave a penalty for it, there'd be dozens every week, that would only happen in week one, after that, even footballers would cotton on.

Also a word of advice for Sam Allardyce, apart from congratulations on three points of course. It's the suit Sam, why bother? Even if you wear a three thousand pound Armani job, it still looks like you are wearing a tracksuit. Why not save yourself the cash and pop down to JD Sports? 

Lineker speaks out about FIFA corruption

Hats off to Gary Lineker for his attack on Sepp Blatter and his FIFA cronies. I've commented here in the past about the fact that many of their decisions appear to be explicable only if a large wad of cash changed hands. This is the BBC coverage of Lineker's comments - BBC

England's World Cup failure. Maybe we weren't hungry enough.

    It's often cited as the reason for England's failure at major tournaments, a team full of pampered prima donnas who get paid a fortune regardless of the result.

Maybe they aren't hungry enough. 
Well that's an accusation you can't level at Luis Suarez and look what happened to him!

    England delivered three dull. lacklustre, unimaginative performances and questions are being asked as to whether there should be a further reorganisation of the game, whether more resources need to be applied to youth development and whether the number of foreigners in the English game is causing the malaise.
    Qualifiers from England's group were Costa Rica (population less than five million) and Uruguay (population around three and half million - a shade more than Wales). When you see stats like that it's hard not to believe that the problem goes deeper. It's years since I saw a truly passionate and committed performance from an England team. You'd probably have to go back to when Bobby Robson was manager.
   Yet again a tournament has passed with little to smile about from the England team. This time the crowd was better value with particular credit to the fan who delivered the excellent parody of the much copied Mastercard advert. His banner read"

Cost of flights  £1,200
Enjoying the ambience £2,000
Accommodation £2,000

Arriving in Rio after eliminaton (sic.) - Priceless 

Unveiled - Tottenham first team for 2014/15

Having trawled through the authoritative coverage of Tottenham's close season transfer plans, I can exclusively reveal the likely line up for the club's first game of the new season.
Every one of these players has been cited as a high priority for new boss Mauricio Pochettino, it's on the internet so it must be true.

Tim Krul
Marcello
Toby Aldlerweireld
Dejan Lovren
Ashley Cole
Adam Lalana
Eric Dier
Esteban Cambiasso
Memphis Depay
Romelu Lukaku
Wilfired Bony

No, I hadn't heard of all of them either.
I'm guessing Spurs may sign one, two at the most. Reading about transfer rumours is, without doubt, a total waste of time... if somehow compulsive.

World Cup football with the sound turned down

Thirty minutes into the Croatia Mexico game I've had turn the volume to zero. I'm past 50, I like a glass of wine and I'm not hitting the gym as often as I used to. My heart won't cope with any more of this stuff. Do commentators think before they speak?

Sample 1. Modric is clattered from behind by an opponent. It's an aerial duel and the Mexican just closes his eyes and catches the Croat on the back of the head with his forehead. Whilst this is an everyday occurrence on the streets of Glasgow, it should not be encouraged on the football field. It's a headbutt, plain and simple.  Co-commentator Danny Murphy explained that there was no malice, the challenge was mistimed, so no action should be taken. Had the same thing happened on the ground, resulting in a player being tripped, a foul would be given. Can someone explain the discrepancy? Or is this further evidence that footballers value their feet over their brains?

Sample 2. Mexican player Herrera strikes the crossbar with a superb shot. The commentator explains that the stats will not show this as being "on target," a practice that he just does not understand. Allow me to explain in simple terms. The wooden structure that supports the net is NOT the target - it is the net that they need to aim for. The records will reflect that a shot that hits the crossbar is of no more value to a team than one that hits the corner flag.

Until commentators grasp this simple principle and until their colleagues can distinguish between a fair challenge and assault, the world cup will continue to be watched in silence.

A new novel with a football theme - A Matter of Life and Death

     My latest novel is set in a run down seaside town, where the local football club is battling to retain its Premier League status. I hope you will take a look.
 
A Matter of Life and Death - a summary

    In April 1981, ex-Liverpool manager Bill Shankly was interviewed by Shelley Rodhe on Granada TV. Alongside him in the studio was former Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Shankly told the audience, “Somebody said: 'Football's a matter of life and death to you.’ I said, 'Listen it's more important than that.’”

     Coldharbour Town has climbed from the lower divisions of English football, finally reaching the Premier League under the careful stewardship of local businessman, Jack Enright. After just one season, it’s clear that even survival will require more cash than Enright is willing, or able to commit. Russian billionaire, Dimitri Koloschenko sees ownership of a football club as a means of establishing himself in the London social scene. Within weeks of buying out the reluctant Enright, his commitment is tested by the realities of owning a struggling football club.
     As Coldharbour Town fights to retain its place in the top flight, a clinical killer starts to terrorise the community. Maggie Davenport leads a police investigation that appears to flounder at every turn, the local paper; under editor Toby Thomas, revels in the story of Britain’s latest serial killer and Adam Buckley is dubbed Coldharbour Town’s saviour and the “new Gareth Bale.”
In a town that appears to be in terminal decline, the priority should be to catch a murderer. It is after all, a matter of life and death. But some things are more important than that.

It's available as a paperback or a kindle e-book on Amazon for just £2.98. Click HERE.

France victorious on the pitch and in the studio - BBC looking rusty.

     France cruised to a routine victory over Honduras at the weekend and now seem likely to make the second round with some ease. No sooner had the commentator informed us that Wilson Palacios had rarely played ninety minutes for Stoke City this season, than a bizarre challenge on Paul Pogba ensured he carried that record into the World Cup. Red card, game over.
     English viewers got to see the game on the BBC, which rarely covers live football these days. It showed. Thierry Henry and Clarence Seedorf were worthy panellists, both have a sackful of medals and their contribution to the debate was insightful and intelligent. Alongside them was... Robbie Savage. Did someone else call in sick just before the game started and Robbie happened to be passing the studio? There can be no other explanation for his presence. In a grim parody of his playing career he was, once again, outclassed and outwitted by those around him.
     Invited to explain how Honduras could cope with the attacking flair of the French, Savage reminded Henry how the clubs he'd played for had sought to contain the Frenchman and his Arsenal colleagues. The Welshman suggested that his brand of physical football could work just as well for Honduras as it had back then. Henry looked bemused, then I'm guessing he ran through in his mind the goals he scored when Savage was an opponent before delivering a superb coup de grace.
     "We coped," he said. France were one nil up before the teams had even taken to the pitch.
Savage once famously suggested that he was a better player than Graeme Souness. I doubt even his mum would support him on that one. Credit to the BBC for getting two top panellists but Savage? I don't think so.
     Gold medal for stupidity, however, goes to commentator Jonathan Pearce for his diatribe about the failures of the goal line technology system. Listening to him again yesterday, he is still convinced the system malfunctioned during the game. He claimed that it showed two contradictory results for the same incident. A child of four could see that there were two separate decisions to be made. The ball hit the post and rebounded along the line, the system correctly showed - "no goal," - then the ball hit the keeper and crossed the line, the system correctly showed - "goal." No issue, no problem but Pearce's failure to look and think means that there probably are a few viewers out there that think the system is flawed.
     Anyone know what John Motson's doing these days?
     

FIFA - a den of vipers?

There's some excellent stuff in the Economist magazine of June 4, relating to FIFA's handling of the World Cup. The main theme, unsurprisingly is the selection of Qatar as host for the 2022 finals. The Sunday Times has already produced some convincing evidence that the process was rigged and that large amounts of cash changed hands. The Economist is careful not to accuse Sepp Blatter of being corrupt, but the phraseology is such that they aren't ruling it out either.
There's no doubt that the choice of a country where summer temperatures routinely hit the high 40s, is extraordinary - and now a switch to a winter competition is being contemplated. The Times has followed up its earlier revelations with an accusation that of all the countries that applied to host the 2022 competition, only Qatar was deemed to have a high risk of a terror attack.
I've written elsewhere in my blog that I believe the introduction of goal line technology is another bizarre initiative. Why introduce new technology that solves only one of the many problems officials have in decision making when there is a ready made solution in the form of a TV replay? There are plenty of people who believe it's simply because the bidding process provided an opportunity for decision makers to get their noses in the trough, as competing providers sought to sway the decision in their direction.
I have no idea if that is true or not, but if FIFA wants to reverse the widely held assumption that it is corrupt, it needs to stop making decisions that look as though they could only have been made for all the wrong reasons.  

My filthy habit

I don’t know what happened to me doc. I just tried one or two to start with, I thought I could handle it. All my mates were doing the same thing and it didn’t seem to be doing them any harm, but now I’m hooked. It’s the first thing I think about in the morning and I have to have one final fix before I go to sleep at night. Any chance I get during the day too, I’ll sneak away into a quite corner and…

Drugs? Don’t be daft. I’m talking about the transfer rumours, handily summarised and sorted by club on News.co.uk. I just can’t stop myself clicking on those seductive little links that will tell me what the latest gossip is about my favourite team. It’s a sordid relationship and I’m not proud of it. Maybe telling you will be cathartic and I can kick the habit.

What really gets me is the vast majority is such unadulterated crap. The printed press makes up stuff to fill its pages and aspiring sports journos (please God, tell me they don’t get paid for the dross they write) recycle it as though it had been handed down on tablets of stone from heaven. Every club in the Premier League is rumoured to have a couple of dozen players each as their number one priority in every transfer window, and any player close to the end of their contract, or whose had limited game time recently will be chucked into the mix and matched with a club name seemingly picked at random.

The language is clichéd and repetitive. I guess there are only so many times you can say that a team is “considering an approach.” First they “eye” a player, then they “monitor” the situation, then they “plot a shock swoop.” The other team is reported to have suffered a “massive blow” that another club might want their man or, if said player has failed to impress in recent months, they have the chance to “cash in on a flop.” I’ve been checking the Microsoft web-site, there has to be a wizard you can use in Word that generates this sort of tosh automatically. Just key in a player name and the team rumoured to be interested and it will automatically produce a hundred and fifty words of unsubstantiated drivel.

So why can’t I stop my fixation? I guess that’s the beauty of football, even with the World Cup coming up there has to be something that fills the void left when there is no game at the weekend for your favourite team. It’s a poor substitute but it’s all we’ve got.

The good news is that I’ve acquired a partial immunity. Those sites that insist in presenting their message as a bullet point list, “the five players that…” or “five things that…” then deliver a slide show where you have to click to get the next page. It gets their page click count up, but it does nothing for me. Unless it’s a superbly written piece, and that’s happened maybe twice, I close the link and move on. Maybe it’s the first step in finding a complete cure. Now if you’ll excuse me I have to… well… you know.

Real Bag the Welshman

I wrote this last summer at the height of the media frenzy about Gareth Bale's rumoured move to Real Madrid. That transfer did happen but, at the time, there were hundreds of other stories about transfers that would  never happen.  This is just a gentle dig at the dozens of bloggers who recycle unfounded rumours in the desperate hope you will click on their page:

Real Bag the Welshman by Toby Thomas

Spurs hopes of securing Champions League football next year are in tatters this morning as the inevitable transfer of Gareth Bale to Real Madrid entered its final phase. This blog has kept its readers close to the heart of the action ever since it was clear that the deal could go through any day. Our first report appeared over three years ago. 

Last week we exclusively revealed the transfer has been in the making virtually since the day Bale was born. Some would say it is the Spurs superstar’s fate to play for the Spanish club. In late May we delivered an exclusive interview with Mfanwy Morgan, a near neighbor of the Bale family when he was a child. She told us how the young prodigy was frequently seen playing street football wearing a crisp white t-shirt, an obvious tribute to the club whose colours he will now wear at the Bernebeau and an indication of the dream that he has held close to his heart since he was a toddler [Editor’s note – check what colour Spurs play in before this goes out]. Mrs Morgan also revealed that the family once took a summer holiday in the Spanish seaside resort of Marbella, just 600 kilometres down the road from Madrid, a clear sign that the young footballer’s heart has long been set on a move to the  club.

Only two days ago we reported on detailed research undertaken on our behalf by a team from Oxford University. Using a NASA super computer and a team of expert linguists they were able to reveal that “Gareth Bale Welshman” is in fact an anagram of “Real Bag the Welshman”. This is a transfer that has clearly been written in the stars.

The evidence for the deal is mounting by the day. Last month, Jonathan Barnett, Bale’s agent was seen buying a bottle of Ambre Solaire Factor 25 sun screen in Boots in Oxford Street then hailing a cab which was seen turning west in the direction of Heathrow airport. It was clear to anyone witnessing these events that Barnett was on his way to the Spanish capital to agree terms with Real’s president.

The final clue fell into place only yesterday when Bale was reportedly seen eating a ham sandwich, which experts suggest could easily have been made from Spanish Serrano ham. This has been interpreted as a slap in the face for Tottenham’s Jewish owners and a coded plea to the Spanish giants to complete this long overdue transfer.

A key figure in this imminent deal is obviously Daniel Levy, the chairman of Tottenham. Levy has built a reputation as a hard negotiator who has previously dug his heels in when clubs have bid for his players. Sources close to Tottenham say that Levy was able to rebuff, at least temporarily, the demands of Dimitar Berbatov and Luka Modric for good reason. Apart from the fact that both players were “bloody foreigners”, Berbatov had a silly haircut and wore an Alice band, whilst Modric is short and “a bit funny looking.” Neither player could connect with Levy’s sentimental soul. Bale is another matter. Despite tying the Welshman to a four year contract only last summer on vastly improved terms, Levy is believed to have been touched by the terrible predicament his young goalscorer is in. Insiders tell us that Levy was close to tears when Bale pointed to Madrid on a map of Spain, turned to his chairman and said, “Oh please Mr Levy. Pretty please.” Levy is now unlikely to deny the childhood dream of the young player. He is also said to have been amazed by Bale’s intellect. He is, say sources close to the Spurs chairman the first British footballer who could accurately pick out a foreign capital on a map.

This blog prides itself on its accuracy and integrity. Last month we correctly reported that Andre Villas Boas was rumoured to be heading for Paris St Germain, only days later we were also quick to identify the speculation that he would be leaving to join Barcelona. We have also been spot on with our revelations that David Villa was rumoured to be coming to Spurs and that Gonzalo Higuain was reported to be about to sign for Arsenal. So when you read here that Gareth Bale is said to be about to join real Madrid you can be absolutely certain that people are saying that’s true. When the transfer does go through as now it surely must, you will read about that here too, within a few days or a week at the most.

Toby Thomas

Toby Thomas is a freelance football correspondent who is really desperate to get paid for writing this sort of crap. He first became interested in writing about sport when he discovered he had a congenital defect which meant he could not throw, catch, run or use a racquet or bat of any sort.  Toby lives with his Mum and hopes that soon he will get a girlfriend. For now he divides his time between claiming benefits, copying stuff from other wannabe journalists and just making things up. If you have any comments on his incisive reporting, he hopes they are nice because he has experienced a lot of rejection in his life and just wants to be one of the lads.

Disclaimer:

If there is a writer out there called Toby Thomas he has my sincere apologies. This is not directed at any one blogger in particular, it is intended as a swipe at all those wannabe journalists who are responsible for the torrent of sports related garbage that appears daily on the internet.

Spurs fans rooting for an Arsenal cup win? ... It's possible

"Thursday night, Channel 5." That was the goading chant of West Ham fans, after their unlikely victory at White Hart Lane earlier this season. For many, the Europa League is an unwelcome distraction from the Premier League, for others it's an opportunity to see Spurs play teams like Benfica in a competition they may, one day, have a realistic chance of winning. Is there really such a huge difference between Thursday night and Sunday afternoon (the Europa League schedule), and  Wednesday night and Saturday afternoon, the timing for many of the much coveted Champions League fixtures?
If you are one of those Spurs fans who are keen to see your team in the Europa League next year, then you may be confronted with a nightmare dilemma before the season is over. As Manchester United lurched from one tepid performance to another, sixth place seemed to be assured at the very least. If United can deliver the anticipated "new manager bounce," in the wake of Moyes' departure - even with a stand-in in charge, then that is far from guaranteed. United can catch Spurs if the London club fail to get seven points from their last three games.
If Arsenal finish fourth, the three Europa League places would then go to the teams in fifth and sixth places, plus Hull City as losing cup finalists.
If Everton pip Arsenal to the fourth Champion's League place, and United finish sixth there is only one way for Spurs to secure their place in the Europa League. Arsenal must beat Hull in the Cup Final.

So Spurs fans, if United do snatch sixth place, then you need Everton to get fourth and Arsenal to win the FA Cup. Or would you prefer to skip the Europa League next year?

If it was a boxing match they'd stop it.

I'll happily part with fifty quid to watch my favourite team. Loads of goal mouth action, end to end stuff, finely honed athletes giving their all to get three precious points for their team. But you have to wait for the end for the real spectacle, that bit when the team that's winning takes the ball into the corner and uses two players to stop the other side getting near it. Do they practice that in training? "Come on Wayne, you need to stick your butt out a bit further, then they'll never get the ball back."

TV's co-commentator will purr with contentment, lauding his fellow pro for his professionalism. The fans will be split, those that are praying for the final whistle and those that are wondering what they paid all that money for. One team has decided that it does not want to play football any more, they just want to quit with what they've got. I hate it when opponents do it, I hate it when my own team does it.

Referees are supposed to stop the clock for time wasting but this particular tactic is deemed acceptable. Imagine a boxer whose ahead on points, so he starts running round the ring so his opponent can't lay a glove on him. You'd want your money back.

When two boxers stop trying to make a match of it, they call the bout off. I'm not asking for the same sanction in this case, but when a team decides it doesn't want to play any more there has to be something the referee can do. Until the ball has moved ten yards from the corner flag, it's not really back in play, the rules should reflect that.   

Goal Line Technology - what a difference you have made.

Maybe it was Lampard's disallowed goal against Germany that tipped the balance but suddenly the biggest issue in the game was how to answer the question, "did the ball cross the line?

This year every club in the Premier League installed the technology and another few quid went on your ticket price to pay for it all. I don't know about you but I can't think of a single occasion when it has made any difference whatsoever. They'll tell you that the referee consulted Hawkeye on the first day of the season, to confirm whether Fabian Delph's shot crossed the line against Arsenal. There was not a single soul in the ground or watching on TV who thought it was a goal but it must  have been fun to try out the new toy. Richard Scudamore, Premier League Chief Executive says, "The most important thing in football is a goal - was it scored or wasn't it," I can't trace a single quote about some of the other questions that a referee might want answered, like:

• was the forward onside or offside when he put the ball in the net?
• when the player went down in the box, did he dive or was he pushed?
• was that deliberate handball?
• was the keeper impeded when he went for that corner?

Most games seem to have at least one highly controversial decision, some have many. The solution is simple and readily available. Give each team two challenges per game on a restricted number of issues, and allow the fourth official thirty seconds to review the TV replays. It would add to the drama in the ground and it would eliminate a huge number of incorrect decisions. Critics say that it would slow the game down. Not as much as having a gaggle of angry players surrounding the referee to make their case about how they've just been robbed.

Had the authorities opted for video replays, they would have had to come to an arrangement with the TV companies that have bought the rights to the games. It might have slightly changed the dynamic of the relationship between the two parties. By choosing goal line technology, those in charge of our game had some juicy contracts to hand out and a whole bunch of hopeful companies desperate to be an approved supplier. That couldn't have been a factor in their decision though... that would be immoral.    

The rule that's killing the game - Double Jeopardy

You can see the logic:
The ball is played in behind the back four and a nippy forward is onto it in a flash. The centre-back is never going to catch him, so he makes a despairing grab at his opponent's shirt and brings him down. A goal scoring opportunity is lost and the supporters of the attacking team are outraged. A free kick thirty yards from goal is no compensation for the loss of a free run at the keeper. So the bureaucrats who make the rules came up with the idea of giving the defender a red card. He won't do that again.

The problem arises when the offence takes place inside the penalty area. We've seen countless game recently when the result of a match has been put beyond doubt by the application of this rule. Spurs seemed unlikely to overturn their one goal deficit to Manchester City in January. The sending off of Danny Rose ended any doubt. City scored from the spot and Rose's card was rescinded when it became clear that he'd made a good tackle. Little comfort for either him or the Spurs fans whose day out was ruined by an excessively harsh rule. Their chances were slim with eleven men, zero with ten. Similarly Wojciech Szczęsny was dismissed for a clumsy challenge on Arjen Robben in Arsenal's UCL tie against Bayern. There was little intent, the forward was just too quick for him, but the challenge could not go unpunished. Current rules demand that he was shown a red card. Again, game over.

We pay too much to watch football for games to be decided on a single incident. It's time to make the punishment for the crime. Rule makers need to understand that sanctions applied by the referee ought to deter foul play, it is not enough to dream up what is all too often an inappropriate punishment.
Football is slow to learn from other sports, a theme I intend to explore more in later blog posts, but the answer to the question could be lifted straight from Rugby Union and the concept of the penalty try. 

If a defender denies a clear goalscoring opportunity, the referee should award a goal. The defender would only receive a card if the severity of his challenge would have merited one anywhere else on the pitch.

It's a simple idea, it's an appropriate punishment and it might very well deter defenders from committing the offence in the first place.  In the game at the Emirates, Arsenal would still have been one down but they would have had eleven players to attempt to close the deficit.  Spurs and Danny Rose would still have had a goal given against them unjustly, that issue requires a separate solution of which more in a later blog, but they'd still have had eleven men on the field.

Should we carry on with the compulsory red card or take a lead from Rugby Union? Please let me know what you think.