International Fix

Tuesday night will see history being made as England face Ghana for the very first time in senior international football. In its build-up the match has already captured the imagination as a record 21,000 fans will be in attendance showing their support for the Ghana national team. The figure is officially the highest ever for an away support for an England home fixture.

On a personal note I luckily will be attending the game, as the clash will pit my country of birth and where I have grown up, against my country of origin. I never could have envisaged that such an encounter could have ever taken place, and secretly hoped it wouldn’t. Why you may ask? Well quite simply I would have split loyalties, but either way the Wembley contest should be a spectacular sight.

With a sale-out 90,000 crowd, the recent discussion points in the build-up have also been centred on the sudden departures of top England players from the match. Players include recently re-installed captain John Terry, and his fellow Chelsea teammates Ashley Cole and Frank Lampard. Also absent will be Wayne Rooney and Matt Dawson of Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspurs respectively. A decision England coach Fabio Capello deemed appropriate with these players featuring heavily in the weekend Euro 2012 qualifier win against Wales in Cardiff, and additionally the players being earmarked as key protagonists for their particular clubs and up-coming UEFA Champions League ties.

Hot of the heels from all the fallout of Capello’s decision to give the captain’s armband back to John Terry, the newspaper ink has barely dried before the England coach has again found himself under the usual media hype and public attention by omitting these players from the England camp. With Capello feeling it would be better suited if these players left the England fold for the encounter with Ghana, many have said from an English perspective this is a sensible decision by him. With such high profile players missing, the theory is that it will provide opportunities to the perceived fringe players and new additions to the setup to stake a claim within the squad and possibly team.

Examples include Scott Parker, Jack Wilshire, and Andy Carroll as undoubtedly it grant Capello a further opportunity to monitor how such players can perform on the international stage. Particularly when established players may be missing from duty due to injury or suspension in future matches. Fielding such players allows the England coach to have the confidence in knowing that he has the strength in depth with the personnel to aptly step into the breach. A key fact with Wayne Rooney who’s England season is already over, as he will be suspended for the next Euro 2012 qualifier against Switzerland in June. Not to mention creating a situation of healthy competition for England team selection within the squad, which I feel, is always of beneficial use for a manager of any sporting team.
 

However there is also a vocal camp that is unhappy with Capello’s decision, with views that he has disrespected the value of international fixtures by letting these players go. Rendering a feeling that the up-coming friendly fixture with Ghana as a pointless exercise for the peripheral players to be used at Wembley Stadium. Much belief is that there needs to be a core group of established players that some of the supposed ‘untried and untested’ players can work alongside with, to see if they can perform and excel at this level.

From my perspective it’s a tough call and can appreciate both sets of opinion. Nevertheless as a football fan and keyed up about the up-coming match, my first thoughts when I heard Capello’s decision in letting these players go, turned from excitement to slight disappointment. I have watched many a football match in the stands but I have never watched the likes of John Terry, Wayne Rooney, and Frank Lampard up close and personal in the field of play. Despite watching various other entertainment events at Wembley Stadium, I have never watched a live football match at the venue and this announcement somewhat dampens my anticipation.

A feeling that is not exclusive to me alone as quite a few individuals that I have spoken to share the same disappointment also, with both sets of supporters claiming that the game has become a dud game with such players missing. A practise that is nothing more than elaborate training session before a live audience, especially to those fans travelling long distances both nationally and globally to the ground. With this it has brought up the never-ending discussion topic of club verses country, and all engulfing importance that the UEFA Champions League has created.

Up until last year I always felt international friendly matches and qualifying games were nothing more than a nuisance, which creates a void of two whole weeks from club campaigns and competitions. I enjoy the major summer based tournaments of international football like I think most fans do, but hated the mundane process of reaching these tournaments.

But seeing first hand the excitement, interest, and development of unearthed player talent on show that I feel World Cup 2010 can be defined as, I then accepted that international football is of major importance and its existence should be safeguarded in world football, and not diluted beyond recognition by club football. Plus for the paying public who have invested time, money, and travel amongst other resources into watching international football matches regardless of the context, should really deserve better.

I understand the actions of Capello and he alone is not the only international manager who has sent players back to their clubs rather than feature for this week’s friendly encounters.  But unfortunately managers like Capello and his fellow international equivalents are in the unenviable position of being damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Consistently fire fighting a situation or justifying a choice made.

Club managers would be in uproar if one or several of their players returned back from international duty hurt or severely injured for the foreseeable future, negatively impacting on up-coming club fixtures. Perhaps rightly so particularly when caused in a friendly match, but then part of me feels that such acts only encourage international football to be second rate and take a back seat to club efforts during the season. Is club football and the ever importance of finance involved in this domain ruining international football?

It is increasingly looking that way, but I have always considered international success was the pinnacle of the game. Like rugby and cricket, both of which are team sports with a competitive provincial level similar to football. But it seems unlike football the focal point in these sports is designed at achieving international success with other regional contests falling in line and helping facilitate that aim. Shouldn’t football be of the same mindset in helping to nature and develop global accomplishment? Surely winning the football World Cup is the top achievement a professional can aspire to, is it not?           

Cricket Overkill!

 

 

For the lovers of all things cricket, it would not have escaped your attention that there has been a competition taking place on the Indian subcontinent. I cheekily dumb it down but for those not in the know, the ICC’s (50 overs) Cricket World Cup is currently being contested amongst fourteen of the game’s top playing nations.

As the tournament began in February and will span the course of three months, we are now getting to the business-end of proceedings with semi-final places at stake for the remaining nations. The tournament has been a relative success, with a number of matches being keenly contested that have produced tight finishes; some games have literally gone down to the last ball being thrown to decide a winner or a result. With a partisan cricket crowd that the subcontinent is notoriously known for, the event has progressed as a festive showcase, and celebration of the game to its fans and to the televised public watching around the world.  

From my perspective, one of the positive features that competition has created is it has helped rejuvenate a flagging interest in the 50 overs version of the sport. The excitement and events of the tournament in Bangladesh, India, and Sri Lanka has shown that 50 overs cricket too can command its own spotlight. Particularly when compared to the storied intrigued of the Test match arena, and the relatively new and shorten version of Twenty20 cricket.

With the growing emergence of the latter and its perception of bringing concise razzmatazz to retain and attract new fans of cricket, some have dubbed the 50 overs game as a dying relic that has no relevance in today’s sporting world. A world were sport could be now defined as providing instant entertainment where onlookers get more for their buck, so to speak.

But with all three cricket forms actively and tentatively taking place within the game, are all three versions in direct competition with each other? If so, should we be asking the question, is there too much cricket on show?

This is line with recent suggestions that the England camp who are currently still competing at the World Cup and face Sri Lanka this weekend in a quarter final showdown, have had such a long winter of competition many of their players are physically drained and mentally fatigued.

With the tour of Australia and successfully retaining the Ashes which is always an eagerly watched test series, insinuations have been made that the England players have been unable to prepare adequetly to compete in such a showpiece event that the World Cup is. With only four days off in returning to the UK from Australia before jetting off to try to win the World Cup, the injures and withdrawals of top players that include Kevin Pietersen, Stuart Broad, and now Michael Yardy, perhaps there is merit for such a suggestion.

Presenting the argument that some players are lukewarm about the competition and rather than giving their all and compete for what after all is the sport’s pinnacle event, are looking to go home at the earliest opportunity. But if such talk does hold true, it casts a major shadow over cricket’s premier event and poses the question, what are the most important competitions in cricket and where are the priorities?

With endless tours and series that tend to feature all three versions of the game that the teams play in throughout the year, not to mention ICC’s own international tournaments and the big money Twenty20 franchise-based competitions such as the Indian Premier League (IPL) and Champions League, shouldn’t less be more?

If all three are going to have its place on the cricketing calendar, should now be an opportune time to revise and preserve the quality of what we see on the field by minimising the quantity of matches? The IPL was dubbed the apex of Twenty20 cricket and a crown jewel of cricket in general where we as fans get to see the game’s top players all under one exhilarating banner. But then what is the relevance of the Twnety20 Champions League tournament and the ICC Twenty20 World Cup?

Using England’s tour of Australia as an example, after a gruelling highly competitive test series between the historic rivals contesting to win the Ashes, were seven one day 50 over matches. Was this really required on the eve of the 50 overs World Cup tournament?

Obviously all these contests are staged to generate and maximise revenue for key parties involved, but to me it just simply devalues the relevance of certain encounters and is more likely to encourage the watching public to switch off.  Surely that’s not beneficial to all concerned in the game.

Naturally as top professionals I do not think that the players involved want to miss out on the big matches and big tournaments. However with an unnecessary over congestion of cricket during the year, it should not come down to debating the question is a tour series more important than the World Cup? If so then the game is heading down a slippery slope where an event like the current World Cup takes a back seat. 

Adequate time should put aside for each forms marquee events and main competitions to work and operate hand-in-hand and conserved, eliminating any need for such a question to be pondered. Rather than the steadily materialization of players and fans having to place a value on what version of the game is of greater importance.   

Ref Off!

Stray elbows, guns and brawls, yes folks it was just another week in British football. Okay let’s put this into context, the events of the last week or so are no precise representation of football in Britain. However these issues have created major talking points within the sport and gained considerable media attention. All of which presents the suitable argument at highlighting just how difficult it is for football officials to referee a match.

Naturally a football referee’s job is to oversee the game and try to help the match be contested in a fair and safe manner, and if possible allow the game to flow as smoothly for the players and in-turn the paying spectator looking to be entertained. But when a player in Wayne Rooney’s case decides that it is perfectly acceptable to needlessly use their elbow as a launched missile to strike against his opponent, should the officials be responsible for a player’s brutish behaviour and be held accountable for their premeditated wild mindset? Is that not the job of a manager?

Yet this is increasingly has becoming an additional feature that the individuals traditionally dressed in black are now having to tackle (pun intended). Why aren’t the managers taking accountability for their players’ actions? But more significantly, the players in the end are the only ones responsible for their own actions. Yet looking at it from the outside, it appears that they refuse to look at their conduct on and around the field of play. We see for large parts when games are being staged, players look to show descent and disrespect at any given opportunity to the official and make the game more complex to hold order.

Some like to pinpoint the fact that with the modern day footballer clasping such worldly benefits and riches, they have now become so far disconnected from the real-world and feel that there are untouchable. A feature that results in some of the bad behaviour we see sometimes on the field. That indeed may be debateable. But this notion is hard to dispel when a leading light in today’s game in the shape of Chelsea left-back Ashley Cole, feels that it is acceptable to bring an air rifle gun to the training ground.

Even though not a firearm, such a weapon retains the serious capacity to injure. Unfortunately for a young man on work experience at the Chelsea training facility, we are led to believe Ashley Cole allegedly shot this young man. Now the scene may be somewhat different and hard to compare but could most people in the working world dare bring such an instrument to their place of employment? And more importantly use it to a fellow colleague? Yet this is the breed of footballer the referees are due to officiate in matches.

Last midweek I watched the latest instalment of the never-ending story that is Old Firm clashes in this current season between Scottish giants Celtic and Rangers. In a Scottish Cup clash, it joined in on the act by creating its own bit of controversy. As a contest, the match was low on genuine football quality when measured to games held in the past between the two clubs, but this fixture was full of incident.

Now I won’t hide the fact that with a high-octane atmosphere, three players being sent off with three distinct occasions where the management and coaching staffed clashed in touchline fisticuffs, these episodes for me did made the match compelling viewing. However, I re-iterate how are referees and their assistants able to perform their duties to the best of their abilities, when the players make it impossible and behave like they did at Celtic Park.

Not to mention as positions of authority and symbols of responsible characters at their football clubs, the managers are tussling amongst themselves where the stewards and police had to get involved to restore the peace. Add a player in El Hadji Diouf who is no stranger to the unsavoury side of the sport, was fixed on making his only contribution to the tie by trying to antagonise as many people in the stadium as possible. Forgetting he would be more effective letting his feet do the talking and help gain a positive result for his Rangers team.

You only have to look at last summer’s World Cup final as an illustration of how difficult a job it is to officiate. In that final, referee Howard Webb at times had the thankless task of overseeing the showpiece event with players rounding him at every opportunity like a pack of hounds. When a player was being fouled or simulating injury both the Spanish and Dutch players would surround him and be in his ear demanding action. Not to mention Nigel De Jong showing to the world as his audience his Kung Fu prowess. And arguably this is the world’s best referee as judged by both UEFA and FIFA, with Webb officiating the game’s premier club competition in the UEFA Champions League Final, as well as football’s most important match, the FIFA World Cup Final.

It is quite interesting and coincidental that at a time when two other popular team sports are holding their respective big competitions, Rugby Union and its Six Nations tournament and the ICC’s Cricket World Cup. The players in both sports demonstrate ultimate respect for the official, and do not question their decision-making in the manner football does of its officials.

As a sport, football has progressively developed and has become so fast and super quick that it is inevitable that some decisions could be questionable. Particularly when in the main, a lot of the contentious moments are down to a referee’s personal interpretation. Presenting circumstances where some judgments may rightly go a team’s way and some that may not. It is just part of the game, part of sport, and an element of life.

I should add that this post was constructed before the events at the Nou Camp and the Champions League meeting between Barcelona and Arsenal, and with that I do acknowledge that a referee’s decision or lack of it at times can help tip the balance of the result to a particular team. In the extreme cases it can promptly be the cause of a particular result. However, a team has 90-plus minutes to directly influence their own destiny and the outcome they require. The official has now become a mere scapegoat for a team’s own shortcomings in not securing the win or wanted result.

As a football fan I think most would agree they do not want to see situations were every decision is queried by an outside influence, namely video replays. But as I have mentioned in previous posts the referees do need help and the powers that govern football should try to facilitate this as best they can. Which is why I am an advocate for goal-line technology, as this is an arguable instant that is a mater of fact. With the technology provided it can help solve the question did the whole match ball cross the goal line or not? Concluding with one less controversial decision that the referees have to make in a usually rash and uncertain fashion. Thus focusing their efforts in getting the other big decision right.

But to all the players, managers and fans, which are quick to get on the officials case after a match has concluded, isn’t it time that you should look at your own team’s personal conduct? In your post-match assessment take also into the consideration the on field output and ask yourselves the question, can it be categorically the case that the game was lost because of the official? Could we have performed better and taken our chances? Or simply was it just not our day today as opposed to the referee getting it wrong?