Races and Faces – Part 2

After a two week hiatus, this weekend sees the return of the Premier League, and what a season the 2011-12 Premier League campaign has been so far. With just over a third of the season to go, the focus switches from how many games played to reviewing the final run-in.

On offer is the usual scrap to avoid the relegation trapdoor. A tussle which in my mind is between the four teams of Wigan, Blackburn, Wolverhampton, and Bolton. We also have had some sublime eye-catching football, which is helping the newly promoting clubs of Norwich and Swansea hold their own and occupy mid-table places. Least we not forget the fresh approaches of Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspurs respectively, who currently are challenging the Manchester United-Chelsea seven year monopoly of occupying top-spot in the Premier League. With high resulted scores in many of the fixtures between the current top seven teams, this season should go down as one to remember for many years.

However, the 2011-12 Premier League campaign will be tarnished with the alleged reports of racial abuse from fellow players, and also isolated incidents of unsavoury racial chants from the stands. A season stained with negative connotations that could be pinpointed to lunchtime encounter between Liverpool and Manchester United on the 15^th of October. During the match Liverpool’s Luis Suarez was alleged to have racially abused Manchester United left-back Patrice Evra.

Since then and in chronological order for those who may have forgotten (I like a linear approach), there has been a separate alleged claim that Chelsea’s John Terry also racially abused Anton Ferdinand during QPR’s Premier League meeting with their near neighbours. Then followed an investigation complete with arguments and counter arguments of what Luis Suarez was alleged to have said to Patrice Evra, and queries being made to the actual context. An investigation which ultimately saw the Uruguayan being found guilty of indeed abusing Evra, and being handed an eight match suspension and a £40,000 fine.

As we heralded a new year, we soon discovered that John Terry will be taken to court in July for his alleged abuse. With a court case hanging over the Chelsea defender, and the seriousness of what he is being accused of, the FA deemed it the right course of action to strip Terry of the England captaincy. Not to mention the unwanted attention the looming court case would bring to England’s preparations towards Euro 2012, and the desired focus during the championships.

A decision which directly saw Fabio Capello, tender his resignation as the coach of England. Capello did not agree to the action the FA had taken against Terry, who as it stands has not been found guilty of any charge. Therefore did not see why any action had been taken against what currently stands as an innocent man. In addition, Capello felt the FA’s decision not to discuss the matter with him beforehand undermined his position as head coach. On the same day as Capello’s resignation, his likely successor in the eyes of the media and fans, Harry Redknapp, was cleared of all charges of tax evasion and avoided a possible jail term if he found guilty.

One may have thought that would have been that when it came to how far the issue of race, and the implications it has had on English football this season. However, the events that transpired at Old Trafford in the last round of Premier League fixtures has brought the season’s major points to have come full circle. We find all these incidents have been book-ended by the first meeting of Evra and Suarez since their October conflict, with Suarez appearing not willing to shake Evra’s hand during the standard pre-match pleasantries. 

Phew!!! I think I have just about covered the series of events. With all the media scrutiny appearing to have died down which often is filled with knee-jerk reactions, I thought I would share my opinion on all the mentioned issues that have gone on in the next few Frankly Speaking articles.

The Evra-Suarez state of affairs is not a new topic that I have not discussed before. In part one of this titled article, I looked at the intensive investigation the FA conducted, and the guilty charge they gave Suarez. A charge and punishment that I felt fitted the crime so to speak. What I also mentioned was that the enquiry was to find if racial abuse had occurred, and the points of concern were not of an Alex Ferguson influence, or simply a provincial football uneasiness which some were turning the situation into.

Liverpool’s handling of the matter towards the back-end of the investigation, and when the guilty charge was given, has been well to put it mildly highly questionable and disappointing. The infamous t-shirts and unwavering hero-worshipping of Suarez that soon followed rather placed Liverpool in a dubious spotlight. My concern at the time particularly as a Liverpool fan was how unaware the club’s ill-moved actions were, and seemed more on placing the investigation and its findings as a tribal football issue. A feature that in some part was led by Kenny Dalglish, in building up this siege mentality of it is everyone against Liverpool and Luis Suarez, and it is everyone who is wrong regarding the racial issue that had been placed on the Anfield door.

Reports of chants or abusive actions have since followed Liverpool in their first two outings in the FA Cup, with so-called fans chiefly bringing shame to themselves as individuals with targeted abuse 

given to Oldham’s Tom Adeyemi, and Patrice Evra respectively. Now in no way do these so-called fans represent Liverpool as a club, and Dalglish himself condemning these ‘supporters’ and stated that as a club Liverpool do not condone racism and never will. But his comments and selective actions that the club had taken regarding the Evra-Suarez affair, have slightly created the situation that has embroiled the Merseyside club.

To me, Liverpool is an institution both in and out of football. Kenny Dalglish is a key historical figure within the club, whose mere breath commands so much respect to not only the Liverpool fans, but a greater football public who hang on his every word. Holding such a status, at times Dalglish’s remarks sent an unwanted tone to those who revere him, and somewhat made light of how severe the situation was and is. Naturally, most managers and clubs would look to publicly support any key member of staff within the club. But were the t-shirts of Suarez the players wore before the Wigan game in December, so soon after the charge had been handed out surely prompted an incorrect message to the wider football family and society as a whole?

The media were mischievous in their mission of constantly asking Dalglish questions about Suarez, and the ban that he was actively serving. A crafty undertaking the media were conducting knowing full well that it was a sore point to the Dalglish psyche. But did Dalglish have to rise to the bait of the written and spoken press who only had to mention the keywords of racial abuse, suspension, and Suerez to see a normally composed manager lose his cool?

All of which in my mind encouraged Suarez to continually lead Liverpool a merry dance of which they would unreservedly back him whatever the incident which may involve him. I think we saw that coming to roost when he reportedly claimed that he would shake Evra’s hand, and then at the last minute retracted his proposed action.

Lets be honest, Evra’s extension of his right-hand was hardly whole-hearted towards Suarez, which can be justified considering what was supposed to have been said to the Manchester United left-back way back in October. There remains an unconvinced group who are unsure of who rebuffed who. But it was overtly clear that on Suarez's part, he was not prepared to divulge in the pre-match particulars of shaking hands with Evra. Perhaps Suarez harboured some ill-feeling towards Evra, and the version of events Evra gave as part of the investigation into their first meeting of the season.

As it happened I thought what they hell is Suarez playing at? Why is he allowing this situation to continue to drag on? A punishment has been given and served, and we as fans just want to focus on the game of football. But on further reflection, clearly the two do not like each other. How many of us would want to shake the hands of someone we do not get on with?

Like anyone, I have had a few run-ins with people who I did not get on with or did not get on with me, and the last thing both parties would want is to have any association with each other if it can be helped. If Suarez did not want to shake hands and alerted his club beforehand of his feelings then that is a fair enough point. I think Liverpool and Manchester united would have found a resolution where the two do not have to shake hands.

But when Suarez said he would be prepared to shake Evra’s hand to his manager and does not, then a highly-charged problem gets even more intense. Though I must say I do not think it is Evra’s decision to physically force somebody to shake his hand, when it is evident that they do not want to. Evra is hardly a squeaky-clean individual himself, and cannot really go preaching a moral high ground as his history has shown us otherwise.

To be honest the whole handshake debacle is pretty pathetic, as these are grown men we are talking about after all. A watching audience fixed on who shakes whose hand, and analysing it repeatedly is somewhat cringe-worthy. It is a shame when there would have been some who tuned in just to see what happens before the match, and probably switched off afterwards. Personally I wanted to see my team get a crucial win in their latest match, against opponents who on that particular day just happened to be the club’s fiercest rivals.

I suppose my real gripe boils down to two things really. Why couldn’t the two clubs follow QPR and Chelsea’s recent fourth round FA Cup clash where hand shakes were not partaken? The pre-match actions between Manchester United and Liverpool were always going to cause unwanted attention, and before the whole handshake fracas took place, I thought the shaking of hands should be dispensed of on this occasion.

From both parties the issue is still very much raw, heightened with the Old Trafford clash being Suarez’s second game back from his suspension. With the issue of racism in football dominating the events of recent weeks, surely it would have been better to avoid the formal pre-match activities. When the two teams next meet which would have been next season, the issue would have somewhat been dampened.

The second point is how evident that there is a lack of structure on the PR and communications front from Liverpool. Not to excuse Dalglish fully, but he is an individual who is ‘old skool’ where football is truly about football. His sporadic spells in football management over the last twenty years, may have not been geared up and sharpened for the constant media and PR scrutiny that the sport currently has today.

Why was Dalglish being left to handle the whole situation by himself? I ask what is the PR and communications team doing at Anfield? During the investigation I kept saying to my friends, why is there no club statements being issued on the Evra-Suarez enquiry while it was being looked into by the FA? Why was there no stance being declared by the club during weekly press conferences, whilst the investigation was still pending the subject was strictly off limits? Dalglish should not have to deal with such matters entirely on his own.

What we had was a calamity of errors and point scoring off the field from the Anfield club. But as fans and on the day it mattered, what we got was a tepid performance from the Liverpool team against Manchester United. When the Merseyside club managed to scrape a goal back against United to make it 2-1 with over ten minutes to play, they played with no urgency or fight. I like my team to score points on the field, not off it thank you very much.

Purely from a football standpoint I find Gary Neville echoing my personal sentiments, which that in itself is a strange occurrence. He like me does not mind a bit of needle in games and in football. Clearly racism is not wanted in the sport, but a bit of animosity between two teams is fair game in my estimation within limits. Especially from a Liverpool perspective, as for far too long Liverpool have rolled over and had their bellies tickled during the Premier League years where Manchester United are concerned. But it is only effective when it positively influences a performance, or helps gain the set result. Liverpool woefully failed on that aspect.

Nevertheless it is good to see that Liverpool and Suarez himself have issued public apologies, that hopefully have somewhat quieten down the growing ill-feeling. But for the baiting Evra gave Suarez after the game of which I cannot understand why Rafael da Silva felt the need to join in the ‘celebrations’, Ferguson aside not a peep has been heard from the corridors of power at Old Trafford. What about Ferguson’s public tirade of Suarez and what he felt Liverpool should do with him. Although refreshing to hear a manager speaking their full thoughts, no apology has been forthcoming on that note, not even as a gesture to mend bridges between the two clubs. Strange is it not?

Africa’s Showpiece

Before we get to the crux of this article’s chosen discussed topic, a significant milestone has been reached ladies and gentlemen. What am I alluding to? Well here’s a clue, 50 not out. Yes folks, in just over eighteen months the Frankly Speaking column is celebrating post number fifty. Boy time does sure fly by. Well to commemorate this landmark and being a sucker for sentiment, it would be only right to go back to how it all started in post number one, and review a major international football tournament held on the continent of Africa. 

Okay so the Africa Cup of Nations, or African Nations Cup if you are old skool like me, is not quite the South African 2010 World Cup. But let us be honest, what football tournament is? However, this year’s tournament to crown Africa’s finest culminated with a battle of the Oranges, as the pre-tournament favourites of Ivory Coast faced the surprised outfit of Zambia in the showpiece final. Hearty congratulations are in order for the triumphant Zambian team, who in a tight match secured their first African title. With neither team registering a goal after 90 minutes and in extra time, the dreaded drama of a penalty shoot-out had to separate the teams, with the Zambians taking it with a score of 8-7 in the shoot-out.

Speaking of which was I the only one who thought that the shoot-out was more like a masterclass of how to take penalties? I could not believe how expertly both teams were taking their respective spot-kicks under so much pressure, and the accolade that stood before the winners. From a selfish point of view I would hope both Ghana’s Asamoah Gyan, and the players of the England national team were watching!! For that matter the Liverpool football team also, they have been terrible at taking penalties so far this season.

Looking at the competition itself, the co-hosts of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon put on a wonderful event. From an armchair perspective, both countries staged the near month-long tournament well, and can be proud of their efforts in maintaining that African football is firmly in the public’s sporting consciousness when this tournament is played. However, as good as its staging was and being known as a bit of a critic by some of my closest friends (this is not true by the way); this year’s finals left me a little bit flat and disappointed.

I along with quite a few fans of African football was excited by the prospect of a collection of new and unfashionable teams competing for the continent’s biggest prize. For me the non-appearance of the long established superpowers, whose names resonate firmly in the mind of the average football fan that is knowledgeable in African football, was a stimulating prospect and a big plus going forward for the game in Africa. The seven times winners Egypt, who held a monopoly in winning the last three previous tournaments were absent. In addition the might of Nigeria, Cameroon, and South Africa all missed out the latest African Nations Cup festivities, including Algeria who put a decent showing in the 2010 World Cup.

I was animated by the prospect of seeing new players come to the football party, and show their skills on the big stage of a tournament that is now being seen as a key arena to European clubs looking to discover upcoming talent. From my viewpoint the 2012 African Nations Cup did not produce either one of these two mentioned features, and in general flattered to deceive.

The aspiring teams who had successfully challenged the recognized football order in the tournament’s qualifiers, failed to reproduce their efforts during these finals. What was on display was an event high on promise but woefully low on quality. The pre-competition favourites of Ivory Coast and Ghana, who successfully avoided the big reputation trapdoor in the qualifiers, could barley utilize their undoubted collective talent in the competition. Both teams really stumbled to the later stages with uninspiring performances. The event just seemed passive, which was a real shame because it did not show African football at its full potential to a growing international audience.

I attended the 2008 tournament held in Ghana, and putting my ties with the host country aside, that year’s edition was full of gusto and verve. The well-known teams of African football were present and playing to their fullest, and the perceived lesser nations who had qualified were competing strongly also. Some of Africa’s crown jewels from a player perspective such as Didier Drogaba, Samuel Eto’o, Salomon Kalou, Steven Pienaar, and Michael Essien just to name a few all left their mark on the tournament. A staggering 99 goals were scored in the 32 matches played over the three weeks, with a worthy winner in Egypt taking the title. In its aftermath, I along with many others concluded that this was African football reaching a new quality peak standard, and fulfilling the intended aim that CAF and its football members had been working to achieve.

But since that particular tournament held four years ago, African football seems to have stood still or has even gone backwards within this period. Some of may think that this is a harsh statement to make, but you only have to look at the 2010 World Cup. Held on home soil, arguably the six teams that competed was the strongest lineup to best represent Africa going into any World Cup. What resulted was failure to readdress the status of only one African country going forward to the tournament’s knockout stages in each of the 4 World Cups, when the tournament had been expanded to 32 nations in 1998. 

A statistic that I have found disappointing considering that after UEFA and Europe holding the most allotted berths at a World Cup, CAF and Africa has the second highest guaranteed spots for a given. A worrying and lingering trend that may need to be focused on further, but a matter perhaps a discussion that can be saved for another day. What cannot be argued is how Zambia’s performances were one of the very few plus points over the last three weeks, with a display that perhaps was destined for glory in beating both Ivory Coast and Ghana en route. More symbolically and fittingly paying the ultimate honour for the Zambian team that died in a plane crash in 1993 in Libreville, the very same city in Gabon where the current Zambian squad held the African Nations Cup aloft on Sunday night.

With all that said, it is South Africa 2013 we roll on to. Hopefully the next tournament shall fair better in providing my request for a higher level of quality shown, and a place where newer memories are forged. I am looking forward to the colourful antics of the watching fans in attendance. Vuvuzelas are at the ready!

Tennis Down Under

The Australian Open, oh how I love the year's first grand slam tennis event. Why you may ask? Well for the simple reason that it is a international tournament that marks as the first major competition of the sporting calendar. A much needed event to blow away the post holiday blues with some top-class tennis drama. This year’s tournament is like always, a well run competition staged down under with a lot of vibrant energy. On court, the tennis was solid if not stellar but lacked a certain wow factor. 

You may think that this is a contentious point to make considering how absorbing the men’s singles final was, but there is a method to my madness.  

Firstly in reviewing the women’s singles competition, it must be said that this championship was a bit of a let down. If for nothing else, it simply lacked overall genuine quality. Now female readers here me out, I make this statement based on the fact that realistically there have been a number of years where the women’s game has lacked individual top-draw excellence. A feature in my opinion that has hindered women’s tennis from reaching new heights that other past eras had established. Who are the players that instantly draw us as fans to the game today? Barring Maria Sharpova, Kim Clijsters, and Serena Williams there is an average depth of talent in women’s tennis, which was not isolated from this year’s Australian Open. Indifferent matches, no real individual stamping a claim to the title, and a case of who out of an uninspiring pack would claim the championship summed up the two weeks for me.

Young starlets like Sabine Lisicki, and Petra Kvitová are some of the new names being earmarked as the potential dominate forces in the women's game, but in this championship they slightly flattered to deceive.  The tournament saw other spoken would-be champions crashing out early to the relatively unknown or unfavorable too. Oh how I miss the early noughties when there was a cast list of players that read like a who’s who in women’s tennis. A plethora of names who could win any given impending grand slam tournament whilst raising the bar. Names like Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport, Maria Sharapova, Kim Clijsters, Jennifer Capriati, Justine Henin, and the Williams sisters provided us with genuine competitive matches, and at the very least varying names who could win the big tennis events. 

Some of the ladies mentioned have long retired or gone off the boil, and do not compete readily for various reasons including raising a family, pursuing other personal interests, or injuries. However, in the cases of  Kim Clijsters, Serena Williams, and Justine Henin to a lesser extent, have all made comebacks after a long layoff. The puzzling thing is how these players instantly found themselves to be there or thereabouts as the individuals to beat for the sport’s biggest prizes. What is the young current crop bringing to the table if this can happen?

In saying this, if the women’s game is average, it is far more open to a larger number of possible winners unlike the men’s championship in grand slam play. Watching the men's draw unfold during 2012 Australian Open fast became a redundant first ten days until the semi-finals stage, when the top four ranked players had to compete against each other. Roger Federer reached the semi-finals without dropping a set, before losing to Rafael Nadal. The Spaniard himself only lost a set en route to the semi-finals, and quite frankly (pun intended) I struggle to piece a case where he was even challenged in his matches to this stage. 

Murray’s path to the final four seemed to resemble a string of training sessions that he might have participated on an easy Sunday morning. Barring Leyton Hewitt who is affectionately called by his native Australian public as the “dogged mongrel”, the 2005 former finalist sure enough lived up to that title and offered some sort of resistance to the defending champion Novak Djokovic. But in all fairness, the world number one merely sleptwalked his way to a semi-final encounter with Andy Murray.

Without doubt in terms of top quality, the men’s game is going through a major purple patch that is lighting up the courts around the world whatever their colours may be. But this rudimentary run that the top four are having in reaching the business-end of the major tournaments is becoming all too predictable. That is of course when they have to face each other, and battle it out between themselves. It is not so much who is contesting the later stages that I have a gripe with, but it is how unchallenged they are in their efforts in getting there. The 2012 Australian Open was the third time out of the last five grand slam tournaments, that the top four have contested the semis with the greatest of ease. 

Much like the dearth of quality talent in the women’s game, this status in the men’s game cannot be good for tennis. Clearly it is not the problem of the elite male players, but a massive gulf between the world’s top quartet and the immediate rest who by their own right are good players, dampens the legitimacy of the earlier rounds of grand slam competition.

But looking at the positives, congratulations are in order to Victoria Azarenka who took the women’s championship with an impressive 6-3 6-0 victory against Maria Sharapova in the women's final. With the win, Azerenka has now positioned herself as the current world number one. Azerenka's double success, and a new leading face in the sport, may act as a catalyst in providing high-end quality in the women’s game for some years to come. Shifting a much needed push away from the established names that have lasted for over ten years. Moving away from the women's championship, how crazy were the men’s semi-finals and final itself?

Despite tennis’s version of El Clasico (Real Madrid v Barcelona), now resembling a lopsided rivalry in Rafael Nadal’s favour against Roger Federer, their clash still excited. Kudos must be given to Roger Federer who despite being the senior of his nearest contemporaries by five years, it was good to see the grandmaster still being highly competitive in the grand slams. His clash with Nadal brought a key thought in my head, which is Federer’s game is now a dying art. 

Okay let’s be honest, not many past or present have ever played the game quite like Federer. The Swiss player will go down as one of the greatest if not the best that there has ever been. But his game, and the style of being creative whilst displaying varying shots in today’s tennis player is now becoming extinct. In favour is the blood and thunder physical game that exists amongst the top players, a commodity needed to achieve victory. Disagree? Well before you make your decision let us first continue the review of the sharp end of this Australian Open.

In the other semi-final, Novak Djokovic finally overcame a vastly improved Andy Murray (who was not bad before), in a battle that resembled a roller coaster. You just did not know where the match was about to turn. If the Djokovic v. Murray clash was immense, then the final between Djokovic and Nadal gave us a snapshot as to what ancient gladiatorial clashes were like in Rome's Coliseum. An incredible six hour display full of grit, determination, heroic rallies, and an edge-of-your-seat experience to those who watched. The Rod Laver Arena will go down as a place where one of sports greatest ever contests took place. 

I have new found respect for Rafael Nadal who I will go as far as to say, I doubt if we will ever witness a sports professional perform more intensely, and more physically whilst leaving every ounce of their being in competition consistently. Truly the raging bull that is Nadal is an outstanding individual! Congratulations to Novak Djokovic on retaining his Australian Open title. The Serbian's win posts the questions of how many grand slams can Djokovic win in total, and can he achieve a calendar golden grand slam this year? So back to the question I posed before I leave you, would one describe the men's semis and final as stylistic, or more about substance?