When I heard about the 175 mil pound move for Kaka, I started writing this post. I actually started writing this post 10 times and each time I kept coming back to a blank page. Finally, I came up with this.
I have no words.
Anyone who can describe their true feelings regarding this on pen and paper, be my guest. Cos I got nothing.
PS : I should probably start a "I have no words" series.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Sunday, January 4, 2009
A Long Weekend
The EPL took a week long break to accommodate the oldest competition in football - The FA Cup. I didn't mind the FA Cup weekend as there was still football on TV unlike the international weekends, where you hardly get any football on TV.
If you notice, I had mentioned "didn't mind" the FA Cup weekends. Till last year, there were atleast 3 or 4 matches on a Saturday and 2 matches on a Sunday for all to see. So you hardly missed the lack of the EPL, since you still got to see some football. But this weekend, the first weekend of the FA Cup for the big teams(3rd round), there was ONE match shown on Friday, ONE on Saturday and ONE on Sunday.
What has the public done to deserve such a sparse weekend of football on TV? Has the importance of the FA Cup - "The oldest competition in football" - hit rock bottom that the media doesn't care about how many matches they are showing? Or has the credit crunch hit them too, that they cannot afford it?(I don't believe that)
Thank goodness for La Liga, I still got some football this weekend.
If you notice, I had mentioned "didn't mind" the FA Cup weekends. Till last year, there were atleast 3 or 4 matches on a Saturday and 2 matches on a Sunday for all to see. So you hardly missed the lack of the EPL, since you still got to see some football. But this weekend, the first weekend of the FA Cup for the big teams(3rd round), there was ONE match shown on Friday, ONE on Saturday and ONE on Sunday.
What has the public done to deserve such a sparse weekend of football on TV? Has the importance of the FA Cup - "The oldest competition in football" - hit rock bottom that the media doesn't care about how many matches they are showing? Or has the credit crunch hit them too, that they cannot afford it?(I don't believe that)
Thank goodness for La Liga, I still got some football this weekend.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Dumbstruck
Aston Villa 0 - 1 Arsenal (HT)
I have no words.
Aston Villa 2 -2 Arsenal (FT)
I have no words.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
The Scapegoat
Referees. They seem to be getting the spotlight ever so often these days. More so in the EPL because of the pace of the game.
A wrong decision here and there leaves a team a goal behind, or down to ten men. One team is definitely affected by a ref's decision or lack thereof. And it's always the team affected who seem to carry on the needless banter on the pitch and continue it once they are off it.
Many people don't seem to understand that all these decisions are instantaneous. Also, the referee gives the decision based on what he sees and not what has actually happened. I mean, he doesn't have the luxury of "technology". He sees it once and makes a decision.
Martin Tyler got it spot on at the weekend. "It's a game played by HUMANS and refereed by a HUMAN". Why don't people seem to get that in their heads?
From my experience, this is the reason. We want a scapegoat. We want to blame someone else for our "misfortune" whenever possible. I mean, you can miss 10 chances in a game but no one will be talking about those missed chances if a "big decision" doesn't go their way. All the talk will be about the "decision". Correct me if I'm wrong but that's the way it goes. For eg, take the Liverpool-Stoke game earlier in the season. Gerrard scored what seemed to be a very legitimate goal in the 2nd minute but was ruled out. And they failed to break down Stoke for the remaining 88 min. And guess what the newspapers said the next day.
"Referee denies Liverpool top spot".
What a load of trash. They had 90 min to break down Stoke and they couldn't. Simple as that.
Please feel free to add more examples.
I have one more question. When a decision seems to go in your favor, how come you don't breathe a word about it? Laryngitis?
A wrong decision here and there leaves a team a goal behind, or down to ten men. One team is definitely affected by a ref's decision or lack thereof. And it's always the team affected who seem to carry on the needless banter on the pitch and continue it once they are off it.
Many people don't seem to understand that all these decisions are instantaneous. Also, the referee gives the decision based on what he sees and not what has actually happened. I mean, he doesn't have the luxury of "technology". He sees it once and makes a decision.
Martin Tyler got it spot on at the weekend. "It's a game played by HUMANS and refereed by a HUMAN". Why don't people seem to get that in their heads?
From my experience, this is the reason. We want a scapegoat. We want to blame someone else for our "misfortune" whenever possible. I mean, you can miss 10 chances in a game but no one will be talking about those missed chances if a "big decision" doesn't go their way. All the talk will be about the "decision". Correct me if I'm wrong but that's the way it goes. For eg, take the Liverpool-Stoke game earlier in the season. Gerrard scored what seemed to be a very legitimate goal in the 2nd minute but was ruled out. And they failed to break down Stoke for the remaining 88 min. And guess what the newspapers said the next day.
"Referee denies Liverpool top spot".
What a load of trash. They had 90 min to break down Stoke and they couldn't. Simple as that.
Please feel free to add more examples.
I have one more question. When a decision seems to go in your favor, how come you don't breathe a word about it? Laryngitis?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
The Dummy
What is his role? Is he just a stop-gap or is he one for the future? Even if he's one for the future, will he actually be the "manager"?
Such are the questions asked when a new manager joins a high profile club. Instead of the team and the future of the team, its the "Who's in charge" which takes the priority. Just look at Real Madrid, Newcastle and Chelsea and you'll wonder why you bothered to come up with these questions.
When Ramos was appointed the "boss" of Real Madrid a week before the "El Classico", my mouth was open. When I found out that he's on a 6 month contract, I went into a coma. For a club like Real Madrid to have a stability like that is something astounding. And it all started when Del Bosque(the boss) and Hierro(the captain) were sacked on the same day-the day after they won the La Liga. Even the "Great Don Fab" was sacked after they won the La Liga simply because they did not play football which was easy on the eye.
Mourinho, in my opinion was one of the most "no nonsense" managers the EPL has ever had. Unfortunately, he proved to be a nuisance for Roman. Roman wanted someone to be his dummy. Enter Avram Grant. But everyone knew he was just a stop-gap and by the time the season ended, Roman was hit by the credit crunch and he knew he could not get a dummy.
These managers didn't even get their way in the players they wanted or did not want(depends on how you see it). Mourinho did not want Shevchenko, Grant did not want Anelka, but there they were; simply because Roman wanted them. Raul, a couple of years back, could not buy a goal. But Calderon didn't even consider the option of selling him because he was the image of the club. Keegan and Curbishley quit because they didn't have their say in the transfer window. Players came in and went out according the chairman's choice. Why wasn't the chairman coaching the players and teaching them how to play?
Everyone knows this is going to be the situation of every manager in these sort of clubs. The question is why would these managers go to such clubs in the first place? I'm not blaming Mourinho, Keegan and Curbishley. They simply didn't know what they were getting into. But what about Fabio, Carlos Queiroz, Grant, Scolari and Ramos? Is it because they think they can change something which their predecessors couldn't? Or is it just to have a "Managed[Enter Club] for [Enter duration] " on their CV?
Such are the questions asked when a new manager joins a high profile club. Instead of the team and the future of the team, its the "Who's in charge" which takes the priority. Just look at Real Madrid, Newcastle and Chelsea and you'll wonder why you bothered to come up with these questions.
When Ramos was appointed the "boss" of Real Madrid a week before the "El Classico", my mouth was open. When I found out that he's on a 6 month contract, I went into a coma. For a club like Real Madrid to have a stability like that is something astounding. And it all started when Del Bosque(the boss) and Hierro(the captain) were sacked on the same day-the day after they won the La Liga. Even the "Great Don Fab" was sacked after they won the La Liga simply because they did not play football which was easy on the eye.
Mourinho, in my opinion was one of the most "no nonsense" managers the EPL has ever had. Unfortunately, he proved to be a nuisance for Roman. Roman wanted someone to be his dummy. Enter Avram Grant. But everyone knew he was just a stop-gap and by the time the season ended, Roman was hit by the credit crunch and he knew he could not get a dummy.
These managers didn't even get their way in the players they wanted or did not want(depends on how you see it). Mourinho did not want Shevchenko, Grant did not want Anelka, but there they were; simply because Roman wanted them. Raul, a couple of years back, could not buy a goal. But Calderon didn't even consider the option of selling him because he was the image of the club. Keegan and Curbishley quit because they didn't have their say in the transfer window. Players came in and went out according the chairman's choice. Why wasn't the chairman coaching the players and teaching them how to play?
Everyone knows this is going to be the situation of every manager in these sort of clubs. The question is why would these managers go to such clubs in the first place? I'm not blaming Mourinho, Keegan and Curbishley. They simply didn't know what they were getting into. But what about Fabio, Carlos Queiroz, Grant, Scolari and Ramos? Is it because they think they can change something which their predecessors couldn't? Or is it just to have a "Managed
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
R.I.P 4-4-2
A few years ago, if you even dare to suggest anything other than a 4-4-2 to a manager of a top club, he would look at you as if you are from Mars. Teams used to stick to 4-4-2 so much so that the game was crying out for a change.
And change it did. Nowadays, the top sides rarely play a 4-4-2 during the course of the game and almost definitely not from the start. And even if the sides do play a 4-4-2, you have players like Rooney, Kuyt, Henry, Ronaldo etc who can play anywhere in the final third. This is particularly necessary against a mid-table team(if you can call a team that) since they can mark the life out of you sometimes. You need players like the above mentioned to move around and create space for others. I was watching the Barca-Valencia game the other night and I was shocked to see Hleb in a central striker position sometimes.
Barca, Real, Liverpool, United, Chelsea, Roma, Valencia are some of the top sides who rarely stick to a 4-4-2 formation in recent times. Even England has changed its formation from a traditional 4-4-2(which never seemed to work). Not that I call England a top side in terms of results.
There are downsides to not playing a 4-4-2 too. Players like Robbie Keane, Henry, Tevez etc may miss out because of the change in formation. Even Michael Owen was dropped from the England squad because, apparently, all he did was score goals.
And change it did. Nowadays, the top sides rarely play a 4-4-2 during the course of the game and almost definitely not from the start. And even if the sides do play a 4-4-2, you have players like Rooney, Kuyt, Henry, Ronaldo etc who can play anywhere in the final third. This is particularly necessary against a mid-table team(if you can call a team that) since they can mark the life out of you sometimes. You need players like the above mentioned to move around and create space for others. I was watching the Barca-Valencia game the other night and I was shocked to see Hleb in a central striker position sometimes.
Barca, Real, Liverpool, United, Chelsea, Roma, Valencia are some of the top sides who rarely stick to a 4-4-2 formation in recent times. Even England has changed its formation from a traditional 4-4-2(which never seemed to work). Not that I call England a top side in terms of results.
There are downsides to not playing a 4-4-2 too. Players like Robbie Keane, Henry, Tevez etc may miss out because of the change in formation. Even Michael Owen was dropped from the England squad because, apparently, all he did was score goals.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Effective or Football
In recent times, when a team comes to either Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge or The Emirates, they try to play football with a mind-set that there is no use putting 9 men behind the ball. What this has done is, to make United, Chelsea and Arsenal into fantastic counter-attacking teams. So much so that, they've started to rely on counter-attacking football to score goals.
This was very evident during the United-Sunderland game, where Sunderland parked their bus for 90 minutes and United could not get the breakthrough. Then comes the 91st minute, where a corner for Sunderland turns into an United goal. Off the counter-attack of course. The question is, should Sunderland have allowed United to counter?
A better question would be, should all teams coming to the above mentioned grounds follow Sunderland's example?
As a United, Arsenal and Chelsea fan, I wouldnt like it. As any other team's fan, I would love it.
As a football fan, I would just switch off the TV.
This was very evident during the United-Sunderland game, where Sunderland parked their bus for 90 minutes and United could not get the breakthrough. Then comes the 91st minute, where a corner for Sunderland turns into an United goal. Off the counter-attack of course. The question is, should Sunderland have allowed United to counter?
A better question would be, should all teams coming to the above mentioned grounds follow Sunderland's example?
As a United, Arsenal and Chelsea fan, I wouldnt like it. As any other team's fan, I would love it.
As a football fan, I would just switch off the TV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
