Now then. I am aware I've not put forward my view on things for a while, and I'm going to change that by sharing my views on the recent "tackling" debate that has arisen in the world of football recently.
This whole debate really started to become public after the Manchester Derby, when Wayne Rooney got Vincent Kompany sent off for a well timed challenge. I know that that statement will have got a few people wound up, but I don't care about that. Let's look at the situation shall we? This was a very well timed challenge. Kompany, undoubtedly won the ball. He did not touch the player during the tackle. A lot of people have said things along the lines of: "Well if he'd got it wrong, it could have been dangerous." My point here is that he didnt get it wrong. Tackles are good when timed well and when they aren't, and they become dangerous, a referee is more than entitled to step in. For this reason I feel the referee was seen to punish a player for timing a challenge to perfection.
I also want to look at this in terms of the rest of the game. The incident happened just over ten minutes into the game. This, for me, spoiled the game. Now I don't really feel that it spoiled it for me personally, mainly because I didn't really care about the result, nor do I care if the millions of people watching on TV thought it spoilt the game. My concern is for the 46808 people at the game, most of whom will have paid very good money to watch, what should have been a very close and entertaining game. In the end it appears they still got that, given the 3-2 result, but Mr Foy wasn't to know that at the time. As a fan who has travelled around Europe to watch pre season friends, as well as a lot of football up and down Britain, I think it is important that football thinks of it's fans. Dangerous tackles should be punished, and I don't think there is a genuine football fan out there that would disagree, but we have paid to watch a contest, in a contact sport, involving a team we are passionate about and I feel a sending off of a player who wins the ball ten minutes into a game spoils that. We want to see a contest, and we want to see players have a desire to win. It is, as former Sheffield United and Wimbledon (amongst others) manager Dave Bassett said: "I'm looking for eleven players to win a football match, not eleven blokes to marry my daughter."
Thirdly, and probably most controversially, I want to look at the role Wayne Rooney played in this affair. I'm not going to say much about it, because I don't need to. If you watch the footage of the tackle, the referee does nothing until Mr Rooney has told him to. Whether you like Rooney or not, and whether you agree with me or not isn't really the point here. I don't like him and I think he got Kompany sent off, I make no bones about that, but the main issue really is the way modern Premier League footballers seem to crowed the referee at any given opportunity. I have played five-a-side football in a league that suffered from erratic refereeing judgements, so I know first hand it can be hard not to want to share your views with the official. At the end of it all, though, players should play and referees should make the decisions.
Finally I feel duty bound to mention the tackle itself. I, personally, don't think it is a two footed challenge and I feel we can clearly see that Kompany won the ball. I don't feel I need to say much more than that as the debate could go on all night, and nobody wants that.
The long and short of all this, for me, is that football is for you and me and not for ****ing industry. It's a sport, with fans. Let's consider what they go through every weekend. Let's not have referees, and others, spoiling games for the very people they are there for, the fans.
And now the much awaited bad joke (we all know that's the only reason you all read this!)
I fell out with my neighbour the other day, because my trees were sticking out over the fence into their garden. It turns out extending the olive branch only made things worse.
Keep the faith!
Thursday 26 January 2012
Wednesday 4 January 2012
Please don't take my snooker away.
At the time of writing this blog it is already late. I'm afraid to say I'm going to be commenting on events that are nearly a month old now, and I will be talking about snooker. I don't think many of you will be surprised to find that it is a passion of mine even if you don't share it, but give the whole thing a read anyway.
The comments that get me started on this rant were things said by Barry Hearn, who is an appointed director of, and has controlling interest in World Snooker Limited, "the commercial arm of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association." Now I'm not 100% clear exactly what that means, but in his own words Barry Hearn says: "my job is I'm the owner of the game [of snooker] - the controller of the game - and that's how it's going to stay." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/snooker/16194585.stm, final paragraph) These comments were made directly in response to calls from Mark Allen, calling for Barry Hearn to resign from his position in World Snooker.
Now, what got Mark Allen so wound up?
Allen claims that "When Barry came in, one of the first things he said was that the World Championship, UK and Masters wouldn't be touched. Only 18 months later, the UK format has changed," and he continued to say that "I've got no doubt he'll tweak the World Championship. The whole tradition of the game is going to pot."
Here I find myself agreeing with Allen. Snooker is a traditional game for me. I feel there are some comparisons to be drawn between snooker and cricket, and I'm not the only one. The World Championships that are hosted in Sheffield every year have a special feeling to them. The quiet in the theatre, yes they are hosted in a theatre, is unlike at any other sporting event I've attended. So a first round game may not be sold out, and those with experience will try and get tickets near the back and in the middle so they can try and see both sides of the traditional partition. The comparison for me is to the County Championships of cricket. The wondrous games played out over four days in front of very small crowds up and down the country.
Tradition in sport is something that is very important to me, just read my views on standing at football matches from the first blog. I love the idea of around 600 people turning up for four days of cricket, with a very real chance that no winner will be found, and I feel the same about a game of snooker being played with 17 frames over two sessions. The debate whether to buy tickets for a second session to see a winner to the match or to buy tickets for a first session to guarantee seeing the maximum amount of snooker. This is snooker and could only ever be snooker. When I think of snooker, I feel nothing is ever rushed. I enjoy the tactical safety shot that takes 5 minutes to play a single shot and a further 5 for the opponent to get out of the resulting snooker.
Now the demise of these two great games has been clear for a long time and changes were inevitable. Cricket lead the way with Twenty20 cricket. A high octane take on the classic game. In fairness it was only a logical extension of One Day cricket that has been around for a long time now. When it came in, this new shortened version of cricket certainly seemed like a good thing. Attendances were high for these games and prospects were good. But in recent years and months things are changing in the cricketing world and it seems T20 had only papered over the cracks.
What's the relevance to snooker I assume you're asking. Well, I'll tell you. The basic idea of getting people to watch cricket was to make it shorter, faster and therefore more exciting and give us more of it. The Indian Premier League being the obvious example. It seems the same idea has been applied to snooker. There are now a lot more snooker events throughout the year and many of the games have less frames than that of the World Championships. The changes to both sports have been very similar. Make your changes if you have to for the future of the game, but don't change what a lot of us already loved.
I think this is, therefore, the crucial part of it all. New competitions are good for the game overall, we have to accept that without them, and the much needed income they can generate, the game as a whole could truly suffer. However, don't change the traditional game, and make sure it maintains its importance to the world game.
I believe that this is what wound Mark Allen up so much. It was changes to existing formats that is the problem. I think it means Barry Hearn should look very closely at the changes he makes in the coming years. Are his interests in darts, and the changes he made to that sport creeping into snooker? Should one man have so much power? How much power does he really have? Has he gone power crazy? And most importantly, will he spoil my beloved World Championships?
So many questions and so few answers. For more information on the changes snooker has gone through the following link will shed some light on the situation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/snooker/16137135.stm
And now, as is tradition, a bad joke to end.
A kid came round the other day asking for donations for the local swimming pool, so I gave him a glass of water.
Enjoy!
The comments that get me started on this rant were things said by Barry Hearn, who is an appointed director of, and has controlling interest in World Snooker Limited, "the commercial arm of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association." Now I'm not 100% clear exactly what that means, but in his own words Barry Hearn says: "my job is I'm the owner of the game [of snooker] - the controller of the game - and that's how it's going to stay." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/snooker/16194585.stm, final paragraph) These comments were made directly in response to calls from Mark Allen, calling for Barry Hearn to resign from his position in World Snooker.
Now, what got Mark Allen so wound up?
Allen claims that "When Barry came in, one of the first things he said was that the World Championship, UK and Masters wouldn't be touched. Only 18 months later, the UK format has changed," and he continued to say that "I've got no doubt he'll tweak the World Championship. The whole tradition of the game is going to pot."
Here I find myself agreeing with Allen. Snooker is a traditional game for me. I feel there are some comparisons to be drawn between snooker and cricket, and I'm not the only one. The World Championships that are hosted in Sheffield every year have a special feeling to them. The quiet in the theatre, yes they are hosted in a theatre, is unlike at any other sporting event I've attended. So a first round game may not be sold out, and those with experience will try and get tickets near the back and in the middle so they can try and see both sides of the traditional partition. The comparison for me is to the County Championships of cricket. The wondrous games played out over four days in front of very small crowds up and down the country.
Tradition in sport is something that is very important to me, just read my views on standing at football matches from the first blog. I love the idea of around 600 people turning up for four days of cricket, with a very real chance that no winner will be found, and I feel the same about a game of snooker being played with 17 frames over two sessions. The debate whether to buy tickets for a second session to see a winner to the match or to buy tickets for a first session to guarantee seeing the maximum amount of snooker. This is snooker and could only ever be snooker. When I think of snooker, I feel nothing is ever rushed. I enjoy the tactical safety shot that takes 5 minutes to play a single shot and a further 5 for the opponent to get out of the resulting snooker.
Now the demise of these two great games has been clear for a long time and changes were inevitable. Cricket lead the way with Twenty20 cricket. A high octane take on the classic game. In fairness it was only a logical extension of One Day cricket that has been around for a long time now. When it came in, this new shortened version of cricket certainly seemed like a good thing. Attendances were high for these games and prospects were good. But in recent years and months things are changing in the cricketing world and it seems T20 had only papered over the cracks.
What's the relevance to snooker I assume you're asking. Well, I'll tell you. The basic idea of getting people to watch cricket was to make it shorter, faster and therefore more exciting and give us more of it. The Indian Premier League being the obvious example. It seems the same idea has been applied to snooker. There are now a lot more snooker events throughout the year and many of the games have less frames than that of the World Championships. The changes to both sports have been very similar. Make your changes if you have to for the future of the game, but don't change what a lot of us already loved.
I think this is, therefore, the crucial part of it all. New competitions are good for the game overall, we have to accept that without them, and the much needed income they can generate, the game as a whole could truly suffer. However, don't change the traditional game, and make sure it maintains its importance to the world game.
I believe that this is what wound Mark Allen up so much. It was changes to existing formats that is the problem. I think it means Barry Hearn should look very closely at the changes he makes in the coming years. Are his interests in darts, and the changes he made to that sport creeping into snooker? Should one man have so much power? How much power does he really have? Has he gone power crazy? And most importantly, will he spoil my beloved World Championships?
So many questions and so few answers. For more information on the changes snooker has gone through the following link will shed some light on the situation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/snooker/16137135.stm
And now, as is tradition, a bad joke to end.
A kid came round the other day asking for donations for the local swimming pool, so I gave him a glass of water.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)