Now I hate to sound like an Austrian artist in a Munich beer hall, but the on-going criticism of Manchester United's "poor season" has urged me to rant.
All over sports pages, including Sky Sports News, there has been a constant put down of the season that Manchester United are currently having, regardless of our achievements.
Firstly, the side look more than likely to win a record 19th English league title this weekend, only needing a point away at Blackburn to wrap things up. Failing that, a point at home against Blackpool the following weekend would be just as good. Personally, I consider this a fairly good result, especially considering the flying start Chelsea had to the season, scoring for fun in their opening contests.
I also consider it a great success because of the fairly small way in which the squad was strengthened, only bringing in a second choice goalkeeper in the shape of Anders Lindergaard, a promising talent in Chris Smalling, and an unknown Mexican in the form of Javier "Chicarito" Hernandez. Compare this with the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool, and Torres, David Luiz, Andy Carroll and Luis Suarez and I think it was United who got the best deals.
Already in the eyes of this supporter it has been a great season both on and off the field.
Further to this, there is the small matter of our Champions League final date with Barcelona - a tidy looking rematch of two seasons ago. As the cliche goes, there are no easy games in a competition of this calibre, yet the current United side has eased past Chelsea, and Schalke FC in the last two rounds - the latter of these fixtures made to look like a training exercise at times, with even Anderson bagging himself a well deserved brace. Whilst the task of playing Iniesta, Xavi, Messi and co does look a daunting one, Real Madrid have shown in the last couple of weeks that they are beatable.
I'm guessing Sky Sports et al no longer consider making the final a great accomplishment.
Competitions aside, success had been achieved in other, more statistical areas. United have only dropped 2 points at home this season, in a 2-2 draw with West Brom - a result which only really occurred because of an uncharacteristic Edwin Van Der Sar mistake. So that makes it 17-1-0 at home this year - a feat only matched by a Mourinho managed Chelsea side. It should perhaps also be noted that the side has beaten every other Premier League side this season, including a 7-1 mauling of Blackburn Rovers.
Add to this the side contains the leagues top goalscorer in Dimitar Berbatov, and half a dozen or so entries into the PFA Team of the Year, and I would say that the current crop has done fairly well up to now.
So... The United fan has had his rant - but what is his point I hear you ask?
Well it's simple. If we have done so poorly, what the hell has everyone else been doing??
Tuesday 10 May 2011
Thursday 3 February 2011
Player Loyalty RIP?
This week has seen two separate incidents which display the dyeing trait of loyalty in football.
First in point, Fernando Torres.
Torres' transfer from Liverpool to Premiership rivals Chelsea further highlights how the modern players loyalty to a particular club only last until a better offer comes along.
Given the captain's armband at boyhood club Athletico Madrid, questions were soon raised as to why he had the phrase "I'll Never Walk Alone" scribed onto it. He answered that it was to do with the close friendship he shared with his best friends - perhaps an indication of his ability to be loyal to a cause?
However, it soon became apparent that his head had been turned. Was the message more to do with his potential suitors than his friends? After all, he did subsequently transfer to Liverpool, with whom the phrase is synonymous.
Athletico are the second club in Madrid, shadowed by their giant neighbours Real Madrid - poorer in stature, wealth, squad capabilities, and ultimately, success. So, when the chance came to jump ship, he did.
In 2007, he secured a high profile, and high value, transfer to Liverpool. A club decorated in history and glory, and at the time looking back to their old best. They had reached the previous two finals of the European Champions League, winning once, and it is perhaps because of this that Torres made the move.
Once the transfer had been finalised and the press conference had begun Torres was quick to mention that he had always been a supporter of Liverpool, and that playing for them was like a dream come true - probably as much of a dream as playing for his boyhood club?
Whilst the start to Torres' Liverpool career was rosy, particularly after finishing close runners up to Manchester United in the Premier League, for one reason or another (Rafa Benitez anyone?) the clubs fortunes began sliding until the appointment of the Scouse named "King Kenny".
However, Torres had apparently already made his mind up - he was off.
In the closing days of the January transfer window, Chelsea made an initial offer for the Spanish striker, which Liverpool rejected. But, as above, his head had been turned. No sooner had the news broke, when "El Nino" handed in a transfer request.
Subsequently, the transfer was completed for a figure reported to be around £50m - a new British record. The club that a young Torres had admired and dreamt of playing for was no longer a "top club" capable of playing at the top level and it was time for him to move on.
As previously suggested, his loyalty lasted only as long as it was good for him.
Unfortunately, Torres is not a maverick, nor a one off. In the so-called "Premiership Years" we have seen a number of such individuals follow such a path - Sol Campbell crossed the North London divide to join Arsenal from Tottenham Hotspurs, and the "Once a Blue, Always a Blue" t-shirt wearing Wayne Rooney transferred from Everton to Manchester United.
And it is a fellow Manchester United player, Gary Neville, that is second in point.
This Wednesday, Neville called time on a United career spanning nineteen years, 602 games, 7 goals and a fine collection of winners medals.
Neville began his time with United as a member of the famed academy, responsible for the likes of David Beckham, Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, and Neville's younger brother, Phil. He was promoted to first team duties in 1992, aged seventeen, and only a few seasons later had established himself as the clubs first choice right back.
His time at United saw Neville receive 85 England international caps, as well as eight Premier League winners medals, amongst others. One could almost argue that his loyalty was repaid.
As with Torres, Neville is not alone.
However, whilst it could be argued that players of Torres' ilk are on the rise, unfortunately it seems as though players with Neville's loyalty are diminishing.
Jamie Carragher at Liverpool has been a stalwart at Anfield, the aforementioned Giggs and Scholes at Manchester United have played well in excess of 1,200 games between them for the Old Trafford side, and further a field, Xavi and Andres Iniesta look forever faithful to FC Barcelona.
Perhaps it is of no coincidence that those players with the loyalty levels of the above players have all been successful in their careers and repaid with glory. Perhaps there is a message in there somewhere that the next generation of footballing talents could follow.
Let's see what happens to the the likes of Jack Wilshere, Jack Rodwell and Danny Welbeck shall we?
First in point, Fernando Torres.
Torres' transfer from Liverpool to Premiership rivals Chelsea further highlights how the modern players loyalty to a particular club only last until a better offer comes along.
Given the captain's armband at boyhood club Athletico Madrid, questions were soon raised as to why he had the phrase "I'll Never Walk Alone" scribed onto it. He answered that it was to do with the close friendship he shared with his best friends - perhaps an indication of his ability to be loyal to a cause?
However, it soon became apparent that his head had been turned. Was the message more to do with his potential suitors than his friends? After all, he did subsequently transfer to Liverpool, with whom the phrase is synonymous.
Athletico are the second club in Madrid, shadowed by their giant neighbours Real Madrid - poorer in stature, wealth, squad capabilities, and ultimately, success. So, when the chance came to jump ship, he did.
In 2007, he secured a high profile, and high value, transfer to Liverpool. A club decorated in history and glory, and at the time looking back to their old best. They had reached the previous two finals of the European Champions League, winning once, and it is perhaps because of this that Torres made the move.
Once the transfer had been finalised and the press conference had begun Torres was quick to mention that he had always been a supporter of Liverpool, and that playing for them was like a dream come true - probably as much of a dream as playing for his boyhood club?
Whilst the start to Torres' Liverpool career was rosy, particularly after finishing close runners up to Manchester United in the Premier League, for one reason or another (Rafa Benitez anyone?) the clubs fortunes began sliding until the appointment of the Scouse named "King Kenny".
However, Torres had apparently already made his mind up - he was off.
In the closing days of the January transfer window, Chelsea made an initial offer for the Spanish striker, which Liverpool rejected. But, as above, his head had been turned. No sooner had the news broke, when "El Nino" handed in a transfer request.
Subsequently, the transfer was completed for a figure reported to be around £50m - a new British record. The club that a young Torres had admired and dreamt of playing for was no longer a "top club" capable of playing at the top level and it was time for him to move on.
As previously suggested, his loyalty lasted only as long as it was good for him.
Unfortunately, Torres is not a maverick, nor a one off. In the so-called "Premiership Years" we have seen a number of such individuals follow such a path - Sol Campbell crossed the North London divide to join Arsenal from Tottenham Hotspurs, and the "Once a Blue, Always a Blue" t-shirt wearing Wayne Rooney transferred from Everton to Manchester United.
And it is a fellow Manchester United player, Gary Neville, that is second in point.
This Wednesday, Neville called time on a United career spanning nineteen years, 602 games, 7 goals and a fine collection of winners medals.
Neville began his time with United as a member of the famed academy, responsible for the likes of David Beckham, Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, and Neville's younger brother, Phil. He was promoted to first team duties in 1992, aged seventeen, and only a few seasons later had established himself as the clubs first choice right back.
His time at United saw Neville receive 85 England international caps, as well as eight Premier League winners medals, amongst others. One could almost argue that his loyalty was repaid.
As with Torres, Neville is not alone.
However, whilst it could be argued that players of Torres' ilk are on the rise, unfortunately it seems as though players with Neville's loyalty are diminishing.
Jamie Carragher at Liverpool has been a stalwart at Anfield, the aforementioned Giggs and Scholes at Manchester United have played well in excess of 1,200 games between them for the Old Trafford side, and further a field, Xavi and Andres Iniesta look forever faithful to FC Barcelona.
Perhaps it is of no coincidence that those players with the loyalty levels of the above players have all been successful in their careers and repaid with glory. Perhaps there is a message in there somewhere that the next generation of footballing talents could follow.
Let's see what happens to the the likes of Jack Wilshere, Jack Rodwell and Danny Welbeck shall we?
The Future of Football Broadcasting
Today Advocate General Juliane Kokott gave her opinion in the case of Karen Murphy, a pub landlady, convicted of illegally showing live Premier League football in pub using foreign satellite equipment.
The case's importance? Potentially, the future of football broadcasting in Britain.
Currently, there are two exclusive broadcasters of live English Premier League football - Rupert Murdoch's Sky Sports, and the American owned ESPN. Both parties pay hundreds of millions of pounds per season for the right to be an exclusive provider. Being able to promote themselves in this manner is key to them both attracting the subscribers they need to secure such deals.
Subsequently, there are only two broadcasters because of an earlier set of legal proceedings in 2007, again involving Murdoch. After having held the monopoly over the broadcasting rights of the Premier League since it's introduction in 1992, Sky were told that they had to start sharing. But that's besides the point...
Whilst many households can afford to subscribe to Sky Sports to watch live football in the comfort of their own armchair, landlords and lady's alike often find it difficult to meet the inflated prices charged by the aforementioned broadcasters to show games in their pubs.
Many simply cancelled their subscriptions. However, others - most notably Karen Murphy - sought other means of continuing their broadcasts. Using satellite transmitters and decoders meant for the Greek market, Murphy was able to show the live games at a far lower cost.
Whilst it is not illegal to subscribe to a foreign satellite broadcaster, nor the various transmission and decoding equipment used by Murphy, it is prohibited to show anything subject to a copyright agreement - such as that in place between Sky and ESPN and the Premier League - without any prior permission from those entitled to grant it.
Legal proceedings were brought against Murphy, the applicant citing an infringement of their intellectual property rights. Acting on behalf of the Premier League, the Media Protection Service claimed that by broadcasting live matches via a third party's satellite transmission Murphy was breaking the law.
It is here that the case becomes of interest to every football fan in the country - particularly those who themselves subscribe to either of the above broadcasters.
In her defence, Murphy heavily cited current European legislation. Her main argument was two-fold. Firstly, the broadcasting agreement in place prevented competition from other broadcasters, and secondly, it restricted the freedom of other broadcasters to provide a service. It was also suggested that the choice available to the everyday consumer was severely restricted, and therefore contrary to public policy.
The case is currently awaiting a final decision from the European Court of Justice, and it is because of this that the advice of an Advocate General has been sought. Whilst the opinion is not binding, it does have a significant standing and will be considered greatly by the powers that be.
If the opinion issued today is followed it could mean an ending to the exclusivity held by Sky and ESPN, and open the door for an influx of foreign broadcasters to sell their product to the British market.
From a consumers point of view a like minded final decision would be a bonus. Traditionally, the more competitive the market place is the cheaper the price of a product becomes.
However, such a decision may become hugely detrimental to the game itself. Currently, huge amounts of the revenue raised by the selling of the exclusive rights to broadcast football are distributed between all the teams in the League - lower down the standings, some clubs rely on such injections of cash in order to compete. The loss of such funding may have the knock on effect of preventing some clubs from buying the best talent.
Will diluting the market ultimately dilute the quality of the Premier League?
Only time will tell...
The case's importance? Potentially, the future of football broadcasting in Britain.
Currently, there are two exclusive broadcasters of live English Premier League football - Rupert Murdoch's Sky Sports, and the American owned ESPN. Both parties pay hundreds of millions of pounds per season for the right to be an exclusive provider. Being able to promote themselves in this manner is key to them both attracting the subscribers they need to secure such deals.
Subsequently, there are only two broadcasters because of an earlier set of legal proceedings in 2007, again involving Murdoch. After having held the monopoly over the broadcasting rights of the Premier League since it's introduction in 1992, Sky were told that they had to start sharing. But that's besides the point...
Whilst many households can afford to subscribe to Sky Sports to watch live football in the comfort of their own armchair, landlords and lady's alike often find it difficult to meet the inflated prices charged by the aforementioned broadcasters to show games in their pubs.
Many simply cancelled their subscriptions. However, others - most notably Karen Murphy - sought other means of continuing their broadcasts. Using satellite transmitters and decoders meant for the Greek market, Murphy was able to show the live games at a far lower cost.
Whilst it is not illegal to subscribe to a foreign satellite broadcaster, nor the various transmission and decoding equipment used by Murphy, it is prohibited to show anything subject to a copyright agreement - such as that in place between Sky and ESPN and the Premier League - without any prior permission from those entitled to grant it.
Legal proceedings were brought against Murphy, the applicant citing an infringement of their intellectual property rights. Acting on behalf of the Premier League, the Media Protection Service claimed that by broadcasting live matches via a third party's satellite transmission Murphy was breaking the law.
It is here that the case becomes of interest to every football fan in the country - particularly those who themselves subscribe to either of the above broadcasters.
In her defence, Murphy heavily cited current European legislation. Her main argument was two-fold. Firstly, the broadcasting agreement in place prevented competition from other broadcasters, and secondly, it restricted the freedom of other broadcasters to provide a service. It was also suggested that the choice available to the everyday consumer was severely restricted, and therefore contrary to public policy.
The case is currently awaiting a final decision from the European Court of Justice, and it is because of this that the advice of an Advocate General has been sought. Whilst the opinion is not binding, it does have a significant standing and will be considered greatly by the powers that be.
If the opinion issued today is followed it could mean an ending to the exclusivity held by Sky and ESPN, and open the door for an influx of foreign broadcasters to sell their product to the British market.
From a consumers point of view a like minded final decision would be a bonus. Traditionally, the more competitive the market place is the cheaper the price of a product becomes.
However, such a decision may become hugely detrimental to the game itself. Currently, huge amounts of the revenue raised by the selling of the exclusive rights to broadcast football are distributed between all the teams in the League - lower down the standings, some clubs rely on such injections of cash in order to compete. The loss of such funding may have the knock on effect of preventing some clubs from buying the best talent.
Will diluting the market ultimately dilute the quality of the Premier League?
Only time will tell...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)