What Constitutes Success?

What is success? Is it medals? Initially you'd think yes, of course it is. But is it really? What about the longevity of someones career, being able to last at the highest level through a 10 year career? What about consistently turning in 20-goal a season performances season after season? What about staying with a club who has brought you through the ranks, and retiring with the same club? What about being the 'big fish' and being the stand out player in your side? It all boils down to personal opinion I'd say and reading through Rio Ferdinand's tweets the other day, he posted something which interested me. It read: 

@rioferdy5

"when I'm retired I will be judging my career on what my team won + how I done within that. Some people want to play for boyhood club, for money etc....I play to win...daily. If Real Madrid won what Barca won last year who would have won world + european player of the year? Messi or @Cristiano [Ronaldo] ? I say @Cristiano"

I don't think that anyone doubts every time a player takes to the field, he is there to win. What strikes me about the comment though is whether winning medals is what really constitutes a success. If you look at players and managers, I don't completely agree. If we take the first part of his comment, in his broken English, about judging his career by what he has won, and I'm the biggest believer in winning as much as possible (I've chucked a runners-up trophy into the sea once because I don't collect anything but winners medals) he seems to have forgotten the situation in which people find themselves. 

Dalglish and Moyes - have they been a success?

Take David Moyes (right) at Everton; revered by the Everton fans, and a squad which believe 110% in their manager. Everton have consistently stayed in the Premiership with little investment and a fan base which want their chairman to hand over the reigns. Has he won anything at Everton? No. But ask any Toffee around and they'll tell you how much they love Moyes. Has he been successful at Everton? Considering the factors above, and the opinion of the Everton fans, I'd say yes. How are they meant to compete with Man City and Man Utd spending £100m in the transfer windows and able to offer players upwards of £150,000 per week? It's all well and good judging people by medals when you are at a huge club, with huge reserves of cash to spend, but it seems Rio has forgotten that for some clubs, that's just not a realistic target. 


Cross to the other side of Stanley Park and ask Liverpool fans about Kenny Dalglish (above). They'll tell you that although they don't look like ripping up the table and taking home silverwear from all angles, they are an improved unit from last season, playing better football, without quite turning in the points just yet. The fans believe in him, something that was lacking towards the end of Benitez's reign, and throughout Roy Hodgson's short tenure. Has Dalglish been a success at Anfield thus far? I'd imagine LFC fans would say yes. Has he won anything? No.


Go and talk to the fans up on the Tyne. Ask them about what their previous manager, and current manager have done for the Magpies. Chris Houghton took them straight back into the Premiership after relegation, and was then let go having been told he could take the side no further. They won the Championship title, so does Rio class his as a success? I'd say so, but what about their manager now? Alan Pardew has taken Newcastle on an early season run which has seen them build a platform to collect enough points to maintain a top half position from now until May. Has he won anything? No. Will he win anything this year? Probably not. But has he been a success? Ask any Newcastle fan and I'm sure they'll agree with me that he's been a success at St James' Park. 

Traore winning the Champions League in 2005.

Players like Matt le Tissier, Gazza, and Alan Shearer are regarded as great players, some of the best English players to ever wear the Three Lions. Did they win much for club or country? Nope. Now let's have a look at some players who have Champions League winners medals to their name; Josemi, Djimi Traore, Milan Baros, Olegeur (Barca), Igor Biscan, Benni McCarthy (Porto) to name but a few. I think you can see my point. The players with a Champions League medal are nowhere near the players mentioned previously. But by Rio's theory, Biscan is better than Gazza, Baros is better than Shearer, and Traore is better than le Tiss. A medal yes, more successful I don't think so. 


The second half of the comment, about Barca, Real Madrid and the respective honours won by Messi and not Ronaldo is a strange comment. These individual honours are surely not based on what the team has done? World and European Player of the Year Messi, has everything in his locker, he might not have as many goals as Ronaldo, but it's generally regarded that Messi is the better player. Not that Ronaldo is half bad! Messi's consistency, touch, technique, assists, goals, passing, his ability to look like he has the ball on a string, and much more combine to create a better player than Ronaldo I think. It has nothing to do with what team they play in, Messi could do it in any team, as could Ronaldo, so it just comes down to who is the better player. What the respective teams have done has nothing to do with it. 

Messi collects his World Player of the Year award for 2011.

Racism Row Rumbles On

The FA

So the Suarez-Evra-Terry-Ferdinand rows continue to plague both the national, and sporting news and as with anything the FA does, the consequences and fall out from the decision will have disastrous effects should they be consistent with their decision to ban Luis Suarez for 8 games. I'm aware that the FA aren't currently involved with the Terry case, as it is a police matter, but if found guilty it should then also become a FA matter (if not only for him being the England captain!). Also on that point, if found not guilty by a criminal court, surely in the interests of fairness and equality he should also be tried by the FA. He may not be guilty of a criminal offence, but he may still be open to charge from the FA.

The biggest thing that could escalate from this decision, is the chance for anyone to play 'the race card' and get someone else banned. This assumption is based entirely on the Liverpool FC statement which reads: 

"We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no-one else on the field of play - including Evra's own Manchester United teammates and all the match officials - heard the alleged conversation between the two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner kick was about to be taken."

 On that basis (and purely as an example) Spurs take on Chelsea tonight in a huge game, a key battle in the fight for fourth place. What would be better for Chelsea than to see Rafa van der Vaart banned for 8 games as Spurs challenge Chelsea for the Champions League places? Going by what has happened with Suarez and Evra, and the LFC statement, all it takes is for Ashley Cole, Jon Obi Mikel, Didier Drogba, Daniel Sturridge to turn around after the game and say van der Varrt had racially abused him. (I'm not suggesting they would for one minute!) the FA would have to then ban van der Vaart for 8 games to be consistent with the precedent set with the Liverpool number 7. All it would take is the word of one of those players, and Spurs are without a key talisman coming into the crunch period of the season. That's if the FA are consistent with what they've done in this case, which we all know isn't likely.

Rooney sees red in Montenegro

That brings me on nicely to the FA appealing against the 3 game banned handed to Wayne Rooney after seeing red for a blatant kick in Montenegro that night. They can go against conclusive, hard evidence that Rooney committed violent conduct, an immediate 3 game ban from the FA in the Premiership, and appeal. There is no denying he kicked the Montenegro player, it's there in black and white (no irony intended). Yet they still went to Switzerland to appeal and have his ban reduced to 2 games for a competition we may be out of by the time Rooney can play, unlikely but possible. Again, based on what LFC have said in their statement, there is no conclusive, impartial evidence that can find Suarez guilty, and yet they have stated that if LFC appeal the ban, it can be increased to more than 8 games. Is this consistent? I find it hypocritical and astonishing!

It smacks of the FA trying to give the two-fingers to UEFA/FIFA after the Blatter racism row. Trying to show them how to do the job, it's no secret that the organisations have a frosty relationships after the 2018 bid and various other matters. Liverpool and Suarez have been made an example of in my opinion and it will be interesting to see how they follow up the Terry case. Tim Vickery's blog on the BBC did (now unable to find!) asked the question if this was more of a political statement from the FA rather than being a stand on racism, something I personally agree with, given the lack of evidence. We all know how many cameras there are at games, and you'd have thought something was captured on them, ala Terry. 

Evra is no stranger to playing the race card, having been reported to have previously leveled it at Steve Finnan and the Chelsea FC groundsman Steve Bethell, and it will be a sad, sad day if this is what football has come to. Wrongly accusing someone of something that is a criminal offence to gain an advantage in the footballing arena is ridiculous. It's not something I want to dwell on though, as it is 'reported' and we all know how subjective that is.

Finally the media has once again done a fantastic job of blowing something out of proportion. Kenny Dalglish and the Liverpool players wore shirts last night at Wigan as a sign of their support for Luis Suarez, who they obviously believe didn't racially abuse Evra. They DID NOT wear the shirts to condemn racism, having anti-racism groups on Sky Sports News this morning seemed completely ridiculous as that wasn't the purpose of the t-shirts.

Liverpool players show support for Suarez

Test Cricket: Recent Excitement Papers Over the Cracks

Crowd Trouble


We've seen some cracking games of Test match cricket over the last 12 months. Most notably the low scoring affair in Cape Town between South Africa and Australia, where South Africa made only 96, and then Australia 47 as 23 wickets fell on the second day. South Africa finally put together a reasonable total and made 236 to win the Test Match in tricky conditions. That was followed by Pat Cummins' heroics in Jo'berg, where two teams, evenly matched put on a real contest. That was before Cummins' hit the winning runs to go with his Aussie debut 5-for and the unforgettable reactions of Nathan Lyon, the Aussie number 11, who was next in, quite simply bricking it! Then New Zealand picked up their first victory in 26 years on their neighbours turf beating Australia 7 runs, the finest of margins thanks to a Doug Bracewell 7-for. While we are on the case of exciting matches, who will forget the Edgbaston Test of 2005?


All exciting games, but there is one fact that makes the Edgbaston Test stand about more than the others. Not it being the Ashes, not just the fact it came down to the last wicket, but the crowd. Edgbaston was packed that  day in 2005, and throughout the whole series. As the Ashes series was in 2009. Also Down Under this year, England took great support over to Australia, although the Aussie support thwarted towards the end of the series (understandably). 


The same can't be said for the other matches though, on one day (Saturday) did I see grounds in South Africa anywhere near full. It's a general problem across the globe, baring England where generally crowds are good. We've come to expect it from the sub-continent teams, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are renound for having a public who's main interest lies within the limited overs format. It's something you expect less of in South Africa, West Indies and Australia, but something that is clearly evident in all of these countries. The only time you see these grounds anywhere near capacity is when England play there, and take a significant amount of support to fill the grounds. The final day of the MCG test, when England retained the Ashes, saw a section of English fans which probably outnumbers the whole attendance for most days of a Test Match.


The purpose of this isn't to blow the trumpet of the English support, as good and as valuable as it is to the England side, but to highlight the fact crowds are very poor when outside of England or in games which don't include England. A few exciting games may have made everyone remember the back and forth of a Test Match and the tension it can bring, but it seems crowds are still not very good. Test Matches are still the pinnacle of the sport in my opinion, the skill levels across long periods are something rivaled by few sports, the concentration, the tactical battles between captains, and the duels between batsmen and bowlers across a series (think, Flintoff v Gilchrist, McGrath v Atherton) set the Test Match arena apart, but the simple facts are, there aren't many going through the turnstiles. Indian legend Rahul Dravid today described Test cricket as "the gold standard" and the form that the players most wanted to play".


So what is the solution? I think the Test Championship may have gone some way to solve the problem. In games that don't really mean anything, it's hard to attract people to watch. However, if there was a semi final game going on and a place in the final at stake, surely that would entice fans in? TV commitments for the ICC has scuppered that anyway, at least until 2017.

Day-night matches therefore, have to be considered a reasonable option. It's not 'traditional' if you like, but if the pinnacle of the sport is to survive, people need to be watching Test cricket, or they will be chasing the cash in the shorter format of the game. 


If nothing else, Test series' need to be longer, 4-5 games. Australia playing South Africa in a two Test Match series is plain stupid. Especially when we saw what great cricket they produced. After the first two Test Matches, and how close they were, I'd have expected more people through the gates in the 3rd and 4th Tests, that's if they'd have been scheduled. To achieve this, you'd have to get rid of cricket somewhere, and although there is definitely a place for 50-over cricket, it has to come from here. 7 match series are no fun for anyone, and even 5 match series can get tedious. 


However the ICC decide to do it, something needs to be done. We don't really recognise the crowd problems I don't think, as games that invovle England are generally well supported, but if you watch a game between two other nations, the plastic seats that remain empty is alarming. At least the Aussies make them different colours so it looks like there is someone there, either that or as Ian Botham said, everyone is going in fancy dress, dressed as a plastic chair, and I'm getting it wrong!

Swing Low Stoke

Stoke City


The picture above is a familiar sight for those at the Britannia. Stoke line up, ironically against today's opponents Spurs, for a set piece, the box packed with bodies. Whether it's a long throw, corner or free kick around the box, it's something they excel at. You also have to give them credit for finding a way to win Premier League matches, at the end of the day, that's what you need to do. But how bloody boring! This is going to be a big time rant, so be prepared!


I'd never be able to be a Stoke fan, sometimes your happy when your team grinds out a result against better opposition, and on occasions it needs to be done. Liverpool have done it before, especially in Europe where they've gone away from home for a 0-0 and done a job on them at Anfield, Barcelona spring to mind. However, going every other week to the Britannia to watch Stoke must be dreadful. I say that, having spend my teenage years going to watch Scarborough FC in the old 3rd Division and Conference!! 


It's well documented about their long throw, and having just seen on Sky Sports that their 2nd goal in the Spurs game today, was their first from a long throw in a while, comes as a big surprise. A scramble in the area leading to a Stoke goal is an all familiar, and completely unsatisfactory sight for me. It's not how football is meant to be played and is so boring to watch. They pose no real threat other than at set pieces, and if you can remember a time when a Stoke players have beaten a man or two, and smashed it in then I'd like to see it. 


Their fans may be loud, but how they bother to go and watch that shower is beyond me! The fact they sing "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" really does sum up their side. Ironic? Maybe, but their style does suit rugby more than football, and with their main threat coming from a line out, sorry throw in, their fans even have a pre-throw in "ohhhhhh..." before selected Stoke player hurls the ball into the area towards one of their two giant center forwards and four center halves for the ensuing scrum (see right). The collective style and attitude of the fans, really does grate on me, and many others I'm sure, who like to see proper football.


Combine them two facts with their moaning, cap wearing, late arriving manager, Tony Pulis and you have the perfect combination to result in hatred. It's a usual sight to see him in front of the cameras post-game, complaining about how Stoke didn't get this, and didn't get that. Boo hoo Tony. When you throw the ball into the box, with 18 bodies in there, there is going to be some contact and there may be a foul in there too. But how do you expect the ref to make a decision with so many bodies to look through and not be able to see who is holding onto who? If that's the way you play football, you don't deserve to get the decisions or luck in them situations. If they popped off a few passes on the edge of the box and someone went down a bit easy and they got a penalty, fair enough. Although that's not a sight I think I'll ever witness in the Premiership from Stoke. 


As I said at the start, this has been a rant. I'd suspect most people agree with me, unless your Stoke fan, but watching them today has frustrated me enough to post this! Proper football is what people want to see, the likes of Barcelona and Arsenal set the example, and you may say Stoke haven't got the players to play in such a way. Maybe that's true, but then you have to look at the manager who has built the side and the signings he has made. Don't tell me they don't have money because they've spent £10m on Crouch, who surprisingly fits Pulis' style. They also possess Wilson Palacios who never gets a game, maybe it's because he isn't six-foot odd, and likes to pass the ball around and keep it on the deck? Only Pulis knows what goes on under that cap.

Suarez; the good, the bad and the ugly.

Luis Suarez


As a Liverpool fan, my view probably differs slightly from the norm on Luis Suarez, but I can't help but be engrossed by everything that comes with him. There is no doubting his quality and skill, just look at what he did to United last season, but the full package is starting to come out now, and when things don't go his way, he can be a complete different animal.


After a scintillating start to his career at Anfield, he has become embroiled in this saga with Patrice Evra, and now has given the middle finger, quite literally to the Fulham fans. I suspect we could see Suarez out of action for about 6 games. Combine the 3 games for the middle finger, with an inevitable ban for the 'racism' row he is looking at a lengthy time on the side. With Gerrard struggling for a while now, Carroll not looking anywhere near his £35m price tag, missing Suarez is something the Reds can ill afford.


Although I don't think Suarez did racially abuse Evra, the FA will seem to have to take a stance on it, and letting Suarez walk free, guilty or not, will look like the FA are turning a blind eye to racism, a view they will not want of their organisation. From my view at the back of the Kop that day, it seemed to me like Suarez out paced, out thought, and was too skillful for Evra, who faced a test sterner than his usual Saturday or Sunday afternoon, Monday night, Saturday tea-time (you get my point!). Suarez tormented Evra, who eventually showed his frustration when he slapped away Suarez's hand which sarcastically tapped him on the back. But as I say, it will no doubt end up with Suarez being banned.


His creativity with the ball, has been marred somewhat by his creativity with his legs. He has been accused of going down too easily, which at times I can agree with. However, on other occasions, he has been very clever and anyone who has played football knows, "how to win a free kick" which Suarez does very well when he knows someone is coming in behind him. In my opinion, there is very little difference to someone like Kevin Davies at Bolton who is continuously praised for his hold up play, and knowing how to win a free kick. Suarez's reputation now goes before him, having gone down easily recently, and where he may have been praised for the Davies-esque "winning the free kick" he is now just seen as a plain diver. Which to me, seems unfair. 


Diving in the Premiership has been around for years, and will continue long after Suarez, Nani and all the others that go at it. It's been done by English players before, Gerrard, Owen, Rooney, Lampard, they've all gone down easily, but don't we all? Referees get it wrong so much when you are defending, and get conned by other players, so people even it up. There is a saying I was taught when I was young which goes: "Two wrongs don't make a right", however in life I've soon learnt two wrongs certainly make it even. It's obviously not the sporting thing to do, but it happens at one end, so it will happen at the other. Where I stand on whether it's a skill or not, I'm not quite sure, although I think I verge on the side of getting what you can.


We've had the bad about Suarez, so now for the good. It can be summed up in less words, but to me is much more prominent. From watching in the stands to watching on TV there are certain things that set him apart from others. His pace is something that all defenders are scared of, and his ability to move the ball quickly at pace is a combination not many players have around the world. His work-ethic is unbelievable, he is always on the move, even when the opposition have the ball on the edge of the Liverpool box, he's moving, making defenders think for the whole game. That ties in nicely with his movement, watching him live gives you a better impression of the fantastic positions he picks up all over the field. Whether it's between the lines of the midfield and the back four, or on the shoulder of the last man, he always manages to get himself half a yard of space. If anything, Suarez can be slightly ahead of his team mates, and is thinking things some of the others aren't. That means he knows what he wants to do, but the rest don't, and hopefully when Gerrard returns, he will be able to link with Suarez like he did with Torres (remember him?). 


Finally the ugly, well you've all seen him on the tele haven't you?