Sunday 31 December 2017

JOSE MOURINHO : FLIMFLAM MAN PAR EXCELLENCE !

Does Jose Mourinho ever stop whingeing and whining ?

Whenever his teams fail to win, if it isn't 'bad luck', it's mistakes by referees, simple bad refereeing, that he hasn't been given the money to buy enough, or better, players and, most recently that the players he does have are tired !

This man has mostly worked at clubs with oodles of money to splash around and his current team, Manchester United, are no exception. He has brought in several expensive players, most of whom have failed to shine, while his most promising talent comes from Marcus Rashford and Jesse Lingard, neither of whom cost a penny. Basically, what Mourinho wants is to be able to keep splashing out on expensive foreign 'talent' until he gets it right and, until he does, he'll carry on trotting out every excuse under the sun as to why his team aren't performing as well as he'd like.

To be claiming that some of his players are tired is just about as ridiculous as it gets. These are super-fit young men for whom running around for 90 minutes every now and then is no problem. Most other teams manage perfectly well with smaller squads and yet we hear nothing about tired players from elsewhere. In fact, the best players thrive on turning out as often as they can.

Mourinho may or may not be any good as a real manager and it would be interesting to see what he'd do with a team like Stoke City at the moment. Could he motivate the players without having the 'big bucks' behind him, or would he just blame every defeat on those same excuses as he's using now ? Teams win by being motivated and well managed and, sometimes, they don't win and do suffer from refereeing mistakes, but it's nowhere near as often as Mourinho would have us believe.

Mourinho is a 'flimflam' artist, a con-man who tries to hide his inadequacies under a mountain of waffle. Don't be conned.

Tuesday 26 December 2017

HARRY KANE : A TRUE SPORTING STAR !

As a fan of Tottenham Hotspur FC, I've become used to my team disappointing me. Year after year, they've promised so much and delivered so little but, with the advent of Mauricio Pochettino, Harry Kane and the rest, they seem to have finally become a side that really might be winners.

In particular, the goal scoring exploits of Harry Kane have been astonishing. From his initial introduction into the Spurs first team in August 2011, Kane has developed into one of the top goal scorers in the world, rivalling the very best of the best.

In 2017, Kane has scored more goals for his club and country, 56, than any other player in Europe's top leagues, more even than Lionel Messi and Christiano Ronaldo, and in fewer games. He has become the first Englishman to score 50 goals in a calendar year since the legendary Dixie Dean in 192, and has set a new record for Premier League goal scoring, with 39 in the calendar year.

With 49 goals for his club alone in 2017, Kane sits behind only Messi and Edinson Cavani in Europe, while his record of 6 Premier League hat-tricks in the year, half of all those scored, sets a new standard. With 96 Premier League goals in only 132 games, he is second only to Teddy Sheringham as Tottenham's leading scorer in the competition, and must soon eclipse that former star; amazingly, Kane's strike rate is such that he's reached his total in over 100 games less than Sheringham needed.

However, what is every bit as important as his goal scoring feats is the manner of his play and general behaviour. There are no extravagant celebrations when he scores and no dramatic gesturing when things don't go his way. He plays hard but fair and rarely seems to even be close to getting annoyed by the fouls perpetrated against him. His demeanour both on and off the pitch is calm and gentlemanly; he is self-effacing and always praises his team-mates and manager while brushing aside his own achievements.

Harry Kane is not just a fine footballer, he's a gentleman too. More power to his elbow, not to mention his boots  !!

Saturday 16 December 2017

HOPELESS ENGLAND ON THE BRINK OF ASHES LOSS.

As England head towards almost certain defeat and loss of the Ashes series against Australia, one is left wondering why our players have proved so unable to deal with both the opposition's batsmen and bowlers.

Apart from one session under floodlights in Adelaide and the fine stand between Dawid Malan and Jonny Bairstow in Perth, England have little to show from the series so far, and surely little expectation that things will be any better when they get to Melbourne and Sydney. Another 5-0 drubbing seems highly likely. Of course, England travelled without the services of Ben Stokes whose behaviour the Crown Prosecution Service is still considering but surely the absence of one man cannot make the difference between competing strongly and rolling over with barely a sound. In essence, this England team never had any real chance, with or without Stokes. The question is 'Why ?'

Listening to some of the BBC's 'Test Match Special' team, Geoff Boycott especially, the belief is that the issue lies with the overall nature of English cricket. We do not produce genuinely fast bowlers, only fast-medium, we have very few good spinners and our batsmen come up short when confronted with either. Given that we are forever being told what great batsmen and bowlers we have, another 'Why ?' arises.

Years ago, England produced fast bowlers galore and there were too many good spinners for many of them ever to get into the Test team; every county could boast at least one and some could boast 2 or more, think Laker and Lock, or Edmonds and Embury though there were many others too. Today, few counties can rustle up one half-decent spinner. As for fast bowlers, the days of Trueman and Statham, Tyson, Willis, Snow, Larwood, Voce and the like are long gone. The reasons for this are self-evident. English domestic cricket is now all about limited overs matches in which there is little call for either fast bowlers or spinners of any standard. With bowlers limited to only a handful of overs each there is little opportunity for them to get to grips with a different pitch or to find a rhythm; what is wanted is a never ending stream of medium pacers who act as little more than cannon-fodder for the batsmen. Consequently, some batsmen gain reputations for fast scoring and big hitting that is hardly deserved, while the bowlers simply toil away to little effect.

The County Championship, which used to be the premier cricket competition and remains the only real domestic cricket played in England, has mostly been relegated to the cold, wet and windy wilderness of April and September when pitches are soft and neither fast bowlers nor spinners have much chance of success; is it any wonder that the counties hardly bother with them ? Again, it is medium pace, perhaps some fast-medium, that dominates. There is no need for the counties to develop quality fast bowlers, nor international class spinners, if they serve no purpose.

In English conditions, with the current timetabling of domestic matches and when the weather often dictates that the ball will seam or swing, this is all perfectly fine, but as soon as players are confronted with less friendly conditions they struggle mightily. The bowlers prove ineffective against batsmen used to genuine fast bowling or a spinning ball; the batsmen find themselves all at sea against the same. Our fast bowlers and spinners never get to ply their trade on the hard, dry pitches of August, neither do our batsmen get to understand how to play on them. Indeed, matters are made even worse by the modern practice of covering pitches as soon as a  few drops of rain are felt; no longer can we watch such bewilderment as was experienced by Australian batsmen facing Derek Underwood in 1968 and 1972.

The huge disappointment of England's performance in Australia has its roots in the mess that our domestic cricket has become. By covering pitches and placing so much emphasis on one day, even 3 hour, matches, to the huge detriment of the County Championship, cricket's administrators have taken away much of the incentive to develop fast bowlers, good spinners and even batsmen who can cope with conditions in foreign parts. Yes, they may get away with it in international limited overs competitions, but this is very different to Test Match cricket; yes, they may have occasional success when conditions suit them but that is rare.  

Is there an England batsmen today who could resist an attack including Michael Holding, Andy Roberts and Wayne Daniel, long enough to amass 203, as Dennis Amiss did in 1976 or who could match his epic 570 minute rear guard action at Kingston in 1974 ? I doubt it. In the last 20 years, England have produced one top class spin bowler in Graeme Swann; they haven't produced one top class fast bowler; seamers, yes, fast bowlers, no.

The 'experts' drone on while saying nothing but what we already know; none talks of the solution. If England wants to win Test Matches abroad, then our domestic cricket must give far greater prominence to the County Championship; a return to the system in which one-day matches were played on Sundays and throughout the season, rather than in long spells in mid-summer. Test Match cricketers are forged on the hard and dry pitches of late July and August, not in one day knockabouts.

What we have is a circle that is hard to square. We need cricket to make money and that comes from the excitement of the limited overs game, but we also need to develop international players. The answer has to be in keeping the limited overs product, but with different scheduling, and in 'spicing up' the Championship; there are ways. Uncovered pitches, bonuses for faster over rates, rewards for faster scoring and a return to at least 16, and preferably 24, 3-day games played in the summer rather than in spring or autumn when problematic weather makes matches a lottery.

Will anyone listen ?

Saturday 9 December 2017

BEN DUCKETT : LATEST IN A LINE OF YOBS.

Following incidents in which Ben Stokes and Jonny Bairstow have found themselves in trouble in or near places in which alcohol is consumed, now it's the turn of Ben Duckett. The England Lions batsman has been suspended following 'an incident' in a bar in the Australian city of Perth.

It seems clear that there is a problem with discipline within the England cricket camp. Stokes remains suspended from England duty after he was filmed having a punch up outside of a bar in Bristol, while Bairstow apparently head-butted Australian Cameron Bancroft in another bar, claiming that this was his preferred method of greeting people. Duckett's transgression is reported to involve him pouring a glass of beer over the head of a member of the full England squad.

What on earth is going on ? Trevor Bayliss, the England manager, is reported to be 'apoplectic' over his players' lack of discipline and common sense though he must surely take much of the blame, along with the coach of the England Lions, Andy Flower. After all, aren't they the ones who set the tone and rules of behaviour for their players ? The trouble is that the players see themselves as celebrities who can do pretty much whatever they like. They behave like spoilt brats and the sanctions employed are little more than being sent to the 'naughty step' for a few minutes; Bayliss and Flower can be as apoplectic as they like, the truth is that they've been miserable failures as managers.

England's performances in the first two Ashes test matches have been poor and one is tempted to link the performances and behaviour together. While the Australians are a team of grown men, too many of the English are little more than children or, at best, difficult teenagers. They lack discipline and self-control but have all the confidence of the inexperienced; it is no wonder that they're being blown away by the Australians nor that they act like yobs when not on the field of play.

What they need is a Brian Clough to instil real discipline, self-control and pride.

Monday 20 November 2017

JANA NOVOTNA : TENNIS LEGEND

Hearing of the untimely death of Jana Novotna comes as a genuine shock. Aged only 49, she has reportedly died after a long struggle against cancer.

Novotna was a Wimbledon fixture for a decade, reaching the final of the Ladies' championship 3 times. Her demeanour on court made her a favourite of the crowd and her tearful loss to Steffi Graf in 1993 made her a legend. Never before or since had a defeated finalist been so distraught and never before or since had a member of the Royal Family acted with such unexpected thought and kindness as did the Duchess of Kent on that day.

Novotna came back and lost again in 1997 but, finally, she triumphed in 1998 and her jubilation was there for all to see as she again burst into tears, though this time of joy. Again it was the Duchess who awarded the trophy and it was clear that there was as much pleasure for her as for the player.

Jana Novotna was a great grass court player of the old school, serving and volleying with aplomb. She was also a fine player on any surface and won many titles in both singles and doubles competitions. She was a sporting star who became a household name and her early demise is so very sad.

Friday 17 November 2017

WHY ARE WE SO SCRUFFY ?

Why do so many male tennis players seem to have no pride in their personal appearance ?

Years ago, in the era when 'whites' were the order of the day, even the likes of Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe managed to look fairly smart on court. Today, with Wimbledon now the only major championship which maintains even a partial 'whites' rule, many players now appear on courts around the world looking as if they've just rolled out of bed.

Unshaven and scruffy, wearing all manner of coloured clothing that often doesn't match or is simply drab in the extreme, their appearance is often depressing. When Andy Murray turns out in black or dark blue, with socks and boots of similar hue, unshaven and shirt hanging loose it demonstrates a lack of pride not only in his appearance but also a lack of respect for his fans, the audience in general and his country. A scruffy and unkempt appearance reflects a scruffy and unkempt attitude to life.

This afternoon at the ATP tour finals, Dominic Thiem played David Goffin. While Thiem's outfit was not bad and he actually looked reasonably smart, Goffin looked like an unmade bed. As he walked onto court one might have been forgiven for thinking that he'd grabbed the first things available prior to putting out his rubbish. He was a mess.

When sports, and other, stars and celebrities adopt such dreadful ways, how can we expect our children to have any pride in their own appearance ? We can't, and a walk through any town will show just what a scruffy country we've become. Horrible.

Tuesday 31 October 2017

PARALYMPICS CHEATING : WHAT A SURPRISE !

I have never had any time for the notion of 'disability sports' and particularly for the ludicrous nonsense that is the 'Paralympics', though without ever decrying the efforts of those who have suffered from either birth defects or accidental and life changing injuries. Now, it seems, the principle reason for my scepticism is to be considered by Members of Parliament.

An investigation by the BBC (of all organisations !) has 'discovered' that there could be systematic cheating by manipulating the classification process that is involved in determining which athletes get to compete against which other athletes. A House of Commons committee is to discuss these claims and it's been suggested that the evidence they will hear will be 'explosive'.

There are times when I wonder just how stupid some people can be. Of course the classification system is open to abuse and is abused; any such system will always be abused by cheats in exactly the same way as many take illicit drugs to enhance their performances. Cheating is endemic in much modern sport because winning is all; the days of amateurism are long gone and winning is now all about vast prestige, wealth and honours that can be gained.

Footballers 'dive' to win penalties, cricketers claim catches falsely and what goes on in a rugby scrum is nobody's business. Only in sports which are closely monitored by television cameras is cheating not an issue; golfers and snooker players in televised tournaments rarely, if ever, come up short; major rugby union matches, with replays of every doubtful incident, are so well policed that players know they cannot get away with very much.

But how do you police a classification system which attempts to match competitors with differing disabilities ? Quite simply, the whole notion is ridiculous, shockingly open to abuse and largely pointless. By all means, encourage those with disabilities to enjoy full lives and, where they wish, to engage in sports to the best of their abilities, but for heaven's sake stop this nonsense of the 'Paralympics' and all that goes with it.

Monday 30 October 2017

LEWIS HAMILTON : NOT THE GREATEST BY MILES.

Lewis Hamilton is obviously a good driver but is he really up there with the 'greatest' ?

Hamilton drives in an era obsessed with safety and at a time when technological advances have made racing cars completely different to those of past days. When Fangio and Moss, Brabham, Clark and Stewart were racing, they truly had to drive their cars; today, the driver has so much information and technological assistance that to even try to begin to compare modern drivers with those of 30, 40 or 50 years ago is a pointless exercise.

In terms of outright bravery, those of the 1950s and 1960s will always be superior; many died and others were severely injured while driving vehicles at breakneck speeds around dangerous circuits. Today, even crashing at 200 miles per hour is likely to result in little more than a few bruises; years ago, it would have meant certain, and often horrible, injuries and death, and yet the drivers still pushed their cars to the absolute limit and beyond.

For any sportsman to be considered 'great' they also have to pass one simple test, that of being magnanimous in defeat. On this measure, Hamilton fails miserably. When he wins, it's all smiles and great joy, but when he loses it's recriminations and sullenness. He looks for someone to blame or some conspiracy against him. Last year it was all about the desire of his German team to help his German team mate, Nico Rosberg; yesterday we heard him suggesting that Sebastian Vettel had deliberately crashed into him, a ludicrous notion as Vettel's only hope of winning the championship for himself was to win the race.

Hamilton is a fast driver but the silly suggestions that he's a great, even 'the greatest' are simply not supported by the facts. He's actually a classic example of a spoilt child who found success at too young an age and now sees it as his right, throwing tantrums whenever he doesn't get his way. One wonders what he'll do next year if Ferrari, Red Bull and even McLaren start beating him regularly. My bet is that he'd chuck his toys out of the pram, quit the sport altogether and go off in pursuit of some other arena in which he can be the centre of attention with no one to challenge him.

Sad.

Wednesday 12 July 2017

MISERABLE ANDY OUT OF WIMBLEDON

No one can doubt that Andy Murray is a very good tennis player, certainly the best that Britain has ever produced. One can only wish that he was a more attractive personality.

His defeat at the hands of Sam Querrey in today's Wimbledon quarter-final was unexpected to say the least, though Murray looked increasingly uncomfortable as the match progressed and his virtual collapse in the final 2 sets surely indicated that he was not fully fit. His movement on court was even more 'porky' than usual and suggested continuing hip problems, while his contorted facial expressions suggested a man in all kinds of mental torment.

While some players appear quite bright and breezy, Murray always looks dull and miserable, except when letting out on of his jaw-splitting yells when he just looks plain ugly. He rarely seems to smile and his speech is slow and boring. His clothing on court is usually scruffy; his chosen colour schemes, Wimbledon whites excluded of course, tend to be dark and unattractive. He often sports the unshaven  appearance so beloved of many of today's trendy young men but which serves to simply suggest that they are unwashed as well as unkempt.

While Johanna Konta bubbles and smiles, Murray moans and grimaces. Konta gets on with it, while Murray bemoans his misfortune at every turn. Murray is dour, unsmiling and not all attractive, while Konta is the exact opposite. Given his career success and apparently very happy family life, why does Murray always seem to come across as such a miserable git ?

Murray is out of Wimbledon for this year which is a shame, but at least we'll be spared his miserable on-court persona. We still have Jo Konta to cheer for though and here's hoping that she can make up for the disappointment of Murray losing his crown.

Sunday 9 July 2017

LIONS DRAW WITH ALL BLACKS : NO WINNER ?

One of the great international contests ended on Saturday in a draw, with two incredibly tough teams fighting each other to a standstill. A draw between the British and Irish Lions and the New Zealand All Blacks was not only a fair result it was the right result, and yet some are whining about there not being a result at all.

In some sports there has to be a winner. Tennis, in particular, is one-on-one with a scoring system which does not allow for a  draw. However, football, cricket, and many others routinely produce draws and a draw in rugby, while less common, is a legitimate outcome. Unfortunately, modern audiences seem to shy away from anything other than a 'win-lose' outcome and so we have races of all sorts, between people, horses, cars, dogs and anything else that comes to mind, decided by thousandths of a second. Can we really determine which competitor has crossed the finishing line first down to such a level, indeed, should we ?

In days gone by, before the incredibly fine timing and high speed cameras that we have today, 'dead heats' were frequently the outcome of races. When competitors have given their all and yet cross the line within a hair's breadth of each other, do we really need to separate them by the odd thousandth of a second, an interval of time that none of us can imagine, let alone determine, without the aid of specialised technology ?

Those who complain about the outcome of Saturday's wonderful rugby match and argue for some way of determining 'a winner', are misguided. There are scoring systems in rugby which allow for such tinkering when it is essential, as in the Six Nations' or World Cup competitions, but this was a series of 3 stand-alone matches with no need to determine an absolute 'winner'. In fact, both teams emerged as winners and with huge credit from 3 terrifically hard fought games. 

Neither side deserved to lose and it would have been a travesty if some artificial mechanism had been introduced to ensure that a 'winner' emerged. This series will go down in history as one of the great international contests and that both the final match and the series ended as draws will serve only to enhance its status in the folk lore of Rugby Union. In truth, everybody won.

Saturday 24 June 2017

THE LIONS LOST .. BUT NEXT TIME ...... ?? !!

The All Blacks, a phrase that might be construed as racist in any other arena, beat the British and Irish Lions. Is that so surprising ?


The All Blacks are the best national side in the world and have been for most of the time since the game of rugby was invented; for some reason it's become their national sport. As a small country, they've adopted it as their way of making an impression on the rest of the world and, by heavens, have they achieved their goal. It has become the equivalent of a religion and the traditional 'Haka' that is performed before every one of their matches is one of the great spectacles of sport.


The All Blacks did dominate the match but their dominance found resolution on only a couple of occasions; the Lions defended brilliantly and even scored one of the 'great tries' in reply, begun by Liam Williams and ended by Sean O'Brien. Nonetheless, the Lions lost, but they will have
learned much in defeat.


This ain't over yet !!!

Wednesday 31 May 2017

MARGARET COURT ARENA FOR EVER !

Margaret Court, or Margaret Smith as she was originally, was one of the greatest tennis stars of the 1960s and 1970s; she won 24 Grand Slam singles titles, including the all four in 1970, 19 Women's Doubles and 21 Mixed Doubles, including all 4 twice, in 1963 and 1965. Her overall record as a player exceeds that achieved by any other woman in tennis history and she stands alone as quite possibly the greatest female tennis player ever.


In recognition of her status, one of the main arenas at Melbourne Park, home of the Australian Grand Slam tournament, has been named the 'Margaret Court Arena' since 2003. However, this naming is now under attack as, after her tennis career ended, Margaret Court became a Pentecostal Church Minister and, in this capacity, has expressed vociferous opposition to abortion, homosexuality and marriage between people of the same sex.


Numerous former players, notably the lesbians Billie-Jean King and Martina Navratilova, have criticised Court for her views and there are now calls from some for the Margaret Court Arena to be renamed. Samantha Stosur, a lesbian Australian player, has suggested that players may refuse to play at next year's Australian tournament in protest, unless the Arena is renamed; Andy Murray, who has involved himself in this row for no obvious reason, has also chimed in, suggesting that 'something should be done' and calling for a quick resolution to the matter before the tournament takes place.


For the record, I think that marriage between 2 men or 2 women is idiotic nonsense and that far too much attention has been paid to so-called 'gay rights'. I also think that the culture of 'abortion on demand' is fundamentally wrong and destructive of our society. These are my views and, whether others like them or not, I stand by them. Margaret Court is entitled to the same privilege.


Court's personal views on these matters do not impinge on the lives of others and do no one any harm. She has not advocated any form of violence or action against those with whom she disagrees; she has not, for instance, demanded that lesbians should not be allowed to play on 'her' court. However, it seems that the offended players are the ones who don't want to play unless it's on their terms, and one of those terms is that the court be renamed. Frankly, this is a ridiculous argument trumped up by a small number of people with an axe to grind and it should be treated as such.


In 1973, many players refused to play at Wimbledon after a row about the suspension of a player, Nikola Pilic; nonetheless, the tournament went ahead and was a roaring success. In fact, many players who would never had had the opportunity to play at Wimbledon found themselves experiencing a genuine 'once in a lifetime' thrill.


Margaret Court's tennis record speaks for itself and is monumental; her personal views are just that and are irrelevant. To rename the Arena would be to submit to the bullying of a pressure group and it should be resisted, as should all attempts to limit free speech or rewrite history in such ways. If that means that some players will boycott the tournament, so be it. The Australian Open will survive, tennis will survive and there will be opportunities for others to show off their talents.