Tuesday 29 September 2009
Rugby: Jonny Wilkinson
There's an interesting interview with Jonny Wilkinson on The Guardian's website. We have heard the story about how he is coming back to full form and fitness numerous times before, so only time will tell if we will see the last few years of his career pass off successfully and healthily in an England shirt. However, that he has found some level of peace of mind in his new surroundings is promising at least. It is also interesting that he has been advising Danny Cipriani. Having both players (or even just one of them) fit and in form would go a long way to restoring the fortunes of the England side.
Saturday 26 September 2009
Rugby: Gavin Henson
Gavin Henson is one of the biggest names in Northern Hemisphere rugby, yet in recent times he has been garnering more headlines for the amount of time he is spending off the field rather than on it. For all his celebrity, Henson has achieved very little on the field. He has appeared in two grand slam winning Wales teams, and was selected for the 2005 Lions tour, but for a player with such talent, and the subject of such hype and attention, his impact on the field really boils down to a handful of moments. This week, the news that he has been excluded from the Ospreys’ Heineken Cup squad has led to a couple of good pieces in the press, as his injury-induced indefinite leave from the game drags on.
As former Welsh international Mark Ring puts it in one article:
"What has he really done? Kick a long-range penalty to beat England and dump an 18-year-old kid [Mathew Tait, in that England match in 2005] on his backside. For a guy with so much natural talent it's not a great return."
Put simply, Henson has achieved little of substance despite a lot of fuss. Even in the 2005 grand slam, he was arguably no better than Tom Shanklin, his partner at centre, who lacks the modelling contracts and celebrity partner, and therefore gets much less attention. Yet he is clearly a genuinely talented player, with all the skills to be one of the best in the world.
Henson’s celebrity and diffident attitude has never really attracted much sympathy. However, if there has been one benefit of his time away from the game, it has been that it has allowed a more balanced assessment of his character, and a recognition that despite the way he has seemingly courted the limelight, in reality he is a somewhat conflicted personality, who has struggled with the pressures placed upon him. There may be something in the suggestion that he would be better off moving to another club, in order to find an environment where he can be more at ease. Perhaps moving to an English or a French club would suit him better. The French have a more laid back approach to the game, and he would be less well known over there, whilst in England, were he to sign for a London club for instance, he would be just one of many famous faces in a big city, and less likely to feel like he is in a goldfish bowl.
Henson appears to be at a crossroads then. Some of his problems are undoubtedly self-inflicted, especially his bad behaviour in public, but he has also suffered from ill-timed injuries that have affected his morale. He needs to decide whether or not he loves the game enough to carry on, and if he does, then he needs to accept that there are certain things required of him as a professional:
"Henson's misfortune is little compared to that suffered by Jonny Wilkinson since England won the 2003 World Cup, But whereas Wilkinson was born to be a professional sportsman, devoting most of his waking hours to rugby, Henson is a freer spirit who gets his satisfaction out of playing rather than preparation or talking about the game."
It is sad to see any player drift away from the game with their talent unfulfilled, especially one who has the potential to light up the biggest of stages, and aged 27, Henson realistically has a 5 year window to make his mark.
As former Welsh international Mark Ring puts it in one article:
"What has he really done? Kick a long-range penalty to beat England and dump an 18-year-old kid [Mathew Tait, in that England match in 2005] on his backside. For a guy with so much natural talent it's not a great return."
Put simply, Henson has achieved little of substance despite a lot of fuss. Even in the 2005 grand slam, he was arguably no better than Tom Shanklin, his partner at centre, who lacks the modelling contracts and celebrity partner, and therefore gets much less attention. Yet he is clearly a genuinely talented player, with all the skills to be one of the best in the world.
Henson’s celebrity and diffident attitude has never really attracted much sympathy. However, if there has been one benefit of his time away from the game, it has been that it has allowed a more balanced assessment of his character, and a recognition that despite the way he has seemingly courted the limelight, in reality he is a somewhat conflicted personality, who has struggled with the pressures placed upon him. There may be something in the suggestion that he would be better off moving to another club, in order to find an environment where he can be more at ease. Perhaps moving to an English or a French club would suit him better. The French have a more laid back approach to the game, and he would be less well known over there, whilst in England, were he to sign for a London club for instance, he would be just one of many famous faces in a big city, and less likely to feel like he is in a goldfish bowl.
Henson appears to be at a crossroads then. Some of his problems are undoubtedly self-inflicted, especially his bad behaviour in public, but he has also suffered from ill-timed injuries that have affected his morale. He needs to decide whether or not he loves the game enough to carry on, and if he does, then he needs to accept that there are certain things required of him as a professional:
"Henson's misfortune is little compared to that suffered by Jonny Wilkinson since England won the 2003 World Cup, But whereas Wilkinson was born to be a professional sportsman, devoting most of his waking hours to rugby, Henson is a freer spirit who gets his satisfaction out of playing rather than preparation or talking about the game."
It is sad to see any player drift away from the game with their talent unfulfilled, especially one who has the potential to light up the biggest of stages, and aged 27, Henson realistically has a 5 year window to make his mark.
Monday 14 September 2009
NFL: Mr Relevant
One of the more lighthearted traditions in professional sport is the annual naming of the NFL’s “Mr Irrelevant”, the last player chosen in the seven round draft of college players made each spring. The exact number of players chosen in the draft varies year to year, but is usually between 250 and 260. That said, at least Mr Irrelevant is more relevant than the many players picked up as undrafted free agents.
It is good to see then, this year’s Mr Irrelevant not only made it through training camp and onto his team’s final roster, but that he is now starting in the NFL and kicking points for them as well, in spite of his unglamorous title.
It is good to see then, this year’s Mr Irrelevant not only made it through training camp and onto his team’s final roster, but that he is now starting in the NFL and kicking points for them as well, in spite of his unglamorous title.
Rugby: Argentina Join the Tri-Nations
Great news today that Argentina are to join the Tri-Nations tournament. It has long been an injustice that the Pumas have been deprived of guaranteed regular competition, instead relying on their ability to schedule tour matches in Europe every year. The major rugby nations had been for many years looking the other way, with the SANZAR nations arguing that the Argentineans should play in Europe, where most of their players are based, and the European teams arguing that they should play in the southern hemisphere. Neither party seemed to want to take responsibility for the Pumas, presumably worried about their own attendance levels and television contracts.
Nonetheless, it always made sense for them to play in their own hemisphere, allowing them to play at home in Argentina, and develop the game there. Playing matches in Spain would have done little in the long run for Argentinean rugby. Their domestic game is still amateur, so having regular international rugby in the southern hemisphere season could be a prelude to going professional at home.
The conditions in the agreement are worth noting, as they include suggestions that the Super 14 sides will home the Argentinean players, making sure they are playing in the right season, and hopefully bringing closer the prospect of an Argentinean side in an expanded Super 14.
Regular competition will do wonders for the game in what has become one of the most respected rugby nations outside of the big five of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, England and France. The chance to develop their national side against high quality opposition, regular access to their top players, and a greater fan and player base at home, will all make a huge difference. If the Pumas are capable of a third-placed finish at the Rugby World Cup without these elements, then it seems distinctly possible that a genuine World Cup challenge could be mounted in 2015, after the new deal takes effect.
The addition will also be great for the Tri-Nations. The tournament has added extra games in recent years, and has the highest standard of rugby in the world, but has suffered from a lack of variety. The same players and locations are seen week-in, week-out in the tournament and the Super 14, and that lack of variety is something that has been cited by players who have headed north to Europe. Adding Argentina will bring in new players, new fans, new locations and a different rugby culture, and should create a more expansive feel to the tournament.
Much is made of expanding the game of rugby into new territories, a key factor in the game’s drive for Olympic recognition. However, there are many existing rugby nations that need support from the international community first. Should this move go to plan, the rugby world can turn its attention to developing the prospects of the Pacific and eastern European nations, where there are real opportunities to develop into the professional game.
Nonetheless, it always made sense for them to play in their own hemisphere, allowing them to play at home in Argentina, and develop the game there. Playing matches in Spain would have done little in the long run for Argentinean rugby. Their domestic game is still amateur, so having regular international rugby in the southern hemisphere season could be a prelude to going professional at home.
The conditions in the agreement are worth noting, as they include suggestions that the Super 14 sides will home the Argentinean players, making sure they are playing in the right season, and hopefully bringing closer the prospect of an Argentinean side in an expanded Super 14.
Regular competition will do wonders for the game in what has become one of the most respected rugby nations outside of the big five of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, England and France. The chance to develop their national side against high quality opposition, regular access to their top players, and a greater fan and player base at home, will all make a huge difference. If the Pumas are capable of a third-placed finish at the Rugby World Cup without these elements, then it seems distinctly possible that a genuine World Cup challenge could be mounted in 2015, after the new deal takes effect.
The addition will also be great for the Tri-Nations. The tournament has added extra games in recent years, and has the highest standard of rugby in the world, but has suffered from a lack of variety. The same players and locations are seen week-in, week-out in the tournament and the Super 14, and that lack of variety is something that has been cited by players who have headed north to Europe. Adding Argentina will bring in new players, new fans, new locations and a different rugby culture, and should create a more expansive feel to the tournament.
Much is made of expanding the game of rugby into new territories, a key factor in the game’s drive for Olympic recognition. However, there are many existing rugby nations that need support from the international community first. Should this move go to plan, the rugby world can turn its attention to developing the prospects of the Pacific and eastern European nations, where there are real opportunities to develop into the professional game.
Sunday 13 September 2009
Rugby: Saracens 19-16 Northampton
Saracens overcame Northampton in a gritty match on Saturday, in which defences were on top for much of the encounter. The match, the first club rugby game to be held at Wembley Stadium, drew an impressive crowd of 44,000, and generated a good atmosphere, but the fans were rewarded with a poor quality game.
In the first half, both sides seemed a little overawed by their surroundings, despite the number of international players on both teams, resulting in an-error strewn 40 minutes. Neither set of backs showed much penetration, with too much rugby being played in front of the opposing defences. Both Glen Jackson and Shane Geraghty struggled to kick some simple chances, whilst Jackson saw a ponderous drop-goal attempt charged down. However he eventually found his range and the home side went in 9-3 leaders at half time.
The second half was a livelier affair, and sparked into life within minutes, when Noah Cato’s tackle on Dylan Hartley not only stopped a promising Northampton attack, but also dislodged the ball, enabling the winger to pick up and run in a length of the field try. Moments later the tables were turned, as the visitors put together another attack, with Geraghty involved twice before Phil Dowson put Jon Clarke over in the corner.
A further exchange of penalties, followed by a second of the half for Geraghty saw Northampton draw within three points of Saracens, and the visitors were the ones playing the better rugby in the final quarter, finally getting some momentum and moving the ball downfield, especially with Saracens hooker Schalk Brits in the sin-bin. With minutes to go, Northampton prop Soane Tonga'uiha looked to have stolen a win, powering over the line from close range. However, after a lengthy look at the footage, the television match official ruled that the Tongan had knocked on, and after one last attack fizzled out, Northampton ran out of time.
Northampton will feel that they played the better rugby, but neither side played anywhere close to their best. Had the otherwise lively Geraghty kicked more accurately it might have been a different story, but Saracens will feel content to have come away with the points in front of such a large crowd. However, any new fans in attendance are unlikely to have been impressed by the standard of the rugby on offer.
In the first half, both sides seemed a little overawed by their surroundings, despite the number of international players on both teams, resulting in an-error strewn 40 minutes. Neither set of backs showed much penetration, with too much rugby being played in front of the opposing defences. Both Glen Jackson and Shane Geraghty struggled to kick some simple chances, whilst Jackson saw a ponderous drop-goal attempt charged down. However he eventually found his range and the home side went in 9-3 leaders at half time.
The second half was a livelier affair, and sparked into life within minutes, when Noah Cato’s tackle on Dylan Hartley not only stopped a promising Northampton attack, but also dislodged the ball, enabling the winger to pick up and run in a length of the field try. Moments later the tables were turned, as the visitors put together another attack, with Geraghty involved twice before Phil Dowson put Jon Clarke over in the corner.
A further exchange of penalties, followed by a second of the half for Geraghty saw Northampton draw within three points of Saracens, and the visitors were the ones playing the better rugby in the final quarter, finally getting some momentum and moving the ball downfield, especially with Saracens hooker Schalk Brits in the sin-bin. With minutes to go, Northampton prop Soane Tonga'uiha looked to have stolen a win, powering over the line from close range. However, after a lengthy look at the footage, the television match official ruled that the Tongan had knocked on, and after one last attack fizzled out, Northampton ran out of time.
Northampton will feel that they played the better rugby, but neither side played anywhere close to their best. Had the otherwise lively Geraghty kicked more accurately it might have been a different story, but Saracens will feel content to have come away with the points in front of such a large crowd. However, any new fans in attendance are unlikely to have been impressed by the standard of the rugby on offer.
NFL: The 2009 Season
The NFL season got underway on Thursday night with a gritty win for the reigning champions, the Pittsburgh Steelers, overcoming last season’s early season pacesetters, the Tennessee Titans in overtime.
With the regular season now up and running, it’s worth taking a quick look at the contenders. The beauty of the NFL is how open it is. Around half the teams in the league will fancy themselves for at least an outside run at a place in the Superbowl. After all, if last year’s runners up, the Arizona Cardinals can do it, after years as the butt of everyone’s jokes, then nothing is impossible
Genuine contenders:
New England, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York Giants, Tennessee, Baltimore, San Diego, Minnesota, Arizona, Dallas.
Outside bets:
Carolina, Chicago, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Green Bay, Seattle.
Of those outside bets, it seems a little early for the new regimes in Seattle or Indianapolis, with the latter being tipped for a disappointing season, although one should never write Peyton Manning off. Meanwhile Carolina have failed to string winning seasons together, Chicago need to develop, and New Orleans and Green Bay need to prove their new defences are as good as their offences.
Of the favourites, the reigning Steelers still look good, but may struggle with everyone gunning for them, and with their ongoing offensive line problems. The Patriots look very strong with Tom Brady back from injury, but need to prove the worth of their new-look defensive line-up. Dallas are, for once, a low profile team, and could break their 13 year playoff win drought, although the big prize is probably too much for them given their lack of playoff experience. Philadelphia look very strong, especially after last year’s run, but they have rebuilt. If the new players can gel with the veterans, and Michael Vick can help the offence rather than disrupt it, they could win the whole thing, however it might take another season for the younger players to settle in. The Giants have to prove they can score touchdowns without the imprisoned Plaxico Burress – last year they struggled badly once he was ruled out. The Titans and the Ravens need to show that there’s more to their games than defence and a powerful ruining game, but both sides, especially the Ravens with their veteran leadership, could go all the way. Of all the contenders, the Minnesota Vikings and the San Diego Chargers probably have the best all round teams. For the Vikings, the question is, can Brett Favre integrate into their side, and can he still perform to the championship-winning level of his earlier career? For the Chargers, a side who have flirted with success in recent years, its time to step up and make a serious challenge. With star linebacker Shawn Merriman back from injury, they have no excuses. Another playoff failure and coach Norv Turner could find himself out of a job, as the owners have proved impatient in the past with coaches who have failed to take this talented squad on to the next level.
This column’s prediction: New Orleans to be this year’s Arizona, coming up on the rails and surprising the NFC to beat the Eagles in the NFC Championship game and progress to the Superbowl, where they’ll lose to the Chargers, who will have overcome the Ravens in the AFC. A side note though, neither of those sides has ever won the Superbowl, and new sides do not win very often. The last first-time winner was Tampa Bay in 2002. However, the Chargers have as good a chance this year, as they have ever had.
With the regular season now up and running, it’s worth taking a quick look at the contenders. The beauty of the NFL is how open it is. Around half the teams in the league will fancy themselves for at least an outside run at a place in the Superbowl. After all, if last year’s runners up, the Arizona Cardinals can do it, after years as the butt of everyone’s jokes, then nothing is impossible
Genuine contenders:
New England, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York Giants, Tennessee, Baltimore, San Diego, Minnesota, Arizona, Dallas.
Outside bets:
Carolina, Chicago, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Green Bay, Seattle.
Of those outside bets, it seems a little early for the new regimes in Seattle or Indianapolis, with the latter being tipped for a disappointing season, although one should never write Peyton Manning off. Meanwhile Carolina have failed to string winning seasons together, Chicago need to develop, and New Orleans and Green Bay need to prove their new defences are as good as their offences.
Of the favourites, the reigning Steelers still look good, but may struggle with everyone gunning for them, and with their ongoing offensive line problems. The Patriots look very strong with Tom Brady back from injury, but need to prove the worth of their new-look defensive line-up. Dallas are, for once, a low profile team, and could break their 13 year playoff win drought, although the big prize is probably too much for them given their lack of playoff experience. Philadelphia look very strong, especially after last year’s run, but they have rebuilt. If the new players can gel with the veterans, and Michael Vick can help the offence rather than disrupt it, they could win the whole thing, however it might take another season for the younger players to settle in. The Giants have to prove they can score touchdowns without the imprisoned Plaxico Burress – last year they struggled badly once he was ruled out. The Titans and the Ravens need to show that there’s more to their games than defence and a powerful ruining game, but both sides, especially the Ravens with their veteran leadership, could go all the way. Of all the contenders, the Minnesota Vikings and the San Diego Chargers probably have the best all round teams. For the Vikings, the question is, can Brett Favre integrate into their side, and can he still perform to the championship-winning level of his earlier career? For the Chargers, a side who have flirted with success in recent years, its time to step up and make a serious challenge. With star linebacker Shawn Merriman back from injury, they have no excuses. Another playoff failure and coach Norv Turner could find himself out of a job, as the owners have proved impatient in the past with coaches who have failed to take this talented squad on to the next level.
This column’s prediction: New Orleans to be this year’s Arizona, coming up on the rails and surprising the NFC to beat the Eagles in the NFC Championship game and progress to the Superbowl, where they’ll lose to the Chargers, who will have overcome the Ravens in the AFC. A side note though, neither of those sides has ever won the Superbowl, and new sides do not win very often. The last first-time winner was Tampa Bay in 2002. However, the Chargers have as good a chance this year, as they have ever had.
Wednesday 9 September 2009
Rugby: Medical Ethics in the Harlequins Scandal
The most serious allegation in rugby’s fake blood scandal was that Tom Williams’ lip was deliberately cut after the game in order to make the faked injury look realistic.
It is unsurprising then, that the General Medical Council have decided to investigate the conduct of Dr Wendy Chapman in the affair. Whilst the rest of the scandal matters only to the rugby world, the question of medical ethics is of greater concern, and it is worrying that a doctor was able to be pressured into harming a patient (albeit in a minor way), to help her employer. Dr Chapman was clearly put under a lot of pressure in a hostile and rushed situation, and took action at the behest of the player himself, but if there is one area of that saga that must not be repeated, it is this, otherwise it is a slippery slope from here on in.
Hopefully other medical professionals in the sporting world have taken note, and will learn the important lesson from Dr Chapman’s case. After all, although it would be nice to think that those involved had a higher duty to the game of rugby, in truth only the doctor had a formal duty to anyone other than her employer.
It is unsurprising then, that the General Medical Council have decided to investigate the conduct of Dr Wendy Chapman in the affair. Whilst the rest of the scandal matters only to the rugby world, the question of medical ethics is of greater concern, and it is worrying that a doctor was able to be pressured into harming a patient (albeit in a minor way), to help her employer. Dr Chapman was clearly put under a lot of pressure in a hostile and rushed situation, and took action at the behest of the player himself, but if there is one area of that saga that must not be repeated, it is this, otherwise it is a slippery slope from here on in.
Hopefully other medical professionals in the sporting world have taken note, and will learn the important lesson from Dr Chapman’s case. After all, although it would be nice to think that those involved had a higher duty to the game of rugby, in truth only the doctor had a formal duty to anyone other than her employer.
Rugby: Setting Itself Up For A Fall?
There has been a growing trend in recent years for rugby fans to portray their sport as morally superior to other sports, specifically football, whenever a scandal breaks in the round ball game. Players don’t play act, there is respect for referees, no crowd trouble, players who are responsible and well-behaved, all part of the sport that provides real role models.
This is what has come to a head this summer. Rugby was never that sport, and never will be. It does have some advantages over football in the attitude to referees, and the way fans behave, but it clearly also has a less savoury side.
Eddie Butler made some very astute comments on 5 Live on Saturday (49 mins in, also alluded to in his column in The Observer), observing that only in England does rugby has this “nobbish” image, that in the rest of the rugby world, it is known as a sport full of skulduggery and “cheekiness”, and that the fans love it for that. If one thinks about it, he’s right. Even in this country, if one thinks of amateur rugby, one thinks of on-field dirty tricks, boozy nights out and all kinds of misbehaviour. Fans still revel in the tales such as the off-field exploits of the 1974 Lions, and Dean Richards damaging the Calcutta Cup in 1988.
The problem for rugby is that the professional era has coincided with the age of celebrity. What started with Will Carling has moved on via Lawrence Dallaglio to Danny Cipriani and Gavin Henson. There is more media scrutiny on its players at a time when they will find themselves with more money and more free time than ever before (no more balancing top-flight sport with real jobs). Meanwhile, there is more pressure on coaches and players to win now that livelihoods are on the line, more pressure on club administrators and owners to stay afloat, and more financial investment in the game by its fans than ever before. Now even middle-ranking players, such as those in the Bath drugs scandal, are targets for the tabloids.
The result is that that old-fashioned cheekiness that still exists in the amateur game is going to draw headlines at the professional level. When a player in the amateur game stands up on a team bus to extol the benefits of recreational drugs, so long as none of his teammates are policemen, no-one is likely to care. When a professional does it, are repercussions. When a professional coach wants to get a player, who has already been substituted, back on the field, he thinks back to his own playing days, when the law of the jungle applied, and acts accordingly. This is not to defend Dean Richards, nor to suggest that faking injuries goes on at the amateur levels. The point is that rugby has never been a clean sport, and in portraying itself as one for the last decade, it has done a great sales job. But it was setting itself up for a fall, and that fall came this summer.
This is what has come to a head this summer. Rugby was never that sport, and never will be. It does have some advantages over football in the attitude to referees, and the way fans behave, but it clearly also has a less savoury side.
Eddie Butler made some very astute comments on 5 Live on Saturday (49 mins in, also alluded to in his column in The Observer), observing that only in England does rugby has this “nobbish” image, that in the rest of the rugby world, it is known as a sport full of skulduggery and “cheekiness”, and that the fans love it for that. If one thinks about it, he’s right. Even in this country, if one thinks of amateur rugby, one thinks of on-field dirty tricks, boozy nights out and all kinds of misbehaviour. Fans still revel in the tales such as the off-field exploits of the 1974 Lions, and Dean Richards damaging the Calcutta Cup in 1988.
The problem for rugby is that the professional era has coincided with the age of celebrity. What started with Will Carling has moved on via Lawrence Dallaglio to Danny Cipriani and Gavin Henson. There is more media scrutiny on its players at a time when they will find themselves with more money and more free time than ever before (no more balancing top-flight sport with real jobs). Meanwhile, there is more pressure on coaches and players to win now that livelihoods are on the line, more pressure on club administrators and owners to stay afloat, and more financial investment in the game by its fans than ever before. Now even middle-ranking players, such as those in the Bath drugs scandal, are targets for the tabloids.
The result is that that old-fashioned cheekiness that still exists in the amateur game is going to draw headlines at the professional level. When a player in the amateur game stands up on a team bus to extol the benefits of recreational drugs, so long as none of his teammates are policemen, no-one is likely to care. When a professional does it, are repercussions. When a professional coach wants to get a player, who has already been substituted, back on the field, he thinks back to his own playing days, when the law of the jungle applied, and acts accordingly. This is not to defend Dean Richards, nor to suggest that faking injuries goes on at the amateur levels. The point is that rugby has never been a clean sport, and in portraying itself as one for the last decade, it has done a great sales job. But it was setting itself up for a fall, and that fall came this summer.
Sunday 6 September 2009
Football: More on Chelsea
There's a good piece in today's Sunday Times wrapping up Chelsea's dubious history regarding the signing of young players. Aside from the concerns expressed about consistency in the previous post, there seems to be little argument that Chelsea were failing to learn lessons from these previous instances, or felt that they would never be sanctioned in any way that could actually hurt them. How wrong they were.
Friday 4 September 2009
Football: Chelsea's ban
Chelsea’s ban on signing new players until 2011 as punishment for their conduct in the signing of Gael Kakuta from Lens has garnered little sympathy around the footballing world. The club has been perceived as playing fast and loose with the rules on signing young players for some time now, with a number of signings from other clubs coming via the tribunal system, although Frank Arnesen’s expensively assembled youth squad has yet to produce any serious return from its investments.
Whilst Chelsea deserve their punishment, the matter does raise concerns about consistency. If this is going to be FIFA’s approach to such illegal approaches, why have they not unveiled them before now for more offences? Other teams have committed similar or worse offences, and have escaped with lesser punishments.
If this is an indication of a new, hard-line approach, then that is fair enough, but were clubs warned that there was a new system in place, that would hit them so hard? It is not a question of sympathy for Chelsea, but one of consistency. Many such offences go on throughout the footballing world on a regular basis. Will FIFA stick to its guns and use this punishment in other such cases? If it does not, it will appear to be picking on the English side. If it does, there will be a lot of clubs around Europe with a signings ban in place. How far are FIFA willing to take this, and will their resolve stand up to each new case?
Whilst Chelsea deserve their punishment, the matter does raise concerns about consistency. If this is going to be FIFA’s approach to such illegal approaches, why have they not unveiled them before now for more offences? Other teams have committed similar or worse offences, and have escaped with lesser punishments.
If this is an indication of a new, hard-line approach, then that is fair enough, but were clubs warned that there was a new system in place, that would hit them so hard? It is not a question of sympathy for Chelsea, but one of consistency. Many such offences go on throughout the footballing world on a regular basis. Will FIFA stick to its guns and use this punishment in other such cases? If it does not, it will appear to be picking on the English side. If it does, there will be a lot of clubs around Europe with a signings ban in place. How far are FIFA willing to take this, and will their resolve stand up to each new case?
Wednesday 2 September 2009
NFL: Quarterbacks
With the NFL regular season not long away, there has been a spate of media pieces tackling what it takes to be a top level quarterback, and how teams should go about developing them. This is always a relevant issue, but all of this off-season’s major NFL news stories have involved quarterbacks, just adding to the scrutiny: Jay Cutler falling out with Denver and moving to Chicago, Tom Brady’s return from injury, Michael Vick’s return from prison, Brett Favre retiring and unretiring with Minnesota, the Lions drafting Matthew Stafford, the Jets drafting Mark Sanchez.
The big debates currently doing the rounds include:
1) How much should a team risk to get a top-quality quarterback? (see Favre, Cutler).
2) What is the best way to develop a rookie? Start him, or make him wait? (Sanchez, Stafford).
With that in mind:
Superbowl winner Trent Dilfer rates the current crop of NFL QBs, gives very interesting assessments, and calls for sympathy for possibly the most exposed job in team sports.
ESPN take readers through the backup QBs around the league.
The NFL Total Access team have a typically rambunctious discussion about identifying the best players in the position at the moment, what they look for in a top quarterback, and the importance of the position.
The big debates currently doing the rounds include:
1) How much should a team risk to get a top-quality quarterback? (see Favre, Cutler).
2) What is the best way to develop a rookie? Start him, or make him wait? (Sanchez, Stafford).
With that in mind:
Superbowl winner Trent Dilfer rates the current crop of NFL QBs, gives very interesting assessments, and calls for sympathy for possibly the most exposed job in team sports.
ESPN take readers through the backup QBs around the league.
The NFL Total Access team have a typically rambunctious discussion about identifying the best players in the position at the moment, what they look for in a top quarterback, and the importance of the position.
Rugby: The Fake Blood Scandal
The summer of 2009 started brightly for the image of rugby union in the British Isles. Although the Lions’ test series against South Africa ended in defeat, the epic nature of the series put the sport in the headlines for all the right reasons. Schalk Burger’s suspension for eye gouging made for an unpleasant subplot, but on the whole, the clubs of the English Premiership must have been looking forward to increased levels of interest in the new season.
Two months later and the top stories on the agenda for the 2009/10 season are drugs and fake blood. Much has been written about how the Harlequins fake blood scandal has damaged the image of the sport, and the rugby community is right to be outraged, especially for a sport which often sells itself on its integrity. However, the level of hysteria over the affair has been excessive. Other sports have faced worse scandals and survived, and rugby will be no different, so long as the authorities act to prevent this situation from arising again. This is not to diminish the seriousness of the matter, just to observe that it does not undermine the integrity of results to the degree of match fixing in cricket, or performance enhancing drugs in athletics or cycling.
Given that the consensus has been that Harlequins’ actions were indefensible, the main debate has focused on the level of punishments handed out. The fine levied on the club has met with little complaint. It will take pressure from club owners for this behaviour to be stamped out, and hitting the bottom line is the best way to do this. Their Heineken Cup place is still under threat, but organisers need to be careful. Having fined the club, they don’t want to throw its future into doubt by destroying its finances altogether. Ultimately the game is not served by ruining Harlequins. On the other hand, any success in this year’s tournament would be unwelcome. Perhaps it depends on examining the finances of Harlequins. If they can withstand expulsion, it must be considered to help wipe the slate clean. However, weeks have passed since the final punishments were issued, and the more time passes, the harder it will be to justify further sanctions. Luckily they lost the fateful quarterfinal against Leinster, so there is no result to be corrected.
Tom Williams’ ban is less debatable. The initial year-long ban was harsh, but clearly a ploy to force his testimony. On the field, he was put in a position, in front of 12,000 people in the stadium, and millions on TV, where it was difficult to refuse orders. However, committed the act, and a ban of three months will warn other players about their future conduct.
Steph Brennan, the physio, has been given a two-year ban, and has resigned from his job with the England team. It is hard to know the long-term damage to his career, but was it proportionate? That is the same length as Matt Stevens’ ban for failing a drug test. However, he played a key role, although following Richards’ orders, and it is right that he should be punished, and perhaps best for the image of the game if he is kept away from it. It would have been an unwelcome distraction for the England team management if he had stayed in his role with the national side. Two years perhaps seems harsh, but so long as he can find work elsewhere, then justice has been served by removing him from rugby.
The main headlines have been reserved for Dean Richards’ three-year worldwide ban, which leaves his career in tatters. With his former profession as a policeman long in the past, he will have to find a new one. He deserves a lengthy ban as the mastermind of the scheme, however the proportionality must be examined. Wilfully injuring another player in a way that could permanently affect his eyesight gets an eight-week ban. Failing to take a drug test, nine months. Failing a test, two years. Cheating the rules to make an illegal substitution, three years. Whilst recreational drugs do not threaten the integrity of results in the same way that performance enhancing ones would, they cast the shadow of illegality. Rugby needs to balance offences against the game alongside offences against public morality and the law, and against offences which threaten player safety. Richards’ ban has also resulted from his overall conduct, which has shown a surprising level of contempt for the values of the game that he has made his life over a 20 year period, and this is ultimately why he has received so little sympathy. He has appeared arrogant and willing to corrupt those around him to the last.
Rugby clearly needs to standardise its punishments, and make the process more transparent. An international code may not be necessary, and might prove logistically difficult, however each nation should produce its own regulations, perhaps within internationally agreed guidelines.
In a way, this scandal has been a good thing. As Rob Andrew recently observed, professional rugby is still a young sport. There are still players remaining from the amateur era, when there was self-policing, and less pressure to win. Although it would be nice if professional rules and practices had been laid down since the start, the reality is that it takes years to adapt to as big a culture shift as this, and it will take episodes like this one to help that process, however painful. Indeed, the RFU have already announced changes to match-day regulations designed to counter these problems.
It has not helped that this story has reached its conclusion during the offseason, with no other rugby headlines to focus on. Once the season begins, there will be a shift to on-field matters, and although the ripples from this story will continue to be felt, eventually the rugby community will move on. For now, it is a question of learning the lessons and deterring others from similar offences.
Two months later and the top stories on the agenda for the 2009/10 season are drugs and fake blood. Much has been written about how the Harlequins fake blood scandal has damaged the image of the sport, and the rugby community is right to be outraged, especially for a sport which often sells itself on its integrity. However, the level of hysteria over the affair has been excessive. Other sports have faced worse scandals and survived, and rugby will be no different, so long as the authorities act to prevent this situation from arising again. This is not to diminish the seriousness of the matter, just to observe that it does not undermine the integrity of results to the degree of match fixing in cricket, or performance enhancing drugs in athletics or cycling.
Given that the consensus has been that Harlequins’ actions were indefensible, the main debate has focused on the level of punishments handed out. The fine levied on the club has met with little complaint. It will take pressure from club owners for this behaviour to be stamped out, and hitting the bottom line is the best way to do this. Their Heineken Cup place is still under threat, but organisers need to be careful. Having fined the club, they don’t want to throw its future into doubt by destroying its finances altogether. Ultimately the game is not served by ruining Harlequins. On the other hand, any success in this year’s tournament would be unwelcome. Perhaps it depends on examining the finances of Harlequins. If they can withstand expulsion, it must be considered to help wipe the slate clean. However, weeks have passed since the final punishments were issued, and the more time passes, the harder it will be to justify further sanctions. Luckily they lost the fateful quarterfinal against Leinster, so there is no result to be corrected.
Tom Williams’ ban is less debatable. The initial year-long ban was harsh, but clearly a ploy to force his testimony. On the field, he was put in a position, in front of 12,000 people in the stadium, and millions on TV, where it was difficult to refuse orders. However, committed the act, and a ban of three months will warn other players about their future conduct.
Steph Brennan, the physio, has been given a two-year ban, and has resigned from his job with the England team. It is hard to know the long-term damage to his career, but was it proportionate? That is the same length as Matt Stevens’ ban for failing a drug test. However, he played a key role, although following Richards’ orders, and it is right that he should be punished, and perhaps best for the image of the game if he is kept away from it. It would have been an unwelcome distraction for the England team management if he had stayed in his role with the national side. Two years perhaps seems harsh, but so long as he can find work elsewhere, then justice has been served by removing him from rugby.
The main headlines have been reserved for Dean Richards’ three-year worldwide ban, which leaves his career in tatters. With his former profession as a policeman long in the past, he will have to find a new one. He deserves a lengthy ban as the mastermind of the scheme, however the proportionality must be examined. Wilfully injuring another player in a way that could permanently affect his eyesight gets an eight-week ban. Failing to take a drug test, nine months. Failing a test, two years. Cheating the rules to make an illegal substitution, three years. Whilst recreational drugs do not threaten the integrity of results in the same way that performance enhancing ones would, they cast the shadow of illegality. Rugby needs to balance offences against the game alongside offences against public morality and the law, and against offences which threaten player safety. Richards’ ban has also resulted from his overall conduct, which has shown a surprising level of contempt for the values of the game that he has made his life over a 20 year period, and this is ultimately why he has received so little sympathy. He has appeared arrogant and willing to corrupt those around him to the last.
Rugby clearly needs to standardise its punishments, and make the process more transparent. An international code may not be necessary, and might prove logistically difficult, however each nation should produce its own regulations, perhaps within internationally agreed guidelines.
In a way, this scandal has been a good thing. As Rob Andrew recently observed, professional rugby is still a young sport. There are still players remaining from the amateur era, when there was self-policing, and less pressure to win. Although it would be nice if professional rules and practices had been laid down since the start, the reality is that it takes years to adapt to as big a culture shift as this, and it will take episodes like this one to help that process, however painful. Indeed, the RFU have already announced changes to match-day regulations designed to counter these problems.
It has not helped that this story has reached its conclusion during the offseason, with no other rugby headlines to focus on. Once the season begins, there will be a shift to on-field matters, and although the ripples from this story will continue to be felt, eventually the rugby community will move on. For now, it is a question of learning the lessons and deterring others from similar offences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)