Strictly Come Footering

Image via Wikipedia, author NilsF

Last Saturday Man U were at home to Chelsea in the English Premier League. It was the 33rd league match of the season and only 5 more to play.  Man U were leading the League with 72 points; Chelsea were second with 71 when the match began. This game was obviously going to be critical in deciding the league and the plaudits, the prestige, and the extra millions from sponsors and fans worldwide. Chelsea won 2-1 and now stand two points clear of their immediate rival.

Drogba scored their second goal but was clearly offside when seen on video replay. Man U's goal looked to have been involuntarily pushed over the line in a goalmouth scramble by their substitute Macheda. Each team should have had a penalty but the officials did not see things that way.

And the FA are doing sweet FA about making sure that referees get help to make the judgements they have to make. In this vacuum, conditions are ideal for another method of making judgements. It seems that everyone: pundits, columnists, even my ManU fan friend, Ivan, stated that Chelsea deserved to win despite the offside goal by Drogba.

So the field is open for a panel of judges and a phone-in open to the public to give their verdict on matches. Whatever, the score the final result will be what the public decides.

(Sometimes I don't know where I get my ideas from)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Manchester United-Chelsea: A Sucker Punch, Not a Knockout Blow As Blues Win 2-1 (bleacherreport.com)
• Do assistant refs need assistance? (cbc.ca)
• Man Utd 1-2 Chelsea: Blues in pole position (soccernet.espn.go.com)

The last Saturday in February: A sad day

The relationship of Terry and Bridge whose teams, Chelsea and Manchester City, met on Saturday with a rare home defeat 2-4 for Chelsea was given a high profile by the media and by curiosity from the rest of us. Would they shake hands during the pre-match ceremonies? Proferred by Terry, the  hand was ignored by Bridge as the visiting team walked the line formed by the home players.

This kind of 'sad' which involves the relationship two players had with the same woman can be considered to be beside the point in football. The fact that the relationship was unknown to Bridge until reported by a newspaper added public shame to the issue. And of course it does affect the way people in a team, in football and in other kinds of work, think about the way they co-operate.  It can affect respect but can it affect performance? Well, Chelsea lost at home for the first time in 25 matches. And Chelsea had two players sent off.  Was this a coincidence? I think so - there was a fault in squad selection.

The pair sent off were both experienced 33-year old players who have played for their countries. Belletti scored the winning goal for Barcelona in the 2006 Champions League final. Ballack is captain of Germany and has played in the last two World Cup competitions. His first yellow card was for complaining needlessly to the referee about a corner-kick. His second, when Chelsea were losing, was for wrapping his legs around an opponent from behind. Off he had to go! Belletti got a red direct when he chased Barry into the box directly behind! The inevitable happened: he seemed to touch feet with Barry, who fell. 

After two such incompetent acts committed when their team was losing and desperately needed goals you have to ask what these two players are even doing in the team playing for Chelsea.Where are their priorities?  Match Report.


What made the day truly sad was that Aaron Ramsey, the 19 year-old Arsenal mid-fielder had his leg broken in the match against Stoke. The faces of those on the field showed their shock and sympathy for the injured player. Shawcross, Stoke, was sent off  for the tackle he made on Ramsey and walked off in tears at what he had done. Match report.

Later in the day Shawcross would hear that  he had been chosen for the England squad for a midweek 'friendly' game against Egypt. His first cap.

Not Rocket Science!

Watching Porto v Chelsea last night on our 28" television, I kept looking for Ballack. He is a big man, over six feet. Dark hair, good looking athlete. I knew that he was supposed to be playing from pre-match information. It was a Champions League Group match which Chelsea won 1-0. I thought it was him once when a Chelsea player approaching the Porto penalty area received and then passed the ball. The commentator didn't mention it. And if it was him I was not able to identify him again until he was substituted. I realise that I have watched many matches without identifying Ballack. Over several seasons. The next day when he is praised in the press I think ....where was he? Don't get me wrong, I am not blaming Ballack, he may well have had a good game. But to the television spectator he is just a nameless figure representing Chelsea. Like plenty of others.



Commentators don't just comment. They are also identifiers! Interpreters of the screen made of dots of colour. Get real! I know we have huge screens, but the shapes we see are only in two dimensions and only centimetres high in distance shots. My familiarity with a shape will surely develop given time spent watching the shape. But only if it is identified. I want to know who I am watching. Remember the radio? The commentator tells you who has the ball.


On my television, on a large screen, not on a small flickering postcard-sized 1960's meccano-set - when a minute figure picks up a pass in the centre near the penalty box I might be able to tell it is Drogba.  I have a fair idea of Drogba's shape. I think, "Shoot, Drogba, you world-beater you!" And I shout. "Let's have a goal Droggers, old son!
Then the lackey of a commentator says, "Lampard puts another shot wide."
He tells us who had the ball but only when the emotion it conjures has gone.


(Note:This was another match, not last night's; Lampard has put quite a lot of shots wide this so far this season, but in fact last night he was somewhere foreign having placenta treatment on his knee/thigh! How mad is that?)



And have you noticed how much more difficult it is to recognise players on screen WHEN THEY ARE WEARING THE AWAY STRIP? John Terry in the Chelsea blue is instantly recognisable, except in the very long shots. Put him in pink and you have no clue at all who it is. Last night Chelsea were in a kind of white but not England white. Chelsea also have grey shirts and black ones. This all adds to the confusion of who actually is playing, kicking, dribbling, tripping, diving, pulling shirts and taking throw-ins. The commentator is struck mute on this subject most of the time. But he is supposed to be at the match looking at real players and interpreting the game.



For corners and free-kicks you usually get a close-up shot and I can recognise the player - by the 30th game of the season when I have seen him in blue for a few matches, that is. Why don´t the commentators make sure we have the vital information: who the bloody hell has the ball? We can see figures on the pitch and the size of the crowd and all the adverts, come to that. We can see lots of irrelevant information on the screen BUT we want to know the name of the one WHO HAS THE BALL, and the name of the one who has it next, and so on.

Cech throws the ball to Ashley Cole who strokes it forward to Malouda .. Ballack .. Lampard .. Anelka .. Ivanovich coming forward .. Joe Cole  .. BALLACK (there he is)..Drogba .. on his back .. gets up .. unbelievable .. and shoots.

"It's a goal", shouts the commentator. "Drogba has scored a magnificent goal!"

It is not rocket science!