Wards in Jarndyce

Terrace Tribulations

People will know that I am no fan of Dickens. I have only ever read Dickens under sufferance and with great distress. I'm not even much in favour of TV adaptations or films based on his books.

Nevertheless, I confess to having watched Bleak House when it was on the BBC in 2005. I watched. I even became mildly interested. I even got the book from the library and read a bit of it. It did not elicit any lasting appreciation of Dickens writing.

Fortunately, Dickens is not really the subject of this rant.

It's football.

So, where's the connection? Easy – so much gloup is written about football that it resembles nothing so much as the fixation with the Wards in Jarndyce - the glue which holds the Bleak House narrative structure together for Dickens.

Recent events bear this out. Let's focus on just two.

The Glasgow Celtic – Glasgow Rangers is, some people decry, a special case. The excuses for poor behaviour amongst supporters is mired in sectarian prejudice and violence. Somehow this is used to “excuse” the excesses and simplify the situation.

Now we have the Celtic manager, Mr Lennon, being sent letter bombs along with other prominent supporters. The killer for me was a responsible police spokesman describing the situation as “nothing to do with football” Therein lies the mistake.

It is everything to do with football. In a era when sectarian conflict has almost been eradicated in Northern Ireland, how is it that responsible journalists and others can pretend that football has no role in perpetuating the problem.

Ask yourself: would the mindless prejudice and violence continue if there was no Rangers – Celtic match to provide the focus? I think not. The bigots would still exist, true. Perhaps they might migrate to Murrayfield and start a riot when Scotland play Ireland? Seems more that unlikely. Why?

The fact is the pea-brained bigots who perpetrate the violence just would not get the idea of a sporting rivalry – one that recognises that both teams are trying to win and are worthy of respect for their endeavours. Likewise the fans. Fans of the opposing team are not degenerate sub-humans but genuine supporters who want to see their team do well but recognise that the other team may win if they play better.

No, football, uniquely, has the capacity to engender mindless optimism and even more mindless degeneracy.

Personally, I'm fed up with people who, whilst seemingly stable and reasonable, insist on believing that that opponents and their fans are “scum” - which seems to be the only term of abuse they know. Comment on that mental capacity if you will.

It's even worse in East Anglia. Normal, responsible, educated and personable friends lose all mental perspective when a Norwich – Ipswich game approaches. The try to outdo each other in their vitriol towards their neighbours. Their version of trying to wish their team well and support the player's efforts consists of name-calling and foul abuse. This is not supporting their team – it's simply showing how loutish and vile they have become.

My suggestion: Rangers and Celtic should be relegated – one to the Highland League and one to the League of Ireland. They should not be allowed tickets to away games at all. They should have to stay their for a minimum of 3 seasons and if any trouble ensues – extend their exile to five years for each occasion. Even the troglodytes on the terraces should be able to understand this.

As for the East Anglian brethren, simply require anyone who really, truly believes that the team down the road is vile and their supporters are epsilon minus morons ( which may, or may not be accurate ) is deported to their city focus of hate and made to go to every home game and cheer their rivals on.

Maybe deport them.

Association Football

For those who don't take the EDP on a regular basis and, therefore, may have missed my recent letter to the editor -

Sir

If ET lands on Mousehold, I wonder what he would make of the recent EDP

articles about the dearth of football excitement at Carrow Road?

Perhaps he would conclude that these earthlings will be pushovers?

After all, one of the definitions of stupidity is doing the same thing

over and over and expecting different results. So, if the game is

boring and pointless – change the game! It's not rocket science. The

problem is most football supporters believe that the Rules of Football

came down from Sinai with Moses on tablets. Cricket and Rugby have

no such illusions. They adapt the game to meet the modern world.

Stop complaining and do something about it!

So, what could realistically be done? Unfortunately, there is not much that could be done that could be described as realistic. Why?

One word – FIFA.

“FIFA is the international governing body of association football, futsal and beach soccer. Its membership comprises 209 national associations. Its headquarters are in Zurich, Switzerland, and its president is Sepp Blatter. FIFA is responsible for the organisation of football's major international tournaments, notably the World Cup.

The laws that govern football, known officially as the Laws of the Game, are not solely the responsibility of FIFA; they are maintained by a body called the International Football Association Board (IFAB). FIFA has members on its board (four representatives); the other four are provided by the football associations of the United Kingdom: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, who jointly established IFAB in 1882 and are recognised for the creation and history of the game. Changes to the Laws of the Game must be agreed by at least six of the eight delegates.”

I suggest that not many people know this. I didn't until I looked it up. (I'm assuming that Wikipedia are correct here!)

Still my contention holds true.

“The role of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) is to discuss and decide upon proposed alterations to the Laws of the Game. FIFA and the UK-based associations (English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish FAs) can propose matters to be discussed and ratified at the Annual General Meeting (AGM), which usually takes place in February or March.

These meetings take place in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in strict rotation, as well as locations decided by FIFA in years when the FIFA World Cup™ is held. A representative of the 'host' association acts as chairman. The same country also acts as hosts for the Annual Business Meeting (ABM) which takes place in September or October.

Although the ABM can consider general business submitted to the Board by any of the continental confederations or any of FIFA’s 208 Member Associations and provide decisions, it does not have the authority to alter the Laws of the Game.

More about the AGM

Each of the IFAB members can forward in writing suggestions or proposed alterations to the Laws of the Game, requests for experimentation to the Laws of the Game and other items for discussion to the secretary of the association hosting the meeting by 1 December of the preceding year. This is then printed and distributed by 14 December. If any amendments or alterations need to be made to the initial proposal, the deadline to do this is 14 January, as topics for discussion are printed and distributed to the members of IFAB on or before 1 February.

More about the ABM

Each of the IFAB members can forward any proposals, requests for experimentation regarding the Laws of the Game and other items for discussion in writing to the secretary of the host association, at least four weeks before the date of the meeting. Any confederation or other member association of FIFA may forward proposals, requests or items for discussion in writing to FIFA’s Secretary General, in good time to ensure that they can be considered by FIFA and, if acceptable, forwarded to the secretary of the host association at least four weeks before the meeting.

Voting and decision making

FIFA has four votes on behalf of all its affiliated member associations. The other associations of the IFAB each have one vote. For a proposal to succeed, it must receive the support of at least three-quarters of those present and entitled to vote. The decisions of the Annual Business Meeting of the Board shall be effective from the date of the meeting, unless agreed otherwise.

The decisions of the AGM of the IFAB regarding changes to the Laws of the Game shall be binding on confederations and member associations as from 1 July following each AGM. However, confederations or member associations whose current season has not ended by 1 July may delay the introduction of the adopted until the beginning of their next season. No alteration to the Laws of the Game can be made by any confederation or member association unless it has been passed by the Board.

Sorry, is it me? The two highlighted sections seem to be mutally exclusive. Have I missed something? Can someone enlighten me, please.

Before I lose you completely, this seems to be the most important point in any exploration of how to make football a better game. The FIFA and IFAB websites are full of the momentus news that the introduction of goal-line technology is imminent – or sort of, kind of, maybe. I can find no references to anyone exploring ideas to make the game more relevant, exciting and fair. Looks like I'm on my own again.

This brings us neatly back to the “down from Sinai” argument and how other sports deal with the governing laws. In my original letter to the editor I mentioned cricket and rugby. Interestingly both sports are about as old as football – a least in the codifying of the laws.

“The work to draw up the first rules of Rugby football started on 25 August 1845 and ended on 28th August. The work was done by three senior pupils at Rugby School after they received instructions to codify the game of Football.”

There is a very good resource on the web site:

http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/laws.htm

What is clear is that the Rugby laws have been consistently updated and continue to be revised almost every year.

The story in cricket is generally the same - “The basic rules of cricket such as bat and ball, the wicket, pitch dimensions, overs, how out, etc. have existed since time immemorial. In 1728, the Duke of Richmond and Alan Brodick drew up Articles of Agreement to determine the code of practice in a particular game and this became a common feature, especially around payment of stake money and distributing the winnings given the importance of gambling.[7]

In 1744, the Laws of Cricket were codified for the first time and then amended in 1774, when innovations such as lbw, middle stump and maximum bat width were added. These laws stated that the principals shall choose from amongst the gentlemen present two umpires who shall absolutely decide all disputes. The codes were drawn up by the so-called "Star and Garter Club" whose members ultimately founded MCC at Lord's in 1787. MCC immediately became the custodian of the Laws and has made periodic revisions and recodifications subsequently.

In modern times the Body Line series forced a change in the Laws to take account of “leg theory”, thereby consigning Jardine's attempts to nullify Bradman to the scrap heap. The introduction of DRS has further brought the game into the 21st Century. (Interestingly, I can remember moves in the 80's to somehow nullify the West Indies all-pace attacks of that era. They were quite rightly resisted. - aside – I wonder how the Don might have fared faced with Michael “Whispering Death” Holding, Joel “Big Bird” Garner, Andy Roberts and Colin Croft – I suspect he would have scored runs but his average would have truly suffered.)

Summing up: my contention that those (perceived) hide-bound and traditional sports, rugby and cricket, embrace change where it is likely to improve the game – both for players and spectators. So, why should football be different?

I contend that it should not, and there are a few things that could easily be done to improve the game and not critically affect the way it is played.

There have been experiments in football. Tinkering with the off-side rule, messing with the goal-keepers options, etc. do not actually lead to more goals, which is, the point of the game – to score goals.

Here is something simple that would lead to more goals and not affect the fundamentals of the game. Make the goals bigger.

Don't forget the size of the goals and pitch were set when equipment and players were far different. Why not update? Add 30 cms to the height of the goals. Add 60 cms (30 each side) to the width of the goals. Result? Better game with more goals.

Complaints about the different referring decisions in different countries should be investigated. Referees should apply the laws in the penalty area – not just in other area of the pitch. Players should be booked for feigning injury – it's a form of cheating.

Simples.

Are these fundamental changes? I contend not. Is this changing the nature of the game? I contend not. Are the authorities even considering anything like this? I suspect not. Why?

See all of the above.

Hillsborough

Tragic!

Much is being made of the recent report into the Hillsborough disaster.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2202886/Hillsborough-disaster-Dont-fooled-cover-happen-again.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Finally we learn what the people in Liverpool have been saying for years: the police action on the day were the cause of many deaths that could have been prevented.

This is not new; nor is it news.

The wheel has turned full circle. No-one now is prepared to blame anyone except the police and the authorities.

Another tragedy is likely to be played out in the coming months as normally responsible and thoughtful people jump in the band-wagon to blame everyone and anyone except Liverpool supporters or, indeed anyone else who may have been responsible for this tragedy.

Perhaps this is only right?

After all, many innocent Liverpool supporters were killed in tragic circumstances. This is now beyond question. And, the police and other authorities have been shown to have been either monumentally stupid, carelessly incompetent, or downright criminal.

This is clearly beyond the pale.

However, and no matter how unpopular it may sound, the primary cause of the tragedy was the behaviour of a large proportion of the fans at Hillsborough that day. The actions of the police were reprehensible, but they must not have to shoulder the complete blame.

The fans who turned up late, probably having another beer in the pub, and overwhelmed the incompetent police, who were supposed to be supervising the crowd, were the cause of many deaths.

People in Liverpool who now view this tragedy as somehow a vindication of the fan's actions should be ashamed and are complicit in tarnishing the memory of those who died.

There are many people in Liverpool whose punishment is daily to remember their part in causing the deaths. That is probably punishment enough for them. Others, including the police who were complicit should be brought to justice.

Wards in Jarndyce

Terrace Tribulations

People will know that I am no fan of Dickens. I have only ever read Dickens under sufferance and with great distress. I'm not even much in favour of TV adaptations or films based on his books.

Nevertheless, I confess to having watched Bleak House when it was on the BBC in 2005. I watched. I even became mildly interested. I even got the book from the library and read a bit of it. It did not elicit any lasting appreciation of Dickens writing.

Fortunately, Dickens is not really the subject of this rant.

It's football.

So, where's the connection? Easy – so much gloup is written about football that it resembles nothing so much as the fixation with the Wards in Jarndyce - the glue which holds the Bleak House narrative structure together for Dickens.

Recent events bear this out. Let's focus on just two.

The Glasgow Celtic – Glasgow Rangers is, some people decry, a special case. The excuses for poor behaviour amongst supporters is mired in sectarian prejudice and violence. Somehow this is used to “excuse” the excesses and simplify the situation.

Now we have the Celtic manager, Mr Lennon, being sent letter bombs along with other prominent supporters. The killer for me was a responsible police spokesman describing the situation as “nothing to do with football” Therein lies the mistake.

It is everything to do with football. In a era when sectarian conflict has almost been eradicated in Northern Ireland, how is it that responsible journalists and others can pretend that football has no role in perpetuating the problem.

Ask yourself: would the mindless prejudice and violence continue if there was no Rangers – Celtic match to provide the focus? I think not. The bigots would still exist, true. Perhaps they might migrate to Murrayfield and start a riot when Scotland play Ireland? Seems more that unlikely. Why?

The fact is the pea-brained bigots who perpetrate the violence just would not get the idea of a sporting rivalry – one that recognises that both teams are trying to win and are worthy of respect for their endeavours. Likewise the fans. Fans of the opposing team are not degenerate sub-humans but genuine supporters who want to see their team do well but recognise that the other team may win if they play better.

No, football, uniquely, has the capacity to engender mindless optimism and even more mindless degeneracy.

Personally, I'm fed up with people who, whilst seemingly stable and reasonable, insist on believing that that opponents and their fans are “scum” - which seems to be the only term of abuse they know. Comment on that mental capacity if you will.

It's even worse in East Anglia. Normal, responsible, educated and personable friends lose all mental perspective when a Norwich – Ipswich game approaches. The try to outdo each other in their vitriol towards their neighbours. Their version of trying to wish their team well and support the player's efforts consists of name-calling and foul abuse. This is not supporting their team – it's simply showing how loutish and vile they have become.

My suggestion: Rangers and Celtic should be relegated – one to the Highland League and one to the League of Ireland. They should not be allowed tickets to away games at all. They should have to stay their for a minimum of 3 seasons and if any trouble ensues – extend their exile to five years for each occasion. Even the troglodytes on the terraces should be able to understand this.

As for the East Anglian brethren, simply require anyone who really, truly believes that the team down the road is vile and their supporters are epsilon minus morons ( which may, or may not be accurate ) is deported to their city focus of hate and made to go to every home game and cheer their rivals on.

Maybe deport them.

In the News

From Manchester to Barbados to Arrowhead

Down at Arrowhead the troops arrived to begin OTA's (organised team activities). For those not in the know, the difference between OTA's and training camp is only on the calendar. Although OTA's are officially voluntary, almost everyone turns up in some form or another. The Chief's rookies because they have to convince the coaches they are worth a spot on the roster and the veterans because they have to convince the coaches they are worth a spot on the roster. Simple!

Meanwhile, before football takes over completely, the round-ball experts from Manchester United will be visiting the re-vamped stadium to play the KC Wizards on 25 July. Tickets are from 10 bucks to 200. I suspect the paying public of KC don't realise that in a World Cup year it is very unlikely MU will bring anything like a full squad. In particular, the England World Cup players will be on holiday, no matter how well they do in South Africa. Still, it is a chance to show the KC public what they are missing. Answer? Not a lot.

Back at Arrowhead there are some interesting battles looming for starting positions. In the DB's it seems very unlikely that Number One pick Eric Berry will not get one of the starting safety spots – barring injury of course. You don't draft a top player to sit him on the bench and play special teams. There will be pressure on the others to step up and secure one of the other three starting spots. Suddenly the Chiefs looks solid at this ultra-important position!

Down at my target position, wide receiver, Dexter McCluster seems destined to be a big-time player – or a complete flop. I expect the KC sports writers are drooling over the prospect that he is another Reggie Bush. If he is then it's happy days! Remember, he's a rookie. The running backs look good and solid. With Colin Brown returning from injury there should be real competition in the O-line.

So, where are the problems? Line-backers. Chiefs have too many and they are not all well-versed in the 3-4. Noises are being made to shift Glen Dorsey to nose-tackle. I'm against it. Actually, I'm not a great Dorsey fan full stop. I expect the Chiefs to keep close tabs on any line-backers, well-versed in the 3-4, who may become available – either as un-drafted or released rookies or available veterans.

Also, believe it or not, at QB. This is the year Todd Haley and Co. must see some improvement from Matt Cassel. They passed up on some promising QB's coming out of college. They have banked on Cassel doing his bit. Given a better offensive line and some receivers who can catch the ball and run with it and an improved running game – it's going to be hard to pin losses anywhere else. It's pay-back time for Matt – or it's Adios!

Finally, England finally won a one-day trophy and smashed the Aussies in the process! Looks like the umpires (chiefly that clown Doctrove) got some things wrong to the detriment of Australia, but that's the breaks. England's decision to bowl first was inspired. The old adage that first you think about batting first, then you think again, then you bat clearly didn't apply this time. By putting the Aussie openers under pressure, England were always in the driving seat. It's always good to win, but lets not get carried away. 20-20 is not really cricket as we know it. But, it's always good to win. Can England use Kieswetter and Eoin Morgan in a “real” game? Why not? Time will tell.

Cartoon Rooney

Uber-Chavs Rule!

I'm sure he is the reincarnation of a Bash Street Kid! He sure looks like it.

Nevertheless, England's hopes of lifting the World Cup in South Africa rest clearly on the shoulders of the uber-chav, Wayne Rooney.

So, how do the football authorities ensure that he is in top form, rested and well prepared enough to lead the challenge? You guessed it – they don't.

Cartoon Roon falls over and limps out of the end of Champions League game this week. The country holds its breath. Commentators and pundits are aghast, and have no real suggestions or solutions as to how this might be avoided.

Best interview I saw after the match was with a group of Red Devil supporters arriving back at the airport in Manchester. One divvie even spouted, “I don't care if he can't play for England, as long as he is able to play in the next Champions League match.” It may sound daft but the structure of football almost ensures that England could only win the World Cup if it was a complete fluke.

Never mind FIFA and their umpteen refs. Never mind the obscene scheduling which ensures that the tournament is held at the end of the domestic season so that the players are either injured or knackered. Never mind the penchant for holding it in hot, dry, inhospitable countries – usually at altitude!

The tragedy is that when the Cup gets closer people who know better will be talking up England's chances to the detriment of countries who have the sense to organise things much better.

England should insist on the release of players on Jan 1 in any World Cup year. Then it would be up to the England management to pick the club games they play in. The players should be fit and rested before any World Cup game. Clubs should be compensated for the loss of their players. Compensated, but not reimbursed. After all – if you don't want to lose your players to the national team – don't sign them in the first place.

How is is that rugby and cricket can stage important competitions without having to cancel the club games?

England football administrators are either stupid or negligent. You choose.

Football Failings

Only occasionally do I intrude into the wonderful, wacky world of football. Mostly it is either too silly, too exasperating or just down right too frustrating.

Recent developments deserve a mention. I happened on an interesting programme on the BBC News channel the other evening. It was a discussion regarding some of the recent financial crises that have been plaguing the “beautiful game”.

In case you missed it, Portsmouth FC are about to enter administration and a number of other clubs are queuing up to join them. That's the story, basically.

Like the weather, lots of folk are talking about it, and no-one is actually doing anything.

The programme “identified” some areas that need discussion/amendment/improvement. Clubs are (obviously) being extremely irresponsible with their finances. Players (and their union) are milking the cow for all it's worth – despite the fact that the teats are giving no succour, for the milk has run out. Fans are in disarray because of increasing ticket prices and lack of success on the field.

Where to start?

The Clubs. Football clubs operate as if they were immune to the forces of economics and gravity. Being immune to gravity is especially good for them as they think they can avoid the drop! Yep, that's how stupid they are. The truth is only a very few clubs, either by reason of an incredibly wealthy owner or owners, or a fan base that covers the known world can possibly aspire to win the Premiership. All the others are simply treading water. Clubs can, of course, never admit this because it would upset and alienate the fans.

The Supporters. The supporters like to think that they are the backbone of the club and the most important leg of the tripod. They are chin-dribblingly deluded on both counts. Clubs make noises about how wonderful the fans are and how they are striving to win trophies and championships for them. In reality, as long as some fans ( primarily the most stupid ones ) continue to troop gaily through the turnstiles so that the TV companies can pan the cameras around the ground without encountering too many empty seats; the clubs aren't really worried about the supporters ( or cannon fodder if you prefer ). Clubs know that the real money comes from TV.

The Players. Players are easy targets. Well, those at the very top who earn obscene wages are easy targets. The PFA is charged with protecting all players and their views on wages are simple. Get you hands off! For the PFA the problems with club finances are nothing to do with them and they don't really want to discuss or negotiate any change to the status quo.

What's to be done?

The Clubs. Clubs will not regulate themselves. Leagues will not regulate clubs. FIFA, UEFA, etc. will not regulate clubs. The EU ( for once charged with doing something useful ) could regulate clubs. How? Make Europe-wide rules and regulations regarding club finances. Stipulate the amount clubs can spend on players and transfers. Clubs should only be able to spend a proportion of TV and gate receipts and bring down wages and ticket prices in order to comply. At a stroke you level the playing field and make football more competitive.

The Supporters

Supporters need educating. This will be tough for they generally make Dewsbury Chavs look like intellectuals. Deep down they know they are gormless. Commentators, managers, players and administrators must stop pandering to fans' basest instincts and explain their real strategy: i.e. stay in this league, remain solvent, introduce more home-grown players that fans can identify with, live within our means and avoid what seems to be attractive short-term fixes!

The Players

Players are their own worst enemies. They are all in the gossip columns too often because they earn obscene amounts of money and don't know how to spend it except on Chav Flash. Players must learn to sign contracts that mean something, that put most of their earning into long-term investments instead of short-term bling, and act like responsible adults instead of spoiled brats.

Incidentally, none of the above had even the remotest chance of being adopted.

It's Enough to make you cry!!

Sometimes it is hard to take football seriously.

Today is one of those sometimes. Thierry Henry is in sore danger of a brouhaha moment which will, no doubt, not endear him to the Paddys! What a farce!

What's really surprising is the number of well-respected commentators jumping on the bandwagon. Wow! They finally realised that football is a silly game populated by real Neanderthals (both on the pitch and in the stands) as opposed to the the Turnip Taliban! I'm genuinely amazed.

First we have that respected commentator Hugh McIlvanney informing us that “Video refs can catch the cheats”. Excuse me, Hugh, where have you been for the last umpteen years? Are you seriously telling your readers that you only just noticed that football is populated by cheaters and that the administrators have done nothing about it since time began? Pull the one with the bells on!

Do you not remember the Maradona “Hand of God”? How long ago was that? Was anything ever done? Wake up!!

Instead of vilifying Henry, who is, after all, only doing what anyone would do if they knew they were not likely to get caught; Hugh might reserve his righteous ire for the game itself. To be fair, he does touch on this, but, as usual, chickens out at the crucial moment.

In a long article, he reserves his opprobrium for the administrators, chiefly Sepp Blatter of FIFA. Come on Hugh! Easy target! Some of this is, surely, down to the Fourth Estate! You guys are not Babes in the Wood!

Facts are that football is a rotten game which is designed to encourage the basest instincts in the human character. Hugh is hinting at this, but he is not willing to condemn sufficiently.

Same day, same paper – we have a stab at it from Dominic Lawson on the Editorial page. His article, “A game of two halves: cheating and whining” reads better than the lily-livered Hugh. He goes though the whole gamut of footballing sins. He is particularly aghast at the Irish howls of derision, when, as he skilfully points out, Ireland's Roy Keane attempted to cheat twice in the same game, only to be foiled because the ref happened to be looking. He quotes Damian Duff – Irish striker - “If it was me or Robbie at the other end, we would have tried it. You just expect the referee or linesman to see it.”

How sad it is that on the day even the match commentators did not see the hand ball until the replay! Dominic's point that no-one has ever seen a referee change his mind is the key. Since the poor old ref made a boo-boo, he will be pilloried. Meanwhile, the idiots who run the game will cry crocodile tears and strike him from their list of possible World Cup referees (and their Christmas card list!!).

Contrasting rugby and cricket with their reliance on technology (Hugh, are you listening!!) only leads Dominic deeper into despair. His conclusion that football attracts a particular type of person, a yob, just about sums it up.

I love his last sentence: “Does anyone know why it is still called “”the beautiful game””? That has to be the biggest joke of all.”

Amen.

Aviva Cowards

The Norwich Union Insurance Group (now know as Aviva) high-ups have really outdone themselves recently.

Not only have they managed to upset the whole of East Anglia, not to mention their shareholders, with their name-changing antics and the vast sums of dosh employed to advertise what is essentially a non-story; they have now ducked swiftly the obvious choice for their new advertising campaign and decided to take the Michael out of the cor bugger janners!

What cowards when they have perfectly good Norfolk folk to make as butt of their jokes.

The boys in Oggy Land must not be very happy. We already know they're not very bright – at least according to NU.

Now, not a lot of people know this, so pay attention. The Regimental Song of the 1^st Battalion, The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment is The Tiddy Oggy Song! Part of which goes lie this:

Oh how happy us will be when we gets back to the West Country.

Where Tiddy Oggies grow on trees, Cor bugger Janner.

You make fast, kiss my a***

Make fast the dingy

You make fast, kiss my a***

Make fast the dingy

For we'll all go back to Oggy Land,

To Oggy Land, to Oggie Land

For we'll all go back to Oggy Land

Where they can't tell beans from

Tissue paper, Tissue paper

Marmalade of Jam

Ain't culture wonderful?

NU have missed a golden opportunity. They should have had a crowd of numpties trooping into Carrow Road singing:

I had a girl, really nice girl, down in Wroxham Way,

She were wholly nice to me back in the old school days,

She would smile all the while, but Daddy didn't know all,

What she used to say to me behind the garden wall.

"Hev you gotta loight boy? Hev you gotta loight?"

Then one day, she went away, I don't see her no more,

Till by chance I see her down along the Mundesley shore,

She was there, twice as fair. Would she now be true?

So when she sees me passing by, she say, "I'm glad that's you!

Hev you gotta loight boy? Hev you gotta loight?"

Molly Windley, she smokes like a chimley,

But she's my little nicotine girl.

Classic. I can see it now.

Why go all the way to Devon when you could take the rip close to home?

Cowardly, damn cowardly, I say.

Football Weather

Crazy Game!

They say the old ones are the best. In pointless truisms, it's hard to beat, “Everyone talks about the weather, but no-one ever does anything about it!”

The reason is, of course, obvious. No-one really can do anything about the weather – unless you consider that weather is a subset of climate and believe the Global-Warming Nutters.

So, the humour in the saying about the weather is in it's pointlessness.

Football is different than the weather.

Everyone talks about how various aspects of the game are either silly, unfair, useless or just plain daft. The difference is something could be done, but never is.

So, we had the Chelsea fans and players incensed at the referee who clearly had a very poor game. He missed some obvious and blatant calls. He was doing his best, no doubt, but his best just wasn't good enough.

Something could be done about this. Some examples: give each manager one challenge per half. Ball's out of play, throw the challenge flag – a bit like the NFL. Video replay clearly shows what happened. Video ref overrules the on-field ref. Result; the correct decision is reached. How about using he linesmen (or referee's assistants as they are now called)? Get them off the touch line and onto the pitch. Whilst looking for offsides, let them also spot obvious fouls, etc. and give them a whistle instead of the gay little flag they are so fond of waving about for the referee to ignore! How about the times the ball crosses the goal line and the officials seem to ignore it? Yes, it happens. You've all seen it on TV. Why can't the fourth official simply call the ref and say, “Excuse me, a goal has just been scored!”

Football is full of these crazy situations that should not be tolerated. Cricket and rugby – both as hide-bound sports as you might wish to find at one stage have both embraced the technology required to improve decision-making wholeheartedly.

Why should football be different?

Answer. Easy. Football is run by numpties. Because it is a world game every little country like Tuvalu and Bhutan have a say. The equivalent would be giving a UN veto to all. Nothing ever changes.

It's time for someone to break ranks and stop crazy things from incensing the fans (who pay the money) and the manager who may be out of a job because a simple decision is missed.

Crazy game.

Clarkson Does Football

Top Gear!

Jeremy Clarkson, when not acting as the peoples' choice for PM, writes for the Sunday Times.

He's now on my team where football is concerned. He says:

“Over the years I have argued that football is a stupid game in which 22 overpaid nancy boys with idiotic hair run around a field attempting to kick an inflated sheep’s pancreas into some netting while an audience of several thousand van drivers beat one another over the head with bottles and chairs.”

Better put, perhaps more witty than I, but without a doubt the most succinct description available for the unwashed masses who inhabit football stadia at weekends and the idiotic game they support. Clarkson rocks.

Point one from Jeremy: “Nor could I understand how someone from Tooting could possibly support, say, Manchester United, a team sponsored by those hateful bastards at AIG and made up of players from Portugal, France, Holland and, in the case of Wayne Rooney, Walt Disney. Where’s the connection? What’s the point?”

So true. The idiots who insist they must have a day off to watch a Man Utd game on TV really are gormless skivers.

And on the day when Jade departed for a politically correct rendezvous with some Indian deity - “And as for those people who can’t cope if their team loses. Give me strength. If you get all teary-eyed just because someone from Latvia, playing in a town you’ve never been to, for an Arab you’ve never met, against some Italians you hate for no reason, has missed a penalty, how are you going to manage when you are diagnosed with cancer?”

I particularly enjoyed his take on some of the more inane antics of the crowd at football matches:

“The other advantage of being there is that on television the microphones are positioned so you can’t hear the chants. I’d heard, of course, about this mass spontaneity over the years, usually when a team is playing Liverpool. “Sign on. Sign on. With a pen in your hand. Cos you’ll ne . . . ver get a job.” Or: “The wheels on your house go round and round. Round and round. Round and round.”
There are others too. Plymouth Argyll refer to any team they play as northern bastards. Then you have the Charlton fans who travelled down the M4 to Reading recently and, having failed to think of any suitable abuse, came up with: “What’s it like to live in Wales?”
The Chelsea fans topped all this last Sunday with a nonstop song, the lyrics of which were: “F*** off, Robinho. F*** off, Robinho. F*** off, Robinho.” I joined in wholeheartedly, even though I wasn’t entirely sure who Mr Robinho was and why I wanted him to eff off so much.”
Jeremy's experience reminded me of the first live football match I ever saw. Charlton Athletic v Colchester Utd a the “old” Valley in the 1970's. It was Easter time and a bumper crowd of about 300 were on the terraces. Terraces where you could comfortably fit the residents of Milton Keynes and have plenty of spare room. Because the crowd was so small you could hear exactly what the players were saying to each other and, more importantly, to the match officials. It only took me five minutes to realise that football is a stupid game played by morons who have all the charm of a spitting camel and the wit of a word that sounds like wit but starts with the letter S.
Experiences after that include two cup matches at Norwich City. First a game against Liverpool. John Barnes was playing. He'd just been heaped with lavish praise in the media for the wonder goal he scored against Brazil in an international match. Norwich fans response? They “invented” a chant that went: “He's black, he's bent, his bum is up for rent, Johnie Barnes, Johnie Barnes.” Barnsie smiled at the crowd.
Next a game versus Tottenham Hotspur with the “fountain”, Paul Gascgoine, in their team. Fan's chant? “You fat bastard!” Gazza smiled.
Last word to Clarkson.
“After the game I was taken to the Chelsea dressing room so that I could admire all the players’ penises – many were very enormous indeed. I talked to Roman Abramovich, who was charming, and Lampard, who, having just run around for 90 minutes, still found the energy to get the entire team to sign my boy’s Chelsea shirt. I don’t do that for kids who come to the Top Gear studio and I’m supposed to be the public-school-educated toff.
So there we are, then. I am now a football fan. I know this because in one afternoon I learnt I’m not a football fan at all. I’m a fan of Chelsea. Chelsea are the only team that can play. Chelsea players have by far the most impressive reproductive organs. Stamford Bridge is my church. The men who play there are my Gods.
In short, I have a team, and that’s what’s always been missing. Because I was born in Doncaster.”

Clarkson for PM.

Super Bowl - It's a wrap!!

Fans are the winners!

Fans of my blog will already know that I predicted the Giants to win Super Bowl XLII.

After coming down from the clouds with my reputation restored and a big fat wallet courtesy of the bookies, I've spent the intervening week analysing just why the Patriots flopped and the Giants prospered.

The most cogent explanation I found was on the Chiefs website and I'm happy to acknowledge that this is a quotation and not my own work:

“The Giants are champions because they played Stone Age football, and their furious pass rush took away Tom Brady’s greatest weapon – time to throw. Suddenly, one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history had to rush his throws or eat the ball while averaging a measly 5.5 yards per attempt. His running game averaged 2.8 yards per rush. No wonder the highest-scoring offence in league history was outscored 17-14.”

The rest of this article extolled the virtue of great defence. And how true it is. It is the defence that usually wins Super Bowls. Forty-two was no different.

It was my prediction that the NY pass rush would nullify Tom Brady – and it mostly did. I thought the Giants would be able to run on the Pats - and they did, though I admit not to the extent that I had thought they would.

Truth is: except for falling apart on the last NY drive, in no small part due to some excellent throws by Manning and excellent receptions by the NY receivers, the New Englanders might have won – and deserved to.

The Giants just about deserved their win. The Patriots were just about unlucky. The fans were the winners in what was actually quite a good game for the neutral observer to watch. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

One commentator's view should be of particular interest to the Chiefs fans. The Giants won by playing their young players throughout the season. They gave youth a chance.

This makes good sense – particularly at the “monster” positions – offensive guards and tackles. Chiefs must beef up these area in the draft. Chiefs must avoid taking a marquee player early who may, or (worst case scenario) may not be able to contribute to the team for five years!!

Time for the Chiefs to avoid highly paid free agents and develop some players of their own. That's the noises that are coming out of Arrowhead.

When we see who's available as a free agent and whether the Chiefs can resist the temptation to go for an expensive quick-fix, we'll be a long way towards learning whether the Chiefs front office is serious about building a team – or just blowing smoke.

My abiding memory of the Super Bowl was the banged-up and inexperienced Giants secondary shutting out Brady and his receivers. Chiefs can do the same in 09!

Blogged with Flock

Premiersip Milch Cow

Dodgy Owners.

Definition: milch cow - noun - something or someone that is seen as a source of easy income or profit.

Definition: money laundering - refers to the conversion or "Laundering" of money which is illegally obtained, so as to make it appear to originate from a legitimate source.

Put these two definitions together and you have the Premiership.

The Times says:

Frauds, thieves, tax dodgers and forgers aren’t welcome here

We answer the key questions relating to the 'Fit and Proper Test' that Thaksin will have to pass before taking charge at Manchester City

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premiership/manchester_city/article1970683.ece?token=null&offset=0

The key point in the resume of the Fit and Proper Persons test is (not surprisingly) at the end – where it says:

Has anyone failed the Fit and Proper Persons Test yet?

Not yet.

So, it's all window dressing? Pretty much – in my view.

Disregarding Roman Abramovich and other big-time Russian crooks, the very dodgy Glaser family who now own (with a hefty mortgage) Manchester United and an assortment of Icelandic wide-boys and an Egyptian conspiracy theorist – what cannot be in doubt is the opportunity for money corruption in football.

Here's a plan, some bean counter says, take the money you have, go to England and buy a football club; the government will welcome you with open arms. No-one will question where the money came from, no-one will ask about dodgy-finance – as long as you appear to be a milch cow to the idiots who inhabit the terraces and you make a few (perfectly legal) contributions to political parties – you should have no problems. And, you will be welcome to stay in England as long as you like. And you can effectively launder your money – if needed – under the relatively free guise of becoming a patron of a football team. Bottom line – this is a win-win situation.

What about the Premier League? Spokesman, Dan Johnson, told BBC Radio Five Live, “We have a fit and proper person test which is based on objective criteria, there is a schedule of offences which does also reflect any offences that someone has been prosecuted for overseas as well. It is a tricky one because he hasn't been prosecuted for anything yet, and also we are a football competition.”

Translation: as long as you have not been prosecuted for wrong-doing – it's none of our business and we will do nothing.

What would happen if he was found guilty of the charges he is facing? Dan says, “That is something we would have to look at.”

Nice one, Dan. In other words, even if Mr Shinawatra is found guilty in a Thai court of wrong-doing the Premier League may decide that this does not disqualify him from owning a team. After all, I can hear them say, what sort of court is a Thai court? Can't trust those Wogs anyway! This guy is bringing in lots of money – who cares where he got it!

Somebody should. And, someone should require that all Premiership clubs are PLC's with on-one allowed to own more than 10% of the shares. Simple. No need for checks that aren't checks on Asian criminals.

Works for me.

It's a Funny Old Game

Creased up recently when I spied with my little eye a letter to the Editor in the EDP from a fellow Wroxham-ite, a Mr Potter of Hartwell Road (that's the posh part of Wroxham for you out-worlders) writes under the title: This boring game should be banned.

Although the accuracy of his assertion is questionable, his sentiments are to be applauded. Brian believes that football is a minority sport which enjoys an enhanced reputation chiefly die to the employment requirements of the nation's football journalists.

I sympathise. I've been banging on for ages about the pathetic standard of journalism surrounding football in the local press. Brian's advice to families to keep their children away from football matches if they want them to grow up to be decent citizens is hard to argue with.

Two anecdotes to illustrate the point. Charlton Athletic versus Colchester United at the “old” Valley was the first professional match I ever saw live. Students of the “funny old game” will know that the Valley could hold 100,000 spectators on the massive old terraces. There were only about two thousand of us present for a mid-week Division Three match.

What struck me was the language of the players. We are all used to lip-reading the antics of the foul-mouthed pros paraded on out TV's every week. In person, with only a few bored spectators between you and the players, the language bordered on the criminal. I thought, “What kind of a game is this where the object seems to be to out-filth the opponents and officials?” It's still the same today.

And, over my garden fence, my next door neighbour, who attends most of the Wroxham F.C. matches, recounted a football moment that illustrates the sort of people who play. Apparently, in a recent reserve team match, one of the Wroxham youngsters was smacked in the mouth by an opponent. Broke his jaw and removed a few teeth. Referee was trying to sort out a fight somewhere else on the pitch and didn't see anything. Luckily the referee's assistant did. Young lad is going to sue said thug. So he should. Hope he goes to jail. But, of course, the real problem is the game itself. Brian from Hartwell Road says that “ a few hundred thousand obsessed morons and drink fuelled idiots make the game a real pain in the butt”. Hard to argue with that.

Descent people don't go to football matches.

Brian reminds us that football started in the Middle Ages as a game for local ruffians in the streets of English villages. Not much has changed then.

I like his comment that football is boring and repetitive. He contends that for most of the game nothing much happens. Hard to argue with that.

When Brian insists that more people go to museums at the weekend than attend football matches, I presume he means professional matches. Otherwise he is telling “stretchers” (I'm sure you'll remember “stretchers” - that's what Mark Twain attributed to Huckleberry Finn as a replacement for lies – Huckleberry insisted he never lied – he just stretched the truth sometimes!) Perhaps Brian is a Twain scholar.

I like Brian's style and substance. His peroration that football is likely to die a well-deserved and early death - were it not for the obsequious attentions of the media - is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

The real solution is down in the grass roots. Why parents allow children as young as eight to play football is a mystery to me? Yes, let them kick a ball, but organise them into leagues, have cup competitions and endless fitness sessions? It's madness. So's the game.

Rooney, Woods and Petersen

Spoiled Brats?

What sounds like a rather high-class firm of solicitors from South Kensington is, in reality, a disturbing bunch of spoiled brats and poor role models.

We live, for better or worse, in a society where hype is not just important – it is everything. Disregarding the talent required to be a top sportsman, what is important is a good press. Some talent is good, but you don't really have to keep it up – a few good performances will do – then you can take it easy, for the media will continue seek you out and build you up. The result? Spoiled brats.

Rooney is a classic. More than Beckham he appears to have difficulty in stringing two sentences together. He has a face like the north end of a south-bound skunk. His only “talent” is on the football pitch. Unfortunately, he has forgotten what he is famous for. And, he is increasingly being “found out” by opponents. Instead of trying to compete with him on the pitch the opposition finds it far easier to wind him up. He spends most of the game arguing with either the officials, the opponents or both. He leaves little time to actually play football. Only Sir Alec Ferguson seems able or willing to get him top concentrate on football and keep his mouth shut. In Europe, or wearing an England shirt he is a liability. He is a talented muppet.

Tiger has lost the plot. Watching him “lose” the Masters reminded me of his character flaws. He is so universally acknowledged as the greatest golfer ever that he has begun to expect that the golfing gods will do exactly what he wants. When they don't, he pouts, cries, gazes plaintively at the heavens and throws his clubs about. Watching him fling his putter into the air on the sacred Augusta greens makes me wonder if anyone else did it would the members ban them? There are many less illustrious clubs where he would not be welcome.

It's a strange world when the best rapper is a white guy, Eminen, and the best golfer is a black guy, Tiger. Some of Tiger's petulance is the result of the media hype which he has begun to believe as gospel. He will win many more majors. I wish he was a better role model for young golfers and young people in general. The temper tantrums have no place in golf. I'd like to see more black people in golf. Maybe then Tiger wouldn't feel so “me against the rest”. In any event Tiger is only half-black. He's Asian on his mother's side.

Petersen has been reading too many of his acolytes press reports. He is a talented player. It's been rumoured before that he is not a “team player”. I'm beginning to think this is the case. He plays for Kevin, not the team. Yesterday was a good example. When the England innings stalled on the way to something near 300 – which might have been a winning score – our Kev decided that his quest for a one-day hundred must take precedence. A favourable position was thrown away as he pushed and prodded painfully to his century.

Likewise like our other two heroes, he has perfected the incredulous look when he is out. Commentators comment on his arrogance when batting. Less arrogance in his demeanour might not go amiss.

It's a shame when three talented sportsmen lose the plot. Let's hope they find it.

Football Fighting

Seconds Out – Round Three?

Arsenal and Chelsea footballers have been brawling again – this time at a reserve team match. Coupled with the fracas at the Inter Milan v. Valencia match we now await Round Three to break out, somewhere.

No doubt, some do-gooders will claim society is tearing itself apart or predict the imminent demise of the national game. Fortunately, neither case is true or likely.

Football is a violent game. Twenty-two athletic men run about trying to kick a ball. Mostly they succeed. Sometimes they kick each other by mistake. Sometimes they kick each other intentionally. That's pretty much inevitable. Perhaps deplorable but almost certainly inevitable.

When they do kick each other, either by mistake or on purpose, they get angry. Sounds reasonable so far. You and I would get angry if someone kicked us. There however the similarity ends; for, if you or I decide to kick or punch or bite or whack over the head with a shoe our assailant, we would find ourselves in court. Footballers don't.

Why you might ask?

Perhaps if footballers were prosecuted for assault there might be less assaults. Certainly it's worth considering.

Clubs and players find themselves in front of the FA Disciplinary Committee instead. This is where the fun starts. If not fun, then, at least, laughs.

Having looked at the referee's report and viewed the video evidence, the FA then dispenses “justice”. Players, managers and clubs get fined. The problem is the fines are not really very expensive. Some money ( nothing like what the players earn! ) maybe, and a few weeks of forced rest. Everyone moves on – until the next time.

Is there a better way? Probably. Could we stop footballers from fighting? Not likely.

So, what's to be done? First, make the players primarily responsible. Second, get some independence into the investigation and punishment process. Third, make the “punishment” fit the “crime”.

Making clubs responsible is really just a cop out. If there is evidence that a club actively or even surreptitiously supports or condones violence by their players, throw the book at them. I doubt this happens. Players lose their tempers and irresponsibly retaliate. Players who are violent to each other should be banned (for a substantial period – months not weeks) and their clubs should not pay them while they are banned. Their salaries could go to support youth football or battered wives.

The FA should not be judge and jury when dealing with violence among the players. An independent body composed of members of the public, serving magistrates, retired judges and ex-professional footballers should adjudicate on appropriate punishments for acts of violence in football.

By removing wages from banned players, some kind of self-regulation just might ensue.

Yesterday's laughable slug-fest between Valencia and Inter Milan would be a good place to start. A UEFA panel will decide what to do with the players who spent quite a long time chasing each other about the pitch trying to hit, kick or otherwise injure or maim.

Whoever said, “It's a funny old game!”

It's a Funny Old Game

Why America doesn't like soccer football

News that David Beckham is leaving Real Madrid for L.A. Galaxy has been met with only a modicum of excitement – chiefly by the shop-keepers on Rodeo Drive who stand to benefit most when Posh Spice spends the massive pay cheques.

Joe Public (President, American branch of the WGTU (Who Gives a T*** Union) has responded with Ho and a Hum and a Fiddly, Dee Dee.

Why?

Poor old Becks is flogging a dead horse. Or, a horse that is marching to the beat of a different drummer at least. Whilst the rest of the world is obsessed with football, America remains largely unimpressed and mostly unresponsive. Becks' arrival will not kick start Soccer U.S.A. He might do some good and trouser a lot of dosh, but he will not wean the American public from their diet of baseball, gridiron football and basketball – with a small dash of ice hockey on the side.

Trying to generate interest in soccer in America has a long and distinguished history. In the 70's Pele, Best, Beckenbauer, Moore, Marsh and a host of other stars were paid lots of money to play in the U.S.A. All the best players were there. Result. Poor crowds and not much interest. Why?

Firstly, the American public did (and still does) not want to watch a bunch of foreigners kicking a ball around. What success soccer has had in America has been hard won and has involved generating home-grown players. Soccer did get a boost from the '94 World Cup, held in the U.S.A. and, therefore, quite rightly, set about developing their own players. The results have been good. There are many Americans playing in Europe, including the Premiership, and there is a stable domestic competition which Becks will shortly join. Crowds are decent, if not spectacular, and steady growth is being maintained. Becks is unlikely to do any more than generate some local interest in the Los Angeles area.

Secondly, it is “pie-in-the-sky” to imagine that just because the rest of the world has a benighted affection for football, the U.S.A. should, or is likely to, join in. Americans like winners. When the U.S.A. soccer ladies won the World Cup, they were rightly hailed as exceptional athletes. Interest soared. Lots of young girls began playing the game. It's an ideal game for girls who lack the abnormal height needed for basketball stardom. Team America can and does compete successfully with other nations, and they receive support and interest from the American public. Why not the men?

Two reasons primarily. One: Team America, men's version, has not been so successful. Qualification for the last World Cup was achieved but the team clearly wasn't going to challenge for honours. So, the public were largely unimpressed. Secondly, and most importantly, the game itself is not equipped to generate real enthusiasm in the American sports fan. Why?

What? Are you seriously telling me that what the rest of the world refers to as “The Beautiful Game” isn't good enough for Uncle Sam? Yep. That's about it.

Football's oldest cliché, “It's a funny old game” is often misinterpreted. Funny here doesn't mean humorous. What the saying really means is, “Football is a imbecilic game where skill, determination, athleticism and effort are often completely unrewarded and blind luck, poor judgement by the officials, the weather, and a hundred other nonsensical reasons are usually more important in determining the result of the game than the skill of the participants. It's the only game where the object of the game (scoring a goal) is so obtuse that it becomes almost irrelevant. After ninety minutes of skilful endeavour by twenty-two exceptionally fit and skilful players, quite often the purpose of the game (to score goals) is skilfully unachieved.” Fantastic! No wonder soccer has failed to impress the American sporting public.

It doesn't have to be like that of course. Sports, all sports, are human inventions and are not static. They do and should evolve. Almost every sport accepts that change is an integral part of the evolution. Almost all – except soccer. Soccer is stuck in a 19^th century English public school time warp. It has been stagnating since it was invented by Toffs in long shorts and miner's boots with a ball made out of leather which, when wet, was so heavy that it must have been designed to break the bones of the foot, cause headaches that last for months, not to mention serious long-term brain damage, and reduce the spine of the idiot who heads it to a mass of quivering jelly.

If the Martians ever landed and had football explained to them – they would promptly leave, reasoning that any civilization which thinks that soccer is “The Beautiful Game” is seriously cuckoo and not worth conquering.

The reason that football will not “take-off” big time in the U.S.A. is football itself. Or, to be more precise, the inability of football to adapt to a changing world. Most of the idiots who govern football (did you know there are more national associations affiliated to FIFA than there are members of the United Nations?) simply conspire to maintain the status quo. There is no real impetus to evaluate the game and adapt it to changing circumstances. The very success of football as a world game is its own undoing. The administration is so unwieldy that any effort to improve the game is soon lost in a bureaucratic sea of isolationism, national agenda and chronic inertia.

For that simple reason the American public have rightly relegated football to a game suited to women and children. Americans will not take football seriously until the rest of the world takes football seriously – instead of conspiring to produce a hide-bound game of mind-bogglingly boring games populated by over-paid “heroes”.

Of course, there are fans who will cheerfully remind critics of the sweeping changes made in football in the last 100 years. Things like: modifying the offside rule (http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,105502,00.html); changing the way goalkeepers may use the ball; increasing the use of substitutes – I wish the list was endless – but it is not. I'm struggling to think of any fundamental change since the game was invented. Some are long overdue. This is a tragedy. Football could be a much better game. How?

It is quite simple really. The purpose of the game is to score goals. What football lacks is a fair contest between attack and defence. Despite FIFA's talk about giving the benefit of the doubt to attackers, it is all just talk. Watch any game. The officials are philosophically incapable of allowing close calls to go the attackers way. Why – because goals are so hard to come by. The importance of scoring a goal is so over-whelming that referees and their assistants are scared to death to give the advantage to the attack.

Change this by making goals easier to score. Each close call then becomes less important. How? Easy.

Number 1 – make the goals wider and taller. Not by much – just enough to raise the average goals score by say one or one and a half per game. By the way, at the last world cup, such a system would have raised the goals per game to just about 2.5, instead of the woeful 1.hardly anything it was! We could argue precision but for arguments sake how about six inches taller and a foot wider (15 cms and 30 cms). Does anyone seriously think that this would make the game something fundamentally different?

Number 2 – enlarge the area of the pitch. Yes, larger. Modern player are fitter and faster than their 19^th century fore bearers. Give them the room to show their skills. Again a 10 to 15 percent increase in the pitch area would make a real contribution to opening up the game, for players and spectators alike.

Number 3 – change the off-side rule. Instead of tinkering with the rule – overhaul it. There was an experiment in moving the “off-side line” from halfway to the 18 yard box. OK, maybe this is too much – but how about an ice hockey type off-side at a third of the attacking area? Give players a chance by extending the playing area by making them defend a larger space. It's not rocket science!

Number 4 – give the “Assistants” real power in the game. On a football pitch you have 22 extremely fit athletes trying to kick a ball and (sometimes) each other. It is ridiculous to imagine that one middle-aged official is going to be able to control the game and make correct decisions. Use the Assistant Referees, who were “upgraded” from Linesmen a few years ago – but who still act only on the periphery of the game. Let the Referee control the middle of the field. Get the Assistants onto the field and let them involve themselves much more closely with the last 20 metres of the action. That's where getting it absolutely correct is most important.

Four simple changes to get the game into the 21^st century and get more goals into the game. More goals equals more excitement. More goals means less controversy. More goals will bring more crowds. Can anyone honestly say I'm wrong?

All it takes is a change in mind set. Stop seeing football as “The Beautiful Game” and see it simply as a game like any other.

Chop till you drop!!

Despite needing every improbable chance come immaculately true to make the play-offs, the Kansas City Chiefs staggered in this week when everything that had to happen – did!

Could this be an omen? Could be.

I'm out on a limb (as usual) in predicting the Chiefs to whup the Indianapolis Colts in the first round by about 10 points.

My record is actually very good. Last time the Chiefs played the Colts in the play-offs was two or three years ago at Arrowhead. I confidently predicted that poor old Peyton Manning, Indy s starting quarterback, famed for his ability to audible at the line of scrimmage and thereby confuse defences, would not be able to handle the crowd noise and the Chiefs would win easily. Sounded good. Looked good. Didn't happen. Indy won easily and ran rings around a poor KC defence.

This time it will be different. I've got 50 quid on the boys in red at 3-1 and they will come good. Time to turn the tables.

This time it's the Colts whose defence is poor. Actually, worse than poor. They are flat last in the NFL in run defence. Absolutely last. And, they are facing Larry Johnson, probably the premier running back in action this week.

OK, OK the pundits will say this and say that and Indy are favourites – but the smart money should be on the KC Sunshine Boys. A good running game should always beat a good passing team. That's the magic equation. Mr Manning will score against the Chiefs through the air – no doubt. But, Johnson will run riot and he will eat up a lot of the clock. Chiefs should score on every possession. If they do, as I confidently predict, it will take a lot to beat them.

So, you heard it here first. Get money on the tribe and chop till you drop!

Go Chiefs.