Archive for the 'Sport' Category

Capello’s PR war

Published
by
David Herman
on August 22, 2008
in Sport
. 0 Comments

It started with Beckham. Capello got the hacks so excited about whether Beckham would get to play his 100th game that they lost focus: what kind of job was he doing? Wasn’t he, in fact, showing ominous signs of making no structural changes?

Then came the captaincy nonsense. There was clearly no issue about who should be the captain. Either Terry or Ferdinand, the two obvious candidates, would have been fine. It hardly took a rocket scientist to come up with Terry as captain and Ferdinand as vice-captain. So what was all that about? It just kept the hacks off his back. Once again, he was throwing fish to the sharks t keep them distracted.

If they hadn’t been so busy with Beckham and the captains, they might have stopped to ask, as the away game with Croatia draws ominously near:

Continue reading ‘Capello’s PR war’

The Harvey files 6: football finances

Published
by
Harvey Cole
on August 15, 2008
in Sport
. 0 Comments

As the 2008/09 football season approaches and the credit crunch apparently deepens, it seems an opportune moment to look at the finances of Britain’s top football teams. A recent report from Standard & Poor’s highlighted the vulnerability of English football clubs to a potential economic downturn. This was in spite of revenues of English clubs—particularly those in the Premier League—being the strongest in Europe.

The reason for this is made clear by an earlier report, this year’s analysis by Deloittes, of the finances of the League clubs. The 20 Premier League clubs had total income in 2006-07 of £1,515m, but recorded a combined loss of £278m. Indeed, only five clubs managed to record an operating profit: Arsenal, Reading, Sheffield United, Spurs and Watford, making £48m between them.

Continue reading ‘The Harvey files 6: football finances’

Our guide to the Beijing Olympics

Published
by
Tom Chatfield
on July 30, 2008
in Inside Prospect and Sport
. 0 Comments

With the biggest and most expensive Olympic games in history set to unfurl across Beijing in just over a week’s time, our latest issue contains a special guide to the political and cultural landscape of the games by David Goldblatt, Prospect’s resident expert on all things sporting, no matter how obscure (underwater swimming competitions and pigeon shooting, anyone?).

For our online edition, we’ve also included David’s special supplementary guide to Olympics past, from Athens 1896 to Athens 2004; as well as a feature on China’s critics, in which author Christian Tyler interviews China’s most famous democratic activist, Wei Jingsheng; and Hong Kong-based entrepreneur Jimmy Lai writes of his hopes and fears for the future of his nation.

Why Federer should have won

Published
by
William Skidelsky
on July 8, 2008
in Sport
. 10 Comments

There can be no doubt about it: sport does not get any better.
Sunday’s battle was the greatest Wimbledon final of all time, the
perfect match in every respect except one: the wrong man won. My
admittedly biased view (I’m a Federer fan) is that poetic justice, and
the narrative arc of the match, would have been better served by
Federer, and not Nadal, triumphing in the dying light. Here are five
reasons why:

1) Comebacks make for the best sporting stories, and a victory for
Federer would have been the most remarkable of comebacks, eclipsing
Murray’s against Gasquet in the fourth round.

2)  The greatest sporting performances are those in which a player
reveals, in the course of a match, qualities that no one suspected
them of possessing. Nadal didn’t reveal anything new during Sunday’s
final; we knew before it started that he was a player of machine-like
strength and consistency, able to maintain a certain level of
performance whatever the situation. But few people could have
suspected that Federer was capable of such bloody-mindedness, such
courageous determination to stay in a match that he should have lost
in three sets. Steeliness isn’t a quality one associates with Federer,
largely because he has never had much need for it; his talents mean
that he has rarely had to fight.

3) Federer is, though only 26, like the king whose grip on power is
waning. He clearly does not feel ready to hand over power, and there
is something both heroic and tragic about the spectacle of him
clinging so desperately on. It matters, of course, that Federer is
such a likeable king; few people felt much sadness, for example, when
Sampras was toppled. It would have been a glorious act of defiance had
Federer managed to resist Nadal’s onslaught.

4) Surely a player as great as Federer deserved to beat Borg’s record.
In many ways, he has been unlucky that his career has overlapped with
Nadal’s - the best ever clay court player. Had it not done so, he
would surely have won at least two grand slams by now, equalling Rod
Laver’s record. So it seems almost cruel that Federer should have been
denied the chance to break Borg’s record as well.

5) Federer’s backhand passing shot to save the second match point in the
fourth set tie-break was so brilliant, in the circumstances (and
remember his backhand hadn’t been working very well up to that point
in the match), that it alone deserved to win him the title.

“Big Phil”? Really??

Published
by
David Herman
on June 12, 2008
in Sport
. 2 Comments

It’s hard to know who’s happier — Chelsea or the tabloids. For the tabloids, “Big Phil” is perfect. From central casting. He’s already got a nickname - which they never managed with Avram Grant. And he’s famous. He’s won the World Cup and has managed a very successful Portuguese team with household names like Figo, Cristiano Ronaldo and Deco. And he’s a character (apparently). As for Chelsea, he’s perfect. he’s famous. He’s won the World Cup and has managed a very successful Portuguese team with household names, etc, etc. He might keep Carvalho at Stamford Bridge and might lure Deco over from Barcelona and keep him out of the clutches of Mourinho. And, crucially, he’s big enough a name, to prevent the expected exodus this summer.

If he’s perfect for Chelsea, Chelsea also happen to be perfect for him. They’re rich, he’s inheriting a good side and they’re used to very defensive football.

1) Scolari likes money. After all, he spent much of the 1980s and early 1990s in the middle east managing three different clubs in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as well as the Kuwait national team (one of five Brazilian coaches in three years in the early 1990s) and a Japanese club side in 1997. So it’s not altogether a surprise that he returned Peter Kenyon’s call. Also, coincidentally, Palmeiras in Sao Paulo were the richest club in Brazil when he was there because of a sponsorship deal with the Italian dairy giant, Parmalat. That sponsorship deal finished the year he left for Cruzeiro, his last club job, where he won nothing — they came 3rd in the Brazilian leaguie in 2000 and 21st in 2001. He then left to manage Brazil.

Continue reading ‘“Big Phil”? Really??’

10 Reasons Why Ronaldo Should Stay at Man Utd and not go to Real Madrid

Published
by
David Herman
on May 31, 2008
in Sport
. 3 Comments

1) The Champions League is the biggest trophy in town. Real Madrid last won the Champions league in 2002. That was the great side with Makelele, Figo and Zidane in midfield. Since then, they have made it to the Semi-Finals once. They haven’t got to the Quarter-Finals in the last 4 years. Roma beat them home and away last season. They are a busted flush.

2) Remember the famous Galacticos? All gone. Ronaldo and Roberto Carlos (whatever happened to them?) were the last to go.

3) What about the Premier League Galacticos? With Beckham, Owen and Woodgate Real Madrid did nothing in Europe. After one year at Real Madrid Owen was lucky to get signed by Newcastle, Woodgate ended up at Middlesbrough and Beckham couldn’t even manage that.

4) What about domestic glory? Yes, they have won La Liga for the last two years. But they have only won it four times in the past eleven years.

5) They change manager every year. The last coach to last three seasons was Del Bosque who won the Champions League twice at the beginning of the century. Since then seven coaches.

6) Bernd Schuster? Really?? Schuster or Ferguson and Quieroz?

7) Here’s a hard choice. Who would you rather play with up front: Rooney and Tevez? Or Julio Baptista (remember his time on loan at Arsenal?), Saviola, Robinho and 31-year old sulkypants Ruud Van Nistelroy?

8 ) United are on a roll. Young players. Premiership winners two years in a row. Champions League winners and semi-finalists the year before. Saha will be replaced. Chelsea are about to go into meltdown. Arsenal too, if Hleb follows Flamini out of the door.

9) Who’s the most famous player in the world? Cristiano Ronaldo. Why? because he plays for a team that’s youthful, winning and plays exciting football. When was the last time you heard anyone talking about Saviola, Robinho and Julio Baptista? Yup. Thought so.

10) So what’s the all the fuss about? He’s trying to push up his wages at United and his sponsorship deals. Keep Real Madrid interested and he’ll stay in the headlines all the way from Moscow to the European Championships. If Portugal have a good run, he’ll be in all the sports magazines for another few weeks. That’s half the summer. His agent will be laughing. Real Madrid will not.

Likud on the terraces

Published
by
Tom Nuttall
on May 27, 2008
in Inside Prospect, Middle east and Sport
. 4 Comments

If we are to expect anything at all from the dying months of George W Bush’s lamest of lame duck presidencies, look to Israel/Palestine. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has been spending an increasing amount of time in the region, and Bush, the first president to explicitly endorse the goal of an independent Palestinian state, may feel that his middle eastern legacy could do with some bucking up.

Is a deal likely? Two-state-solution optimists often point to the fact that in opinion polls, a large majority of Israelis say they support the idea of an independent Palestinian state. And almost two thirds even want their government to talk to Hamas—a proposal which would probably kill stone dead any of the three remaining presidential candidacies.

Yet dig beneath the surface and you find that in many cases, the support of Israelis for Palestinian independence probably has more to do with a desire to rid themselves of their troublesome neighbours than a commitment to their political rights. Two thirds of Jewish Israelis say the border between Israel and an independent Palestine should be closed. Two thirds say they wouldn’t want to live in the same building as an Arab, and half would not even let an Arab into their home.

This widespread antipathy of Israeli Jews towards Arabs is reflected in the rise of Beitar Jerusalem FC, who have just won the Israeli title for the second consecutive season. Beitar’s fans, particularly the “La Familia” ultras, are notorious for their anti-Arab racism and their hostility towards accommodation with the Palestinians. Yet these attitudes, as David Goldblatt reports in the new issue of Prospect, are if anything spreading beyond the Beitar terraces.

John Terry and globalisation

Published
by
David Herman
on May 26, 2008
in Sport
. 0 Comments

What is it that got the media so excited about ‘JT’ last week? Obviously, there’s the appeal of Chelsea’s iron man inconsolable, in floods of tears. Just as obvious, there’s the drama of one of England’s best-known players missing a penalty. After all, no one gave two hoots about sulky Anelka. And Terry embodies Chelsea: for many supporters he is Chelsea.

But what does this mean? Of the fourteen players who started or came on as subs in Moscow, four are English, and three of these were bought from other clubs in recent years. Only Terry came up through the Chelsea youth team. When fans say, John Terry is Chelsea, this is what they mean.

The reality of big-time football is that the top teams are owned by foreign millionaires or corporations; they have foreign managers; and most of their players, let alone star names, are foreign. Increasingly coaches look beyond local council estates and comprehensive schools to Africa, Argentina and southern Europe for their stars. Terry, Jamie Carragher, Stevie Gerrard, Gary Neville and Paul Scholes are the last of a species. That’s why Everton fans mourned the loss of Wayne Rooney. Of course, he was a great player in the making. Anyone could see that. But he was also a local boy. He was one of us, in a way Yakubu or Arteta could never be.

Football has gone global. And fans are torn. They know that’s the way of the world. They know that brings more money, more stars, more great football. But there’s also a sense of loss: the break between the fans and their players. Footballers used to be one of us and when they retired they bought shops and pubs and local businesses. That has changed just as that whole world has gone.

In yesterday’s Sunday Times, Alex Ferguson was talking about the future of Manchester United. he was talking about one of his favourite films, You’ve Got Mail in which a huge corporation, owned by Tom Hanks, buys up a small local bookstore, owned by Meg Ryan. That’s the future of Manchester United, he said. He wants United to be the huge, unstoppable new force. So do his fans. But they also want local players. Hence the tremendous feeling for the last local players. They are local in the new global game, reminders of a game that’s gone and a world that’s gone.

Poor Avram Grant

Published
by
David Herman
on May 24, 2008
in Sport
. 0 Comments

Was it the width of a goalpost that cost Grant his job at Chelsea? Grant could hardly have come closer to winning the Premiership. At one point, before Giggs scored United’s second goal at Wigan, Chelsea were one goal from the title. Twice they hit the woodwork in the Champions League Final and then they were one penalty kick away. It was a tremendous achievement. Grant had to overcome injuries and the loss of key players during the Africa Cup and yet still they kept coming. In the last weeks of the season they beat Arsenal and United at Stamford Bridge, Liverpool in the Champions League semi-final. And through all the speculation about his job and through all the stress of the run-in, Grant retained his dignity. When he was appointed he was universally dismissed. It was insinuated that he only got the job because he was a ‘friend’ of the owner (code for the fact that they were both Jews). No one expected him to do so well. And yet, at the end, there he was in the pouring rain comforting John Terry.

There is one thing that could be held against Grant. Chelsea need re-building. The current squad might last one more season, but that depends on who can resist the siren call of Mourinho and one last big payday in Spain or Italy as they pass thirty. Can Grant be trusted to rebuild the team that others built, Mourinho and before him, Ranieri? That’s one thing he’s not been called upon to do yet. His one purchase in January — Anelka who scored two goals in 24 games and missed that crucial penalty in Moscow — was not a success. Everyone thought it was at the time. It raised morale at Chelsea and everyone agreed Anelka was a class act. But it proved a costly mistake. It is one thing, his critics point out, to inherit a great team built by others. It’s quite another to do what Fergsuon and Wenger have done so superbly, time and again, to tear apart a great team and rebuild again. Clearly, the money men didn’t trust Grant to do this.

So Chelsea have now fired two outstanding managers in eight months. Not bad going. Of course, this is the same megalomania which saw Sven and Benitez on the verge of being dismissed. Truly Ferguson and Wenger are the last of a species — the manager who is trusted to stay on season after season. After them, the deluge.

Crewe, Real Madrid and selling papers

Published
by
David Herman
on May 23, 2008
in Sport
. 0 Comments

On the front pages all the talk is of the Crewe byelection and ditching the Prime Minister. On the back pages it’s all about Moscow and ditching Avram Grant — oh, and Real Madrid wanting to buy Ronaldo. This speculation is all about one thing — selling papers and begging for viewers.

Papers need to sell copies. TV shows need ratings, especially twenty-four hour TV news shows, condemned to recycling the same clips hour after hour, like some strange punishment by the Greek gods. What they both need is news, any news, but ideally big news. The disappearance of a young girl is good, especially if she isn’t found. The story of a mad Austrian abusing his children is good for a week. But as Summer approaches, and New Zealand are touring, England aren’t in the European Championship, Paula Radcliffe has a stress fracture and the Olympics is in a different time zone, far, far away… So all eyes on Brown, Ronaldo and Grant (and Lampard and Mourinho).

Labour haven’t got a replacement for Brown, so they will stay steady if they have any sense. if Chelsea had any sense they would thank their lucky stars for Grant, sell Drogba, Shevchenko and Malouda, find some young players and stay steady. If Ronaldo had any sense he would look at what going to Real Madrid did for Robinho and the Galacticos and stay steady. But staying steady doesn’t sell papers. The pundits and editors need a story so they will press on regardless. On the back pages, they are more used to this kind of thing. They know that the three months between the Champions League Final and FA Charity Shield are a terrible time, the dog days. So they will push on with transfer stories. It’s the only game in town.

Gift Subscription

Bad Behavior has blocked 815 access attempts in the last 7 days.