One trophy in nine years doesn’t warrant Wenger’s annual wage. Since his undefeated streak came to an end he has majorly underachieved but yet he is still considered to be one of the best managers around. How do many Arsenal fans not see beyond him? Or do they? How can they be happy with scraping into the top for year on year and not sustaining a strong mount for the league title? I cannot really complain as a Spurs supporter but I do think Wenger has been given more time than what he is worth.
A familiar gesture these days when Arsene is losing
He was once a good manager, a revelation for English football and he often caught Alex Ferguson on his heels. He is deemed a legend, a great manager but playing nifty, voyeuristic football does not always guarantee success. It has been done before over in Spain but Arsenal are not Barcelona and Wenger will never turn them into champions again in my view for as long as he is there. I admire his ability to raise youngsters and develop them but I do not agree with his tendency to sell such players once they hit their peak. Fabregas, van Persie, Anelka have all made the club millions of pounds but the Gunners have suffered for seeing the cash signs rather than building around such superstars. I understand that the club has had to pay off stadium debts but Wenger should have been more forceful by either trying to keep his players, or getting the owners to dig in their pockets sooner than what they have to find immediate replacements. They have signed Mezut Ozil and Alexis Sanchez of late but he doesn’t seem to have the knack to build a winnable team around such class. Until the FA Cup victory over a brave Hull City in 2014 the trophy cabinet at the Emirates was a grimy looking feature, reliant on history rather than what is most important, the here and now. Hull could have snatched it and should have preserved the 2-0 lead they had before the 10 minute mark. Arsenal proved to be the more experienced and the Tigers’ early usage of their energy soon saw them tire. At present Wenger has failed to convince he is worth £8 million a year and has never done anything to warrant that amount in the past decade.
Just some of the players who were members of Arsenal’s most successful era under Wenger
He did ok at Monaco, lifting the Cup Winners’ Cup in 1992 along with a Ligue 1 title and a shot at the Champions League. After a poor season in 1995 he was relieved of his duties after plummeting to a mid-table finish. He was that good he ended up in Japan and failed to win the league. Arsene may have won the League Cup over there but was not good enough to take a side to the top of a relatively undeveloped league in comparison to Ligue 1 and later the Premier League back then. He was unknown when he arrived at Highbury in 1997 but began promisingly, taking Arsenal to lift the league and cup double in his first season. The hype grew and he earned his reputation for being the successful new kid on the block. However two years later he led the Gunners to a trophy-less stint which carried on for another sixty months. Then Wenger had a great team at his disposal who were young and had potential. Thierry Henry proved to be a deadly goal scorer and arguably the best player the Premier League has witnessed. Patrick Vieira was the new generation of the central midfielder, strong, athletic and dominated the flow of the game. Then there was the classy Dennis Bergkamp with his inch perfect touch, Marc Overmars and Nwankwo Kanu had already gained Champions League winners medals at Ajax and Emmanuel Petit arrived with his long, conditioned blonde hair with an exciting and skillful approach. These were purchased to mix with the experience Arsenal had with the likes of Tony Adams, David Seaman and Ray Parlour in the ranks. On paper Arsenal were the best side in the league and Europe should have feared them year on year. They may have won the League on three occasions under the Frenchman but in Europe Arsenal have been far worse then what they should have been. They have only made one final in 2006 and two quarter final appearances despite featuring in every Champions League competition to date. With the experience of the tournament you would have thought Wenger would have figured out by now how to find a consistent winning mentality to bring the European Cup back to North East London.
Mesut Ozil, once a flamboyant and attractive Real Madrid midfielder is now constantly unfit and average
Wenger has failed multiple times to utilise the players he had that were considered World Class. These men should have won trophy after trophy and seen their necks glimmering with shiny medals. The Frenchman could have become the greatest manager to have lived but he was not clever enough to make the right decisions at crucial times, hence the decision to leave Dennis Bergkamp and Robin van Persie on the bench against Barcelona in the 2007 Champions League final in Paris and substituting Cesc Fabregas who was Arsenal’s best player that night. He has failed to adapt with time and has been reluctant to bring in experience when it has quite clearly been lacking at times. No wonder why the owners have not put enough money in his palms for him to spend. He has turned players with talent and reputation such as Andriy Arshavin and Mesut Ozil into average buys which cost the club heavy lump sums. Then there has been buys including Denilson, Abou Diaby and Manuel Almunia who flopped for being borderline awful. Do not even get me started with Nicklas Bendtner, quite simply the best player to grace the Premier League and definitely not a laughing stock. Why Arsenal released him in 2014 still confuses me?
Arsenal’s solitary piece of silverware in the second half of Wenger’s reign
What is most disappointing is how Wenger failed to work on the success he gained from his early years at the club. The FA Cup win in 2014 was a relief but it was not life changing. He has had the money to spend at times but the blame has also been aimed at the board for being too stingy. However, I do think Arsene does not know how to spend money wisely on a consistent business to build a winnable team. This has ultimately, along with Wenger’s rusty tactics seen Arsenal become non-title contenders. He has hinted at the number of clubs that have wanted to sign him but I find it funny how none of these ‘clubs’ have spoke of their interest publicly in response to his claims. He is loyal to Arsenal but not true to success. His record is a thing of the past and only top class managers maintain a winning standard which he has not.
Like every fan, I love my club through thick and thin, through the good times and the bad, but by god my team does frustrate me. In opinion the club I have supported since I was a boy have been major underachievers. I feel jubilation when they win and feel like crying when they lose, but as a Lilywhites fan I feel as though I have shed more tears alongside all Spurs supporterss than most of rival clubs around the country. Just when you think they may turn a corner they slip up like good old Tottenham do. This is an emotionally draining club to watch, always biting my fingernails and feeling relief after the full time whistle even if they are comfortably in front, you just never know with them.
Roberto Soldado came to Spurs from Valencia with a huge reputation, scoring 59 goals in 101 appearances for the Spanish side. He has only scored 7 in 36 league games for the Lilywhites
No long term planning, feeding through managers like junk food, a selling club, always underachieving, too much swap and change with formations, always looking up at Arsenal, never taking responsibility on big occasions and fulfilling their ‘potential’, not having a concrete philosophy of going forward, a lack of consistency, too much expectation on attractive football rather than playing winning football, I think that sums up the mood around White Hart Lane season after season and we don’t know if the new stadium will change anything.
The early 1960’s was the period that saw people take notice of Spurs, especially when they lifted the league and cup double in 1961. They had a couple of years in the mid-eighties where people stood up and took notice but relying on history over and over is pathetic. It has been over fifty years since the Lilywhites won the league title and over twenty years since lifting the FA Cup, a tournament where their reputation of being a ‘cup team’ came from. Spurs are a top seven side, with only two top four finishes since the Premier League’s inception in 1992 and only one Champions League experience. This season has been far from any improvement and another finish outside of Europe’s elite looks to be firmly printed on the cards.
Harry Redknapp spent four years at Spurs, with three top 5 finishes between 2008-12
However, to be frank, the expectations at the club are way too high and evidence suggests they are way off their targets as they constantly fail to reach their ‘potential’. What will it take for them to make that next step? What will it take to maintain some consistency rather than being a one-hit wonder? There is such a fixation with getting into the top four the club has forgotten how to retain a manager with Maurico Pocchetino the thirteenth manager in eleven years, which is the highest turnover of managers in the top division. Under Harry Redknapp, Spurs were at their the most improved since their stint near the top end in the eighties. Redknapp brought Champions League football to the Lane. Fans saw victories against both Milan sides and the great Real Madrid came to North London with the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo, Iker Casillas and Karim Benzema on board. These were exciting times and there was genuine belief Spurs could continue their good fortunes and challenge for the league in the near future. The squad was impressive with Gareth Bale peaking, Luka Modric becoming the most wanted midfielder in the world and Ledley King looked to have been turning a corner on his injury crisis. How all that suddenly drained away.
Redknapp should have stayed, regardless of Levy being aggravated by his manager talking about the vacant England job. He brought in a style that hasn’t been matched since. Andre Villas-Boas didn’t do badly but he had Gareth Bale. Bale was the outstanding player and grew from Harry’s guidance. Playing alongside the likes of Luka Modric and Rafael van der Vaart certainly helped but Bale became a man during this era. AVB was always going to struggle when Bale was sold, any team would when selling their best player. Manchester United have never replaced Cristiano Ronaldo, Arsenal have never found anyone close to Thierry Henry whilst Blackburn Rovers and Newcastle United were never as good when Alan Shearer vacated. Redknapp’s short spell in the Champions League lasted just one season and they haven’t been able to qualify for the tournament since. Levy thought he was taking Spurs to the next level but he hasn’t found anyone better than Redknapp since.
Pocchetino has struggled to find a smooth formula as seen back in his Southampton managerial days
The North Londoners are notorious for being a selling club. Michael Carrick, Luka Modric, Raphael van der Vaart, Teddy Sheringham, Gareth Bale, Dimitar Berbatov have all left for pastures new. Yes Spurs have made some wonderful profit from agreeing to sale but they have paid the price for this by finishing below expectations and signing some rather drab replacements along the way. This sees them having to constantly find new players to develop which sees a lack of consistency and reflects badly on the club’s reputation. How is a team that sells all of its best players going to break the barrier when they have to continue to revise their transfer policy and team every season? Of late they have spent plenty of money, especially in the summer of 2013 which saw a massive £110 million splashed out on seven players in the wake of Gareth Bale’s world beating switch to Real Madrid. As the story has it Spurs had nothing to show for it, finishing below expectations yet again with only Christian Eriksen showing potential out of seven arrivals.
The new stadium is expected to be finished by 2016, replacing the current White Hart Lane
This is a club that is a member of the top ten supported clubs in England but there is a sense that they will never overcome being branded the ‘typical old Spurs’. A new stadium is on the cards which will bring in extra revenue and could attract further talent but what is it that Spurs fans want the most? The odd showing in the Champions League or some silverware to light up a rather dusty old cabinet? I’d suggest the majority would like to see a winner’s medal or two in domestic England before travelling around Europe but we all know how the glamour of the Champions League brings in much more attention and better players. Tottenham are now entering their transitional period. Manchester United have been doing so and Liverpool are in a game of yo-yo under Brendan Rodgers. They need to stick with a trend that brings in results and the quality football will follow. They will never have the money both Chelsea and Manchester City have unless Levy gives in and sales up, but he is a proud man who wants to keep trying, regardless if fans believe in him or not.
Winners no and hosts yes. Why? For me it’s simple. Winners have the deserved right to defend their title as they do in European club competitions, so why do national sides have to defend their name from the qualification period of a tournament when this stage involves those who didn’t lift the title last time around? Why should the winners of a previous tournament regardless of how long ago it was have to prove they deserve to defend the title they originally won, in the last tournament? In the Euros, the hosts get an automatic ticket because ‘they are the hosts’ and the champions from four years ago have to qualify, the World Cup doesn’t follow this suit so why does the Euros do things differently? It is nonsense and makes no sense.
Understandably the class and ability of the previous winners may have changed but they are still champions and have earned their right to automatic qualification to the next tournament. Are they not the ones to beat? Maybe if a champion side didn’t qualify then they wouldn’t deserve the right to play in the actual competition as they may not have been good enough but shouldn’t this be savoured for the tournament? Rather than entering a qualification phase, they should devise their own preparation to ensure they can still compete as the best. If a champion wants to be the best more than once then they should prove it on the biggest stage, where they initially won it. Surely a competition without the previous winners would be a little bit pointless and disappointing as there would be nobody to actually steal ‘their’ title from.
A host should not be given the automatic right to qualification to a tournament; it is plain and simply wrong. I understand that the host nation spends a lot of money, time and dedication to make a competition the best they can with its own identity, but it is not a team that wins the votes, it is a group of campaigners. For me, to determine whether a tournament was any good we have to judge the football itself, the style it creates and the amount of goals scored, not the party scenes and the overly expensive ceremonies. A team is simply in place to represent and then has the high probability of winning a competition because they are backed by their home fans around the country, which delivers plenty of confidence despite the expectation.
The 2020 European Championships will be an interesting spectacle with countries having to travel around Europe to play each other rather than taking coaches and planes to cities and towns in the same country. It will be a flavoursome experience as we will get see the culture of the whole continent but whether it will work only time will tell. One thing it does diminish is the right for hosts to automatically qualify. The problem is that this probably wouldn’t work on a larger scale for a World Cup tournament. A country will not be able to play in the grounds of their homeland so therefore Uefa are asking fans around Europe to travel from one country to another, one week after the next. Expensive to say the least but obviously money grows on trees for fans to travel around Europe in a short space of time. In my view the idea is crazy and badly thought through.
There is nothing wrong with a country hosting a tournament but for me the team should have to earn their right to have the support and backing of their nation and qualify rather than it being gifted to them for free. Surely qualifying to play in your home country whilst it hosts a tournament would be a little more rewarding? Something even more special to aim for perhaps? It causes bias and favoritism which surely goes against the credentials of fair play in the game. A country that has been awarded the right to host would be more respected after qualifying rather than being given a golden ticket to the chocolate factory.
There are also examples of a host team not being good enough to compete against those with the quality who have earned their place. This unfairly takes away a spot that could be earned by a team with more quality and have more effect on a tournament. Does anyone really expect Qatar to achieve anything on the field in 2022?
How does this system prove that the away team has worked harder to get a result over two-legs? Yes the away team has to put up with the torment of the home fans which makes it harder to win but how is the rule remotely fair? A scrappy goal could have gone in but it doesn’t mean it was well deserved. One team could be dominated over the two games but the other could nick a cheeky own goal or a penalty that wasn’t which sought of defeats the object of establishing which team was better away from home and over two legs.
Away goals can kill off a tie in the second leg in an instant as soon as the ball hits the back of the net. Teams in winning positions buckle up and park the bus whilst the attacking team runs out of time to infiltrate the score-line.
A draw is a draw over two legs, whether one team loses 1-0 away and then wins the return home leg 2-1; it is plain and simply a draw. Why should these two score-lines denote that the team who has scored the away goal has performed better over two games? They may have been truly battered in the second game, losing on possession and shots on goal. How does being spanked in a game give you the right to progress through to the next round of a tournament? Taking your chances is crucial and I get that but still I am not keen.
How can one goal count as two if the scores are level? You can now see why it confuses some people. The amount of times I have had to explain this rule to my partner or youngsters is quite unbelievable because the mathematics of the concept do not add up. If I can recall that if two teams drew they went to extra time whether it was 1-1 or 5-5?
I understand how the home and away leg works; it is only fair that both teams get to play on their home turf to experience the backing of their own fans. What I cannot grasp is how it is fair to eliminate one team when they have scored the same amount of goals as their opposition. If you are going to play two legs then it should following the format of the League Cup semi-finals in the English game. Whichever team scores the most after two legs goes through, if they are still level after 180 minutes then extra-time can come into play. Even then the home team in the second leg still has the advantage in extra-time with the home fans behind them, which can also be criticised but could be countered due to the ‘luck’ of the draw.
European football has ultimately tried to prevent the notion of extra time, which is in itself also a farce. What happened to the Golden Goal rule? That was far more exciting and gave teams the urge to score the winning goal. Now teams slowly trot around the field during extra time to play the chance lottery of penalties. I have never quite understood as to why a team would ‘choose’ to lay it all the line in a shoot-out? I can appreciate the reasons behind wanting to steer away from extra time but if this is the case then why does this part of the game still exist? If two teams cancel each other out after the golden goal period has exceeded then fair enough, play penalties but even this is a cruel way of losing. Any suggestions on a new solution?
Whatever happened to settling with one game to decide who went through and who was sent home? Rather than having two games the format should follow the style of most domestic league trophies. One game between the two and whichever team is drawn at home is determined by whose name is drawn out of the hat first. Yes it would shorten the competition but scrapping over a two-legged affair would save a lot of unfairness and plenty of explanation.
Derbies being played in the early rounds of a tournament, underdogs playing each other in the latter stages to get a boarding pass to the next round and teams playing each other again and again year after year, you would think this supports the above question?
The first time Drogba returned…
Drogba and Mourinho have always had a strong relationship. His reception on his return was inspiring.
Also in support of this debate is the coincidence of a tie being drawn after much speculation in the media. Let me expand upon this. Didier Drogba scored the winning penalty for Chelsea in their first UEFA Champions League victory as finalist in 2012 and is forever going to be hailed as a legend. He later left that summer for pastures new but soon returned to Europe after a very short stint in the bizarre environment of Shanghai Shenhua in China. As a Galatasaray striker in the 2014 European Cup he went on record to state how he would have loved to visit Stamford Bridge to face his former teammates in the first round of the knockout stages, in the Last 16. This was published throughout the UK tabloids on how he would receive a wonderful reception. Why and behold his ‘dream’ came true, Chelsea drew Galatasaray, what a ‘twist of fate’.
Clubs from the same country meeting
In European club football, teams from the same country tend to be drawn against after the group stages, a round which banishes them from doing so, simply to narrow down the chances of one country dominating the whole tournament. We often see this occur in the quarter or semi-finals of a competition. Although the chances of them being drawn together are more likely with the number of teams in a tournament reducing as time goes on, it seems inevitable that Chelsea will be drawn against say Manchester United or Barcelona go ahead to ahead with Atletico Madrid.
Has the excitement been ‘drawn’ out
Where did the excitement and the unpredictability of the draw vanish? When the FA cup draws took place it was a momentous occasion each and every time but this no longer seems to be the case. Maybe it has always been this way and the expectedness of two teams meeting in a tournament year after year will never change? I can tell you where the thrill of the draw went… in the back pocket of those drawing out the numbers perhaps, or their advisers who organize these ‘pot luck draws’. ‘Here you are son, here’s a tasty £100 bonus if you can guarantee that ball number one, Arsenal draw out ball number eighteen in the pot, Tottenham Hotspur in the third round of the FA Cup’. What a load of cotton rollocks!
Everyone wants a competition that sees the best teams compete against each other but shouldn’t this be seen towards the end of the tournament after they defeat their minnows? I understand that at some point two of the big teams will go head-to-head and yes this could happen in the early stages of a tournament but there seems to be no randomness in a draw. Big fixtures in each round of domestic cup football are purposely put in place to keep the interest of the FA Cup alive following its alleged demise. This is how TV claimed its rights once again.
The seeding system
A big pointer on how draws can be derived as fixed is the seeded system put in place to ensure the better clubs get through the early stages of a competition easily. Therefore this gives the underdogs less chance of playing each other ‘by chance’ as they must play the more successful teams first. How is this categorically fair or have those rewarded with a top seed earned the right to an easier route? What happened to random draws where you would see the ultimate group of death in the first round of the World Cup? The whole layout for an international tournament and European club competitions is set out so the predicted finalists actually get to the final and ‘don’t disappoint’.
It has become common ground for debate over the Champions League, a competition which by name should consist of ‘champions’, but by nature invites runner-ups and teams who finished in third and sometimes fourth domestically. You can see where the confusion sparks from but I guess this is what we call football, or UEFA for that count.
The history of European club football
In terms of club football, Gabriel Hanot is considered a revolutionary genius.
History has it that the editor of French sports tabloid L’Equipe, Gabriel Hanot conjured up the idea of an elite tournament for champions in the 1950’s following a remark the then English crown bearers made. Wolverhampton Wanderers were the top team in the England and self proclaimed world beaters. Due to there being no competition to prove this, the midlands side organised friendlies to make their point. Hanot did not approve and wanted to challenge Wolves against the likes of Real Madrid and AC Milan.
The Mitropa cup was a central European club tournament at the time which was first developed in Austria in 1926. The competition included two teams from each of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Hungary. This was a gathering that invited champions, along with either runners-up or domestic cup winners but the structure of the tournament was not very strict, therefore it didn’t influence any growth beyond the four countries.
The old Mitropa Cup
Hanot planned to devise a large scale improvement to determine who the champion of champions should be. Once his idea was authorised and put into practice by those at the round table at UEFA, the idea was to include clubs with a large stature, with a substantial following. However, the tournament initially invited champions only which saw title holders from Finland, Cyprus and Lithuania embarrassed due the sheer difference in quality from table-toppers in Spain, Italy and Germany.
The revolution of 1992
Despite the original process holding some of football’s greatest memories including Aston Villa’s solitary European triumph, the appeal began to fade and a re-brand was needed. Therefore the year 1992 arrived, a year of revelation. The Barclays Premier League was born and re-branded from the old First Division, whilst the European cup eventually took on Hanot’s idea for commercialism and growth. More teams were added to the whole process to beef up the tournament, with the more significant nations given an advantage to give the group stages the chance to field the best teams available. Teams from minnow footballing nations were instructed to qualify through a structure of rounds via seeding, before reaching the actual competition itself. Since the restructure, only Slovakian side Artmedia Bratislava can be identified as ‘minor champions’ to achieve the ‘right’ to play in the big time. The Slovakian’s did themselves no harm with a substantial win over Celtic before sealing a narrow victory over 2004 European Champions Porto in the group stages in the first round. Inevitably their story in the tournament saw an early exit.
As the competition developed so did the formula of entry. The top three to four teams from the most established countries would gain either automatic qualification into the group stages or would be seeded in the qualifying rounds to get an ‘easier’ route, without playing too many games before the predictability of entering the ‘actual tournament’. The UEFA Champions League has become a global phenomenon as fans get to see some of the greatest club sides, with the best players on show doing battle with each other to determine the right to lift the title of the best team in Europe. It is sheer brilliance.
Is there a better option?
Real Madrid created history in 2013-14 by becoming the most successful club side, winning La Decima
Although the tournament doesn’t include rightful champions from every European country it does invite those who failed to topple the rest in their country, a competition with a huge divide in quality would not have the greatest appeal, especially in the modern game. Which game would you prefer to watch? The champions of Sweden versus the champions of the Faroe Islands or the runners-up of the Premier League face to face with a third place Italian Serie A side? The response will inevitably sway towards the latter option due to the better quality of players available, the bigger fan base and their established global appeal.
With great clubs and world class players there isn’t much to complain about apart from the name of the competition in my opinion. The tournament still fulfils the fundamentals of the original outlay; it enables the champions of each country to take part but just at different stages and allows other teams to enter who are not silverware winners to beef up the intensity and value. The odd shock has happened and still can despite the seeding system making it easier for the bigger sides, but it doesn’t always guarantee their spot in the top 32 teams. It could be suggested that the competition has become too predictable due to the same elite sides progressing to the latter stages but isn’t it supposed to be system that finds the best teams in Europe? Whether it is seeded or not or the format is changed, the Champions League will always continue to have the best teams competing to the end, whether that is just one from Germany, two from Italy and three from Spain. If there are going to be complaints about the best teams winning every year then they clearly do not understand how the game works. Those with financial power and commercial equities are the giants, have the best players and play the best football. That is why they are called champions is it not?
Rename it maybe, I’ll let the big guns in Nyon, Switzerland, decide on that, for now I’m going to continue to enjoy the greatest club competition in history, enjoy the glamour, the money and the grave importance it means to those involved. There is no greater competition and the glamour of it catches the attention year on year.
As the old cliché repeats itself year after year, referees do have the hardest job in football. Not every decision they make is going to be right and not every choice they make on the field is going to be popular with everyone. All we can do as judges of the game is ask for a bold approach, one that is honest and fair to both sides, baring no favouritism for any one side and asking the players to enjoy themselves on the pitch. They are often forgotten during a match until they have to make a decision, at which point they become the most important individual for that brief moment. The course of a game can be changed within an instant with split-second decision making. Calling it right is well applauded but getting it wrong can prove detrimental to a referee’s reputation and the stakes have never been higher in the modern game. It is a job that has to be done until the game comes to reliant on technology as it grows. We must not forget however, that these people are also fans but like to take up a challenge rather than judging from watching it on the TV screen.
The standard of officials in this country is by far the best in world football. They are known to meet together at St James’ in Burton and are said to always evaluate their position on the field. These are referees who are physically fitter than they use to be. There is not one ref you will see officiating a game from the halfway line, they are up and down the pitch almost as fast as some of the players out there these days. It is however becoming harder to judge situations on the pitch, with the inclusion diving and abusiveness, which must be highly testing for the man in the middle. Referees around Europe, as seen regularly in the Champions League can be very unpredictable, brandishing cards from their pockets like there’s no tomorrow and seeing crucial decisions either being critically missed or lavishly blowing their whistles which sees the flow of matches disrupted. Players know they can get away with making stupid fouls to stop the opposition in their attack but foreign refs are particularly irresponsible when it comes to red cards. There have been some absurd dismissals seen in European competition.
Varying standards across Europe?
Manchester United winger Nani was deemed by many to be harshly sent off in March 2013 during Sir Alex Ferguson’s final season as manager in a Champions League quarter final against Real Madrid. United weren’t playing too badly considering the task at hand. Real were the better side on paper but United were matching the Spanish giants in all departments. The Portuguese winger’s foot was higher than what it should have been but was no superior than Alvaro Arbeloa’s waist. It did not warrant a sending off to say the least. The decision by Turkish official Cuneyt Cakir ultimately changed the game. Real went on to dominate possession and came from behind to beat United 2-1. Alex Ferguson went on record to brandish his anger, whilst Rio Ferdinand faced potential sanctions for sarcastically applauding the ref for being too ruthless. In all seriousness the response after the game was a bit over the top. The Turkish ref received death threats over Twitter whilst he was branded a cheat for being a ‘follower’ of Cristiano Ronaldo on the social site. Although this is a tad silly to be accused of, I can see how he could be judged nearly as serious Ole Hermann Borgan was, a Swedish referee photographed wearing a Barcelona shirt before a crucial Champions League match against Arsenal. The Gunners lost that night but were beaten by the better side.
Cakir is far from popular with English teams.
Turkish ref Cakir had a history with English clubs prior to that spring evening at Old Trafford. He sent off Mario Balotelli in a Europa League encounter between Manchester City and Dynamo Kiev in 2011 and took a red out of his pocket at Steven Gerrard during a World Cup qualifier between England and Ukraine in September 2012. He doesn’t seem to be on good terms with Chelsea defenders either with a red shown to Gary Cahill in the World Cup Club final defeat to Corinthians in January 2013, whilst he also dismissed John Terry in the early stages of the Blues Champions League semi-final second-leg tie with Barcelona in May 2012. During 2012 and 2013 Cakir had shown an incredible eleven red cards, most notably three of them being revealed in a goalless encounter between Turkish rivals Fenerbahce and Galatasaray in May 2012.
But then there are some pretty good refs too…
In reflection, there have been some truly great referees including Howard Webb and Italian Pierluigi Collina. Collina, who retired as a FIFA listed referee was considered the best of his generation, if not the best referee to ever have stood in the middle of the park. He is the only referee to be named FIFA’s ‘Best Referee of the Year’ award on six separate occasions, consecutively. He was known for his objectivity, his brilliant presence in front of twenty-two men and his glaring eyes which would have haunted many grown men. This was no ordinary referee, he was eerie and didn’t stand for nonsense. If he was in charge of the match then you knew it was going to be a game with little mistake, if any. He used his hair-loss condition called alopecia to great effect, merely adding an intimidating side to his character which pulled of the perfect man-in-black along with his wonderful glare. Collina was intellectual in his decision making, taking into account all sides of a story during a confrontation between two players or a team, then he would bravely determine a decision from the points he had summed up as a whole. Although this would be expected of all referees, Collina did it with control and reliability. There was no doubting his decision-making and he used his extra eyes on the sidelines to great effect.
Arguably the best referee in the history of the game: Pierluigi Collina.
His most famous moment on the pitch came in the 1999 Champions League final between Manchester United and Bayern Munich. Bayern were the better side and deserved to win but United had Alex Ferguson, David Beckham, Teddy Sheringham and Ole Gunnar Solksjaer to thank, plus the two extra minutes Collina deemed necessary. In those two added minutes United had turned a 1-0 deficit into an historic 2-1 victory thanks to goals from super subs Solkjaer and Sheringham following crisp deliveries by Beckham from the corner flags. Collina felt a mix of emotions, he had just seen one of the greatest turnarounds in club football history but also one of the biggest heartbreaking moments football has ever seen. Despite his chilling, spooky persona, he demonstrated moments of pure courtesy. With twenty seconds to spare and United celebrating certain victory, he picked up a handful of Bayern Munich players to will them on to the final whistle, tapping them on the shoulder to give them the urge to respect the game. He realised the passion the two sets of players had, especially the Bayern lads who were brought down to their knees after seeing silverware slip from their fingertips.
Now a member of the UEFA Referees Committee, Collina is very much behind the idea of promoting as many ways to help a referee by giving him as many eyes as possible. He doesn’t want to extract human involvement though. Although a supporter of technology, he believes a great deal of the work needs to be continuously put in behind the scenes of a referee’s preparation as it bares as much importance as their time on the pitch. He was a fascinating character, not just for his presence but for his attitude and dedication to giving his best in every game. He never stopped learning, taught himself how to deal with the psychological aspects of the game from a foundation of strong education. This knowledge gave him a unique ability to make astute decisions in heated environments and he never flustered. The Italian has always been a believer in starting young in order to learn from your mistakes, the younger the better. Like those players who are deemed world class, these types of professionals do not come around that often. He set a standard that all referees should abide by.
With 500 games experience in England, Webb set a new standard for the current crop of officials.
Howard Webb recently announced his retirement less than two weeks before the 2014-15 Premier League season at just 43-years-of-age. Some may have said he was rather young to hang up his whistle and his little black book, but after an industrious twenty-five years refereeing he decided to show the red card to the field to be appointed as the technical director of the official referees’ association. He had officiated over five-hundred Premier League and Football League games, over one-hundred Champions League fixtures along with domestic and European cup finals whilst appearing in both the 2010 and 2014 World Cups. He was awarded an MBE for his services in football and his skills were seen as being crucial to create a brand new role for him at the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL).
The proud Yorkshire man was considered the best in the English game as he had the ability to control players and their attitudes with resemblance to a police officer you simply wouldn’t mess with. Webb also had a humble side, admitting he always felt he had the best seat in the house when officiating, being privileged to be in the centre of some of the biggest games. He was said to love training and the benefits of doing his job better to be in the right place at the right time to make a decision from all angles, in particular those he was closest to. The thought of a challenge encouraged Webb to drive himself to be the best at what he did and was rewarded with some fantastic travelling opportunities. At just 43 he has been to 44 different countries, travelling most of Europe in the process.
Do referees do a good job?
Referees want to contribute to the enjoyment of players and fans. This is drummed into rookie referees at the lower levels and the further they go the more eyes are watching them to be a positive influence on a game. Football is a spectacle and referees do not intend to be negative or get decisions wrong. It must be a great feeling being able to answer critics when an official has had a strong game and made the right decisions. The making of these choices is why the job is so challenging and particularly difficult. Many outcomes are made through the blink of an eye and this is why they are criticised heavily if they make a wrong call. There are plenty of occasions where incidences are left wide open without a true explanation as to why a referee made the determination they did. In post match interviews we see managers, players and pundits ranting and raving, debating for hours on end when all they want to know is why the man in the middle decided on what he did. There have been plenty of requests for referees to face the camera after a game to explain their judgments and I think a club and its fans deserves to hear what the ref has to say on the matter. However they are seemingly banned from giving a short interview by the referee’s association which seems a little unethical. A short question-answer session in front of the camera could change people’s perspective on an incident or could put minds at rest by compromising with what the referee saw and what he or she thought was suitable for the situation at the time of events. To some extent though I can understand why officials do not want to speak to a large audience after the game, as regardless of what explanation they give there are still bound to be plenty who disagree. You never see any ex players becoming referees which is interesting, but there is a genuine belief that becoming an official could ruin the reputations they have built up throughout their playing careers because of the unpredictability of the job. Regardless of how often a referee is attempting to revise their work and turning the amount of wrong decisions into right ones, they are always going to be under pressure and scrutiny for as long as they are in the game.
I think it is intriguing with the bravery these men and women have to install in themselves to have belief in their opinions and judgments on situations, knowing that their position is being judged constantly. Therefore I think referees deserve far more respect as not many people would take the job on. Technology is in the long run looking to help referees and linesman’s to make a choice but whether that decision is right or not will only be judged by any human being after that. I commend the work referees do, especially in the United Kingdom. I may scream and shout at them, forcing blame on their shoulders but if I can see on a replay what truly happened in an incident and the ref gets it right first time, I will hold my hands up and applaud them. At the end of the day these people are trained professionals at what they do.
Football: Our Controversial Passion 