|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
Eriksson choice bold for England
Updated: Sunday November 12, 2000 4:21 PM
After a few weeks away, there've been a whole range of questions and issues people have raised in my mailbag. This week's offering covers a few of them.
Who do you think will be England's next coach? Well this question of course has been superceded by events. The English FA's choice of Lazio's Swedish coach, Sven Goran Eriksson, is a bold and welcome departure for the English in my view. As has been glaringly obvious in recent years, England needs some new ideas. They weren't coming from their homegrown coaches. Terry Venables apart, it was clear to everyone that there was no homegrown coaching talent with the vision to change things at international level, and I for one am glad the FA had the courage to break with tradition and employ a foreigner for the first time. This is a global game in which the top clubs all feature cosmopolitan line-ups, and an equally liberal attitude to employing the best at the coaching level is long overdue. My only hope is, that Eriksson is a success. If he's not, then the pressure on the FA to appoint a coach based on his passport rather than his talent will return.
Tell me about the English. Is it the F.A's fault that there is not the players coming through as there used to be? Or is it the fault of the government? Is it the fault of the F.A that there is not the right facilities in schools from a very early age? I think not. It's not the F.A's fault when you don't get the right money put into all sport in the U.K. I'd know, because I come from a British School, which has awful sporting facilities. Once again, it's all down to politics I'm afraid. And let me ask you this: Who is the best example of a nation who has all the right or at least the best opportunities for making a great team in every sport? I think you'll find it's USA. They seem to have got it right for years. I'd say it's a combination of factors that's put English football, at the international level, in the doldrums. Too little money, government or otherwise, devoted to developing the game at grassroots. A lack of good quality facilities in state schools, where talent is nurtured. Short-sighted coaching that embraces the idea that the English way must be better by definition. The over emphasis on club success and commitment at the expense of giving players time to gel as a national squad. Seasons that are too long and too intense, with no winter break to recharge the batteries. There are a million and one reasons you and I could come up with. Has the USA got it right? Well they certainly pump money into sports but it isn't necessarily government money. The Americans, may I remind you, shine in sports that few countries play, like basketball, baseball, and NFL football which are independently financed. Sure they have great track and field athletes and swimmmers too. But talking to them at the Olympics, many of them have the same complaints about lack of funding and attention that their counterparts in England have. So you see, there is no one fix-all that the English can come up with. Let's hope Sven Goran Eriksson has some ideas that work.
Secondary World Cup just so the poor US can catch up with the rest of the world? Give me a break! Well then, we should also have secondary Olympics, Tennis Grand Slams, etc., so that athletes from countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia do not have to face the daunting task of competing against the US with its vast financial and human resources and well established athletic programs. Akelo is referring to a suggestion I made a few weeks ago in which I said there ought to be a secondary World Cup to avoid the lesser nations being thrashed and demoralized by the leading soccer lights. My view is that it would also decrease the size of the World Cup Finals, which now admit 32 teams, and make for better quality football. Well Akelo, I still stand by those views, and they have nothing to do with wanting the USA or any of the other nations to "catch up". For a start, I have no particular interest in the USA's success on the international stage. I'm not American. I do, however, believe that the World Cup Finals should see the best against the best, and a team of minnows gaining access due to a geographical quirk of fate, currently ensures that there are too many meaningless matches. We have divisions in club soccer, so why not on the international stage? The Olympics in fact already has quality control, as the IOC sets minimum qualifying standards, and only admits competitors who don't meet that standard by special invitation. Tennis also attempts to ensure the best meet the best by seeding.
Africa has many great international football players but it will take some centuries before we ever win the World Cup. But I believe if we send a joint African team in the competition we will achieve something more worthwhile than we have done before. What do you think Terry? It will never happen Paschaul. If you allow the continent of Africa to submit a unified team, then why not a European team or a South American squad? A combined squad from Asia would also stand a better chance. To select any single team from an entire continent would alter the entire nature of the competition, and apart from anything else, FIFA bureacracy would make it a complete non-starter.
What ever happened to the proposed changes in soccer rules? For example, to make the goal larger and higher, to break the regulation time into three periods of 30 minutes each, to allow more changes per band, and to allow mini-corner shots? And here is my own: to do away with the off-side call. It is irritant, controversial and allows for discrepancies. What do you think? What happened, I assume, is that someone at FIFA decided the game's been fine as it is for more than a century, and it didn't need tampering with to cater to the demands of an impatient new audience. Come on Julian, no-one's against changes that make the game better, but changes need to be gradual and have some purpose other than the whims of a minority. Of course the sport has to move forward, but the radical steps you highlight obviously have few supporters. Football is a world game, which must be played according to the consensus of opinion or not played at all.
Has your opinion of Ipswich Town FC and their chances of Premiership survival altered after they've thus far demonstrated ability to be able to more than hold their own against the best this season? Tobe honest I had no opinion of Ipswich Town to start with, so I can't say my views have changed. As someone who grew up seeing the likes of Kevin Beattie, Eric Gates, Mick Mills, and Paul Mariner wearing the Town's colours, I know it's a club that can produce quality players who play entertaining football. Certainly the Manchester United and Arsenal dominated Premier League can benefit from a new challenge, and if unfashionable Ipswich is one of the clubs to provide it, then all power to them. Though I somehow doubt that the club's limited financial clout can produce the sustained success that's required to do that. All the same, good luck to you and your team.
Terry, Did Steve Redgrave get any international recognition for his Olympic achievements? PS - "Newsround" hasn't been the same since you left. As I don't live in Britain anymore, I'm afraid I don't know how Steve's incredible success was received there. Doubtless another trip to the Palace for the New Year's honors has to be in the offing though. But beyond your shores I know there was a great deal of admiration for his achievement from other nations during the Games. However, I think the nature of his chosen sport, rowing, means it's never going to hit the headlines outside the Olympics. So I guess the answer to your question is that beyond the rowing community, he's largely under-appreciated. As for your reference to one of my previous jobs on BBC Newsround, which incidentally seems like a couple of lifetimes ago, thanks. Though you only say "it hasn't been the same" -- does that mean it's worse without me or better?
I just read E.M. Swift's diatribe against Olympic race-walking. I have a suggestion for a replacement: RUGBY! What would it take to get it into the Olympics? It's certainly a global sport -- but maybe a bit too working-class for the IOC, although it was possible to get football (soccer) and baseball on the schedule, neither of which is particularly blueblooded. What do you think? I think rugby would be a great addition. I would not want to see the Games get any bigger however, so it would have to be at the expense of one of the other 28 sports they had on the schedule in Sydney. In my view, it would be every bit as valid as an Olympic sport as baseball, softball and water polo, if not more so. I doubt social class comes into the reckoning of the IOC, however. Managing the Olympics is a business, and I'm sure if the people in charge could be convinced that there'd be a few more million dollars in the coffers with the inclusion of rugby, it would have a good chance of being there. Then of course we'd have the dilemma -- rugby union or rugby league?
What's up with John McEnroe? It seems hypocritical for John to be criticizing the behavior of anyone on the tennis courts after his performances during his playing days. For McEnroe to criticize the Williams sisters, who are without a doubt, players demonstrating power and grace unseen in woman's tennis since Martina Navratilova retired, is incomprehensible. Perhaps it's simply the color of their skin that he doesn't like. Love him or hate him, Johnny Mac shoots from the hip. If he thinks it, he says it, and his lack of diplomacy has always been what's made him entertaining. Of course, when a man with his track record starts criticizing others for indiscipline or lack of respect, it's inevitably hard to swallow. However, not everyone does likes the attitude of the Williams girls, so hammering McEnroe for voicing his views isn't really fair. Venus and Serena are good for the game, but at the same time I can see easily how their occasionally arrogant tendencies put people's backs up. John McEnroe just happens to be one of those people who says so. I do not think his comments are born out of racism. I don't know him personally, but he is an intelligent, worldly man, and if his comments were racially biased, it would surprise me.
The new transfer system proposed by FIFA would, in my opinion, destroy one of the most attractive dimensions of football. While the EU's arguments are all legitimate, they should make an exception for football. My question is, can nothing be done now to save the market? Doubtful, as in the Europe Union, the current system is against the employment laws. Football is powerful, no doubt, but it's not above the law. So unless a legal compromise can be found, expect whatever it is you like about the current system to disappear.
I was wondering, with the surplus of outstanding keepers in the US, why more of them don't go abroad. I know about the Kellers, Friedels, etc., but what about out fantastic keepers like Tim Howard, Adin Brown, Joe Cannon, Kevin Hartman, and others? They could probably grab some hefty contracts overseas...
With respect to the goalkeepers you mention, keepers are as "fantastic" as the opposition they have to face. I'm sure if overseas clubs felt these men had the talent or potential to compete in a foreign league, they'd be snapped up. Like their colleagues in the outfield, U.S goalkeeper's inevitably face the problem that they are not being tested by the best in the game. It's one thing looking good against Cobi Jones, and quite another thwarting Gabriel Batistuta. That said, it is a Catch 22 situation, whereby they won't be signed abroad unless they're proven and they won't be proven unless they join better clubs. There's also the fact that there are a lot of good goalkeepers out there in the world, and many countries restrict the number of foreigners allowed on their teams and have rules about the pedigree of foreign imports. Perhaps then, those overseas clubs want to spend their money in a more recognized market, which in soccer terms, the USA is not. And that will do it for this week. Terry Baddoo is co-host of World Sport, the international sports show that airs live on CNN/Sports Illustrated and CNN International.
| |||||||||||||||||
