[ENG] Premiership 2009/2010 (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Azzurri7
- Start date
I have to strongly disagree here. I have not seen a league where diving is as common as the Liga. The problem is, even the refs seem to give soft fouls every time, which does not help the matter. It's why i do not enjoy the Liga as much as i do the EPL and the Serie A.
Serie A really isn't a whole lot worse than other leagues. At least Adriano got punished for it, but it needs consistency. And the Eduardo situation will need it even more.
Serie A really isn't a whole lot worse than other leagues. At least Adriano got punished for it, but it needs consistency. And the Eduardo situation will need it even more.
Top read, this
-----------------------
The kids are not alright - Ian Bell
We begin this morning with someone else's headline. It works, as the scholars of textual criticism might say, on many levels. So here, from one of the London papers, it is: "Chelsea fear anti-English vendetta is behind ban".
Where to begin? With the obvious, probably. Chelsea, those hearts of English oak? That would be the Chelsea with the Russian owner, the Italian coach, the legion of foreign players, and the Danish sporting director who is, specifically, at the heart of the controversy over said ban?
While we're at it, need we remind ourselves that Frank Arnesen, he who stands accused of tapping up the French starlet Gael Kakuta, is himself a highly paid employee of Roman Abramovich thanks only to an alleged illegal approach? It cost the Russian £5 million to placate Spurs on that occasion.
Now consider those "anti-English" sentiments motivating Fifa. Chelsea have been banned from signing new players for the next two transfer windows, made jointly liable with the teenage player for a £681,000 fine, and ordered to pay around £115,000 in "training compensation" to Lens. The London-based outfit calls this "totally disproportionate".
The point is, however, that the well-known English club FC Sion of Switzerland were awarded the same punishment for much the same offence. Little Englanders Real Zaragoza have been clobbered over the "transfer" of the Brazilian Matuzalem from Shakhtar Donetsk. The Cockneys of Roma got a two window ban (later cut to one) after acquiring Philippe Mexes from Auxurre.
In other words, the cry of conspiracy, as so often in English football, turns out to be a neat way of changing the subject. If there is a vendetta it is directed less against England's clubs than against the way they deploy their astounding wealth to seduce youngsters after others have discovered and nurtured talent.
Forget "English", in any case, unless relevant questions are being confronted. Questions such as: why is it that a Scot, a Spaniard, a Frenchman and an Italian guide England's top four? Such as: why does the manager of the English national team (another Italian) struggle to fill a squad with players worth the jersey? Such as: why do clubs such as Chelsea fail to develop talent in their own back yards?
The Stamford Bridge defence in the latest case, scarcely the first, rests on the claim that Kakuta had no legal contract with Lens when, a mere 15, he was lured to London. The French say he had an "elite training contract", effectively a pre-contract agreement, certified by their league and FA. This is all that can be offered in France to a player under 16.
The mess will wind up before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, no doubt, as will the claim that Chelsea offered an astonishing £10,000 a week and an £850,000 signing-on fee (denied by the club) to a juvenile. Other controversies involving English clubs, Manchester United in particular, are meanwhile bubbling away. But a picture is emerging, and it is not pretty.
Start with the obvious: these are children. Le Havre say Paul Pogba was "stolen" by United almost at the instant he turned 16. Lazio insisted that Federico Macheda was purloined for Old Trafford in a "cattle market" at much the same age. Is this what they call socially responsible?
The complaints from Europe have a context. French football, a regular hunting ground for English clubs, is rich in talent but otherwise poor. The likes of Lens and Le Havre rely on their youth academies and spend large proportions of their turnovers on the development of promising youngsters. Why should they bother if the Premier League can help itself to the cream of the crop?
In Italy, meanwhile, certain traditional ethical lapses - match fixing and the like - are balanced by the fact that no one is allowed to sign a professional contract before the age of 18. This is common sense. Can a youth truly understand a complex and binding legal agreement? It means, however, that the likes of Macheda can be whisked away to England leaving his Italian club helpless.
In Kakuta's case Fifa are unambiguous: he had a contract and that contract must be enforced. Clearly, this idea strikes the English game as something of a novelty. When agreements are rarely worth as much as a piece of paper, when an Ashley Cole can suffer less than the loss of a week's wages after deserting Arsenal for - who else? - Chelsea, you can almost understand the confusion.
Nevertheless, Fifa's Sepp Blatter has declared war on teen "slavery". His friend Michel Platini at Uefa wants a financial "level playing-field" in the European game and greater protection for youngsters. Hence the "vendetta", England's punishment, as some would have it, for success. Right.
A war on billionaires? Who'd quibble? A proposed Uefa ban on the international transfer of players under 18 sounds like an even better, long overdue idea.
It will not eradicate the arrogance of the rich and powerful, though, and nor will it prevent them from trading vulnerable young men like so much livestock. We pay our money, they take their pick. As ever.
http://www.sundayherald.com/sport/sh...ot_alright.php
-----------------------
The kids are not alright - Ian Bell
We begin this morning with someone else's headline. It works, as the scholars of textual criticism might say, on many levels. So here, from one of the London papers, it is: "Chelsea fear anti-English vendetta is behind ban".
Where to begin? With the obvious, probably. Chelsea, those hearts of English oak? That would be the Chelsea with the Russian owner, the Italian coach, the legion of foreign players, and the Danish sporting director who is, specifically, at the heart of the controversy over said ban?
While we're at it, need we remind ourselves that Frank Arnesen, he who stands accused of tapping up the French starlet Gael Kakuta, is himself a highly paid employee of Roman Abramovich thanks only to an alleged illegal approach? It cost the Russian £5 million to placate Spurs on that occasion.
Now consider those "anti-English" sentiments motivating Fifa. Chelsea have been banned from signing new players for the next two transfer windows, made jointly liable with the teenage player for a £681,000 fine, and ordered to pay around £115,000 in "training compensation" to Lens. The London-based outfit calls this "totally disproportionate".
The point is, however, that the well-known English club FC Sion of Switzerland were awarded the same punishment for much the same offence. Little Englanders Real Zaragoza have been clobbered over the "transfer" of the Brazilian Matuzalem from Shakhtar Donetsk. The Cockneys of Roma got a two window ban (later cut to one) after acquiring Philippe Mexes from Auxurre.
In other words, the cry of conspiracy, as so often in English football, turns out to be a neat way of changing the subject. If there is a vendetta it is directed less against England's clubs than against the way they deploy their astounding wealth to seduce youngsters after others have discovered and nurtured talent.
Forget "English", in any case, unless relevant questions are being confronted. Questions such as: why is it that a Scot, a Spaniard, a Frenchman and an Italian guide England's top four? Such as: why does the manager of the English national team (another Italian) struggle to fill a squad with players worth the jersey? Such as: why do clubs such as Chelsea fail to develop talent in their own back yards?
The Stamford Bridge defence in the latest case, scarcely the first, rests on the claim that Kakuta had no legal contract with Lens when, a mere 15, he was lured to London. The French say he had an "elite training contract", effectively a pre-contract agreement, certified by their league and FA. This is all that can be offered in France to a player under 16.
The mess will wind up before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, no doubt, as will the claim that Chelsea offered an astonishing £10,000 a week and an £850,000 signing-on fee (denied by the club) to a juvenile. Other controversies involving English clubs, Manchester United in particular, are meanwhile bubbling away. But a picture is emerging, and it is not pretty.
Start with the obvious: these are children. Le Havre say Paul Pogba was "stolen" by United almost at the instant he turned 16. Lazio insisted that Federico Macheda was purloined for Old Trafford in a "cattle market" at much the same age. Is this what they call socially responsible?
The complaints from Europe have a context. French football, a regular hunting ground for English clubs, is rich in talent but otherwise poor. The likes of Lens and Le Havre rely on their youth academies and spend large proportions of their turnovers on the development of promising youngsters. Why should they bother if the Premier League can help itself to the cream of the crop?
In Italy, meanwhile, certain traditional ethical lapses - match fixing and the like - are balanced by the fact that no one is allowed to sign a professional contract before the age of 18. This is common sense. Can a youth truly understand a complex and binding legal agreement? It means, however, that the likes of Macheda can be whisked away to England leaving his Italian club helpless.
In Kakuta's case Fifa are unambiguous: he had a contract and that contract must be enforced. Clearly, this idea strikes the English game as something of a novelty. When agreements are rarely worth as much as a piece of paper, when an Ashley Cole can suffer less than the loss of a week's wages after deserting Arsenal for - who else? - Chelsea, you can almost understand the confusion.
Nevertheless, Fifa's Sepp Blatter has declared war on teen "slavery". His friend Michel Platini at Uefa wants a financial "level playing-field" in the European game and greater protection for youngsters. Hence the "vendetta", England's punishment, as some would have it, for success. Right.
A war on billionaires? Who'd quibble? A proposed Uefa ban on the international transfer of players under 18 sounds like an even better, long overdue idea.
It will not eradicate the arrogance of the rich and powerful, though, and nor will it prevent them from trading vulnerable young men like so much livestock. We pay our money, they take their pick. As ever.
http://www.sundayherald.com/sport/sh...ot_alright.php