Well all 32 nations have now tread the footballing boards in this 2014 World Cup, and what have we learnt. Quite a bit actually.
1) If this was the singing the National Anthem World Cup Brazil would have it in the bag already. Exhibit A this evening. If you weren't stirred by that, frankly you need your pulse checking.
2) This will not be known as the "Park the Bus" World Cup, except possibly in the case of Iran. Yes goals have generally been the currency of this World Cup and long may it continue. Iran clearly have the intention of preventing the opposition from scoring and they were very successful against Nigeria fair play, but if they wish to progress in the World Cup, they may need to make the foray into the opposition's goal area.
3) There are no mugs at this World Cup. To lose 7-0 in a match like in bygone eras simply does not happen. Although Spain and Portugal have come close. Oops!
4) Phil Neville should be employed by the United Nations to promote peace and calm to all regions of the world, not be a football pundit with a passionless monotone voice.
5) When you start picking players on reputation rather than current performance you often find yourself in trouble. Take Iker Casillas, the Spanish goalkeeper, who had what can only be described as a nightmare performance against the Netherlands and for the first time in his career probably resembled an old man rather than a man barely out of nappies. He has barely played on a regular and consistent basis for Real Madrid this year, yet is ahead of the likes of the fabulously consistent David De Gea in the pecking order. Casillas' performance against the Netherlands gave the impression of a man treading water not footballing boards. Does Del Bosque risk him for the next match? An interesting dilemma.
6) Referees quite like the idea of becoming temporary graffiti artists with their spray cans to mark out 10 yards with free kicks. It is a useful tool though and gives you some idea of how many players are actually6 yards from the ball when a free kick is taken.
7) It pays to be match savvy. Oddly enough Italy didn't do much at all during their first match against England, except for scoring 2 goals. What Italy did do far better than England that match however was play an intelligent not going hell for leather minute after minute brand of football in the Amazon heat. Having played at the same constant tempo for 70 odd minutes England players were left lying on the ground cramping. Meanwhile, 35 year old Andrea Pirlo, looked he could probably another 90 minutes.
8) Goal line technology! It's a shame FIFA couldn't be obsessed with it 4 years ago.
9) The smallest detail could affect the result of a match in this World Cup. David Silva has a chance to put Spain 2 -0 against the Netherlands and misses. A few minutes later Robin Van Persie scores a wonderful header and changes the course of the match completely.
10) I have no idea who the hell is going to win the World Cup. Answers on a postcard please. I tell you one thing, I hope to have a lot of fun finding out. Long may the start to this World Cup continue.
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
Wednesday, 4 June 2014
Mankading! - It's sum's it up really.
The Blogathonrunner went home from her day job yesterday and appeared to return home to a controversy of gargantuan proportions when she started watching the One Day Cricket International between England and Sri Lanka at Edgbaston.
For those who prefer to exist outside the cricketing bubble and have missed all the furore over the past 24 hours, basically, Jos Butler of England was run out by Sri Lankan bowler Sachithra Senanayake, as he was meandering out of his crease backing up as Senanayake was about bowl.
Now for some reason which I can't quite fathom Sri Lanka have been cast as the pantomime villains in this incident because they have sought to gain an advantage by unconventional means admittedly and that of course breaches every sportsmanlike code of conduct and English man and his dog expect.
So what is the Blogathonrunner's opinion on this saga. Well I'm frankly not going to lose sleep over the entire subject, but I would like make a few points:
1) Apparently under the current laws of the game of Cricket, Senanayake was absolutely entitled to do some Mankading to Jos Butler yesterday. If it's perfectly legal, what the hell is the fuss about?
2) Jos Butler, was politely warned by Senanayake of the fact if he was meandering down the crease without due care and attention he would be at risk of the old Mankading if he wasn't careful. He chose not to heed such a warning, and eventually paid the consequences by not keeping at least part of his bat in the crease. He has only himself to blame.
3) If Jos Butler is a few yards out of his crease meandering or otherwise, he has gained an advantage unintentionally or not. Say for example, if he goes for a quick single, those few yards could mean the difference between him keeping his wicket or being run out at the other end.
4) Why on earth did the umpires need to check with the Sri Lankan captain, that he was supporting his player's appeal? If the letter of the law says he's out, Sri Lanka make an appeal, he's out!
5) Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to employ the term "Mankading" to describe such an incident in cricket? I appreciate it derives from a gentleman by the name of Vinoo Mankad, an Indian cricketer who effectively invented this type of run out dismissal, but it just sounds bizarre. Please people of this world, Butler was RUN OUT!
On a more serious note though, England seem to be framing this incident around the Sri Lankan team's sportsmanship or lack of in their opinion and the fact if they were in a similar situation they would feel uncomfortable taking the same action. Maybe, just maybe, it is the English cultural mind set that needs to change. Taking advantage of the rules laid down by a governing body is not an offence in 21st century sport. It's called that ugly word "Ruthlessness" and quite often teams, individuals find themselves on the winning side.
For those who prefer to exist outside the cricketing bubble and have missed all the furore over the past 24 hours, basically, Jos Butler of England was run out by Sri Lankan bowler Sachithra Senanayake, as he was meandering out of his crease backing up as Senanayake was about bowl.
Now for some reason which I can't quite fathom Sri Lanka have been cast as the pantomime villains in this incident because they have sought to gain an advantage by unconventional means admittedly and that of course breaches every sportsmanlike code of conduct and English man and his dog expect.
So what is the Blogathonrunner's opinion on this saga. Well I'm frankly not going to lose sleep over the entire subject, but I would like make a few points:
1) Apparently under the current laws of the game of Cricket, Senanayake was absolutely entitled to do some Mankading to Jos Butler yesterday. If it's perfectly legal, what the hell is the fuss about?
2) Jos Butler, was politely warned by Senanayake of the fact if he was meandering down the crease without due care and attention he would be at risk of the old Mankading if he wasn't careful. He chose not to heed such a warning, and eventually paid the consequences by not keeping at least part of his bat in the crease. He has only himself to blame.
3) If Jos Butler is a few yards out of his crease meandering or otherwise, he has gained an advantage unintentionally or not. Say for example, if he goes for a quick single, those few yards could mean the difference between him keeping his wicket or being run out at the other end.
4) Why on earth did the umpires need to check with the Sri Lankan captain, that he was supporting his player's appeal? If the letter of the law says he's out, Sri Lanka make an appeal, he's out!
5) Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to employ the term "Mankading" to describe such an incident in cricket? I appreciate it derives from a gentleman by the name of Vinoo Mankad, an Indian cricketer who effectively invented this type of run out dismissal, but it just sounds bizarre. Please people of this world, Butler was RUN OUT!
On a more serious note though, England seem to be framing this incident around the Sri Lankan team's sportsmanship or lack of in their opinion and the fact if they were in a similar situation they would feel uncomfortable taking the same action. Maybe, just maybe, it is the English cultural mind set that needs to change. Taking advantage of the rules laid down by a governing body is not an offence in 21st century sport. It's called that ugly word "Ruthlessness" and quite often teams, individuals find themselves on the winning side.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)