Tell me again how a sheep's Blatter can be used in the prevention of earthquakes.
Some of you have been kind enough to express concerns over my absence. I appreciate it greatly, especially as this blog hasn’t been going for very long. Rest assured that when things calm down a bit I will begin updating again more regularly. Problem is that this is likely to occur in January.
But I can write a bit now, as my computer at work has died a fiery death (or at least a hot one—the fan broke) so I’m writing on a loaner laptop which doesn’t have any of my contacts or files.
Besides, how better to spend the last 45 minutes of work on a Friday?
I had intended to write a bit about Sepp Blatter. Common opinion about this man, the President of FIFA is that he is an utter twit. I tend to agree, but for different reasons than most people. There was a lovely article on football365.com about some of his ‘greatest hits’ a while back, but as it has been so long since I updated I can no longer find that article.
Basically, people are getting on Blatter for trying to change the game. At the same time, people like me are going on about how the game has been getting duller recently—am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? The game is getting duller because of the money problem (according to Blatter, at any rate, who says that the money men are ‘ruining football.’) so why shouldn’t FIFA try new things to make the game more exciting?
Like his recent comment “every game should have a winner.” Is that so wrong? Not so long ago, teams were awarded two points for a win and one for a draw. The thinking behind going to three points for a win was that it would encourage teams to play for the win and not to settle for the draw. Is having some sort of overtime really that much of a step further? I don’t know if it would stop teams playing for that tie-breaker or not but isn’t it worth exploring?
How about the much maligned ‘rotating world cup?’ The notion that the cup should rotate continents (I believe the most recent version was something like Europe-Asia-Europe-Africa-Europe-S. America-Europe….) and the argument against this is…? It would seem that the argument is that there are only a very few countries in Africa who could handle hosting a World Cup (S. Africa being about the only one CURRENTLY capable.) Well? If South Africa can host in 2010, that means that there’s at least six cups between that and the next World cup in Africa—24 years. I daresay that might just be enough time to get a cup bid ready. Then the argument was that they are putting it in places where football isn’t a top sport. Isn’t that the point? USA94 did wonders for the sport here in the US—without it we wouldn’t have MLS or likely as good a national side. The sport is on the up here and it started arguably with the 94 Cup. No, this is just Europeans arguing that they want the cup in their backyard every four years—greedy bastards.
BUT, this idea seems have lost its momentum, suggesting that the whole scheme was just a way to get the Cup to South Africa in 2010; we’ll see what comes of this. I for one was hoping to see the hosts win USA 2026.
People have also disliked the transfer window policy that was Blatter’s baby. What’s wrong with it? I think it really WILL do what it was intended to do—force teams to develop younger talent instead of making panic buys. Although we’ll see if ultimately money finds its way around this.
Now, don’t me wrong, Blatter sure is an idiot. It’s one thing to suggest looking into new ideas, but another entirely to put them into practice without trying them out. Not to mention his steadfast (and bizarrely contrary to this idea of progress) resistance to the video referee or goal-line technology. It seems to me that even in the fast-paced game of soccer, we could keep playing and have a 3rd party viewing an incident and signaling the referee that a player was offsides—it should only take a few seconds of extra play to find it out. In the game of rugby, the video referee has actually added drama rather than taken it away.
And I’m not even going to touch his comments about women’s uniforms (while not allowing Cameroon’s one-piece kits—thank god!.)
The upshot of all this? Sepp Blatter is a dumbass, but not all of his ideas are horrible or should be dismissed out of hand. They should all be ‘beta-tested’ like the booking for touching a dead ball rule they tried at the U-20’s cup, but many of them should be tested.
Oh, and he should simplify the offsides rule, not complicated it.
So gentle readers, thanks for your words of support and concern. I appreciate your emails and comments. Things ought to be better when the applicant cycle winds down in early December, and perhaps I can get in several updates before I head to India on the 23rd. Brighter times are ahead, I am sure; things will look better as the USL first division season creeps closer and closer.
Until then,
SSS
(Sit Simplex, Stultae.)
But I can write a bit now, as my computer at work has died a fiery death (or at least a hot one—the fan broke) so I’m writing on a loaner laptop which doesn’t have any of my contacts or files.
Besides, how better to spend the last 45 minutes of work on a Friday?
I had intended to write a bit about Sepp Blatter. Common opinion about this man, the President of FIFA is that he is an utter twit. I tend to agree, but for different reasons than most people. There was a lovely article on football365.com about some of his ‘greatest hits’ a while back, but as it has been so long since I updated I can no longer find that article.
Basically, people are getting on Blatter for trying to change the game. At the same time, people like me are going on about how the game has been getting duller recently—am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? The game is getting duller because of the money problem (according to Blatter, at any rate, who says that the money men are ‘ruining football.’) so why shouldn’t FIFA try new things to make the game more exciting?
Like his recent comment “every game should have a winner.” Is that so wrong? Not so long ago, teams were awarded two points for a win and one for a draw. The thinking behind going to three points for a win was that it would encourage teams to play for the win and not to settle for the draw. Is having some sort of overtime really that much of a step further? I don’t know if it would stop teams playing for that tie-breaker or not but isn’t it worth exploring?
How about the much maligned ‘rotating world cup?’ The notion that the cup should rotate continents (I believe the most recent version was something like Europe-Asia-Europe-Africa-Europe-S. America-Europe….) and the argument against this is…? It would seem that the argument is that there are only a very few countries in Africa who could handle hosting a World Cup (S. Africa being about the only one CURRENTLY capable.) Well? If South Africa can host in 2010, that means that there’s at least six cups between that and the next World cup in Africa—24 years. I daresay that might just be enough time to get a cup bid ready. Then the argument was that they are putting it in places where football isn’t a top sport. Isn’t that the point? USA94 did wonders for the sport here in the US—without it we wouldn’t have MLS or likely as good a national side. The sport is on the up here and it started arguably with the 94 Cup. No, this is just Europeans arguing that they want the cup in their backyard every four years—greedy bastards.
BUT, this idea seems have lost its momentum, suggesting that the whole scheme was just a way to get the Cup to South Africa in 2010; we’ll see what comes of this. I for one was hoping to see the hosts win USA 2026.
People have also disliked the transfer window policy that was Blatter’s baby. What’s wrong with it? I think it really WILL do what it was intended to do—force teams to develop younger talent instead of making panic buys. Although we’ll see if ultimately money finds its way around this.
Now, don’t me wrong, Blatter sure is an idiot. It’s one thing to suggest looking into new ideas, but another entirely to put them into practice without trying them out. Not to mention his steadfast (and bizarrely contrary to this idea of progress) resistance to the video referee or goal-line technology. It seems to me that even in the fast-paced game of soccer, we could keep playing and have a 3rd party viewing an incident and signaling the referee that a player was offsides—it should only take a few seconds of extra play to find it out. In the game of rugby, the video referee has actually added drama rather than taken it away.
And I’m not even going to touch his comments about women’s uniforms (while not allowing Cameroon’s one-piece kits—thank god!.)
The upshot of all this? Sepp Blatter is a dumbass, but not all of his ideas are horrible or should be dismissed out of hand. They should all be ‘beta-tested’ like the booking for touching a dead ball rule they tried at the U-20’s cup, but many of them should be tested.
Oh, and he should simplify the offsides rule, not complicated it.
So gentle readers, thanks for your words of support and concern. I appreciate your emails and comments. Things ought to be better when the applicant cycle winds down in early December, and perhaps I can get in several updates before I head to India on the 23rd. Brighter times are ahead, I am sure; things will look better as the USL first division season creeps closer and closer.
Until then,
SSS
(Sit Simplex, Stultae.)
posted by Zathras at 2:15 PM
1 comments
