Ball, Ball, Ball, Footie, Footie, Footie

[Horus Ex Machina]

CIV 1, Egypt 4. Missed the first half myself but it seemed like CIV had most of the game, even though Egypt was in the lead (0-1 before break). Egypt increases their lead; CIV counters and scores what seems like a few seconds later (brilliant goal). But by having to press on they weaken their defense (not their defenders' best day), a major error by one of the becks and poor goalkeeping (the main keeper was injured in the first half and had to be substituted) gives Egypt a 2 goals-lead with 20-something minutes left to play. CIV tries another surge, though not very effectively, and with only a few minutes left Egypt nets another one.

Seemed a pretty even match to me, with CIV being the most aggressive while Egypt were more dangerous when they first attacked. Still, from what I saw, Egypt deserved the win (though perhaps not by that much). Not a good day for Drogba...

Thanks for the summary. I managed to watch it and I agree with your assessment of the game. It just seemed like everything fell out wrong for CIV. If you want to beat Egypt, you almost have to score first. Thier attack is almost surgical when you're pressing. Too bad for CIV, it is clear that they were the most talented team in the tournament, but Egypt is clearly the most cohesive side. Not a good day at all for Drogba. Oh well, I know Chelsea's happy to finally have him back. I'll have to watch the Ghana/Cameroon game when I have the time.

[The Inquisitor]

I think its impossible to make little of Capello's record. Other managers have great records but they only manage a team in one of the major European leagues (i.e. Spain, Italy, England)? Sure, he didn't win a lot with Roma but Roma never win anything otherwise. He won 4 Italian titles in 5 years with Milan. He might fail with England but his reputation up to now has been hugely deserved.

Teresa, you can't doubt Capello or put the least shadow of doubt in his success.

He has won what? 7 Scudettos (one of them with Roma! With Roma!), 2 Ligas, 1 CL (you know which one? The one in Athens, destroying Cruyff's "Dream Team": 4-0), he was twice a runner-up in the CL (against OM -Papin's golden day- and Ajax -Kluivert's goal-), he has a large nummber of semis in the CL etc etc etc

From my standpoint, and knowing him as a coach and not liking that much his vision of football, I must say that he is perhaps the only manager that can win by himself disregarding the players he has to manage (the other one that looks like him in that respect is Mourinho). And that's what I like about him, he wins. Period. No prisoners.

[cteresa]

Teresa, you can't doubt Capello or put the least shadow of doubt in his success.

He has won what? 7 Scudettos (one of them with Roma! With Roma!), 2 Ligas, 1 CL (you know which one? The one in Athens, destroying Cruyff's "Dream Team": 4-0), he was twice a runner-up in the CL (against OM -Papin's golden day- and Ajax -Kluivert's goal-), he has a large nummber of semis in the CL etc etc etc

Yes, but in like 20 years ( and sorry, make that 5 scudettos, we should be technical about it), so 8 league titles in 20 years? Nice, good, 33% of the years. Thing is we are talking Milan and Real madrid, it´s not like it´s Palermo or Villareal. And he has some rather embarassing seasons in serie A.

From my standpoint, and knowing him as a coach and not liking that much his vision of football, I must say that he is perhaps the only manager that can win by himself disregarding the players he has to manage (the other one that looks like him in that respect is Mourinho). And that's what I like about him, he wins. Period. No prisoners.

I don´t think Mourinho disregards players, I mean their methods of handling players are very different. Mourinho makes them love him or (or and/or) gets rid of them. Capello does not give a damn as long as they do what he wants. Plus winner, yeah, impressive , but look even Benfica had on its history coaches which look more mythical than him to me.

[The Inquisitor]

I don´t think Mourinho disregards players, I mean their methods of handling players are very different. Mourinho makes them love him or (or and/or) gets rid of them. Capello does not give a damn as long as they do what he wants. Plus winner, yeah, impressive , but look even Benfica had on its history coaches which look more mythical than him to me.

Sorry, my bad. An awful choice of words... let me rephrase it:

I must say that he is perhaps the only manager that can win by himself regardless the players he has to manage (the other one that looks like him in that respect is Mourinho).

It should have been regardless, not disregarding.

Granted, Milan, Madrid and Juve are always bound to have top tier players... but still, Capello will not hesitate to sacrifice talent for security and a stalwart defense.

[Jon AS]

he was twice a runner-up in the CL (against OM -Papin's golden day-

I've never heard it referred to as such. But he did finally pick up a winner's medal the next year. Though I'm not sure if he even played in that final...

Regarding Capello vs. Mourinho I'd say one should wait another ten years or so before proclaiming the latter a superior manager.

[The Inquisitor]

I've never heard it referred to as such. But he did finally pick up a winner's medal the next year. Though I'm not sure if he even played in that final...

Regarding Capello vs. Mourinho I'd say one should wait another ten years or so before proclaiming the latter a superior manager.

Wait, Jean Pierre Papin scored the only goal in that final, did he not? The 1-0 OM vs Milan in... what was it 91 or 93? I remember there was something significant in that match with Papin... If I rememebr correctyl, he scored the goal.

[Jon AS]

Wait, Jean Pierre Papin scored the only goal in that final, did he not? The 1-0 OM vs Milan in... what was it 91 or 93? I remember there was something significant in that match with Papin... If I rememebr correctyl, he scored the goal.

It was in 93, the goal was scored by Basile Boli. Papin started the game on the bench. Milan's bench.

ETA: '91 was between Red Star Belgrade and OM and ended 0-0, with Marseille losing on penalties, so that can't be it either. Not sure what you are remembering here.

[Paddy]

Paddy: you don't think that playing games overseas, away from your clubs' home ground and indeed your clubs' home country, for the specific and only purpose of making money, is 'whoreish'? I mean, you might not think it's a bad idea but it is certainly selling yourself for money - that is, rather explicitly, the point.

It is just as whoreish as running the league in the first place, charging people to attend the games, selling television rights and paying football players.

Football players are also selling themselves for money. Are they whores? For some reason I haven't seen people going around calling them that.

Out of interest, what do you think of the idea?

No dear, I assure you, I can´t see either serie A or the spanish league willing to consider doing something like this - or the others. Making money and profit is important, but when it starts to affect the purpose, the ideal of a league, sorry it´s whorish. The whole idea is pretty alien and repulsive to me. I mean, hold friendly tournaments, or some special thing like the european supercup, or that world club whatever FIFA insists on. league games created on purpose? yuck. And think of it, if I find it repulsive, if you are worried about respect and recognition ( because no player playing in England ever won World Player of the Year, nor do the track record at the Ballon d Or looks impressive, and yeah Owen sort of a fluke that year anyway) how seriously are sports reporters in France or Italy going to think of the premiership if they pull stunts like that?

All of this just sounds like the usual resistance to change in football. The league is still there, everyone has to play by the same rules. There's not actual problem that you are outlining, no symmetry which is being destroyed. Like I said, I wonder about not adding extra games, but making each team give up 1 home and 1 away game to be played outside of England.

I hate the way football fans are so resistant to change for some sort of romanticised notions which dont appear to exist in reality.

Point of a league to me is, every team plays everybody else home and away - it´s how we do it on this sport. Team with more points is obviously the best and champion.

But that's not exactly true. Like I said, the scottish league doesn't do this. They split the league after every team plays each other three times. There are cases where the team who ended up 7th had more points than the team who were 6th. I haven't heard complaints about this, and certainly it seems fair enough to me.

[cteresa]

Regarding Capello vs. Mourinho I'd say one should wait another ten years or so before proclaiming the latter a superior manager.

oh, sorry, not comparing them exactly, or at least the Benfica manager was another one. Which guys, took more of the important silverware. Mourinho, is looking impressive so far (I sort of want to argue numbers already, just because numbers are fun inherently, but it´s not like I want to defend Mourinho´s credits so will resist the temptation) It was nice to finally see him loose a league with a team he managed the whole season this last season, it was getting scary. União de Leiria though, that was scary. Capello, I understand, he is one of the best around, I just mean that the Inquisitor here is perhaps slightly biased to overvalue Capello. And for you guys, del Bosque was greater, and that is just on recent times.

[cteresa]

Out of interest, what do you think of the idea?

Me? Whoreish, I tell you already. If you want the local opinion, I just heard the news during lunch, they were using some news agency footage of passersby in Kuala Lumpur and London, but assure you there was a definite snark on the reporting tone.

All of this just sounds like the usual resistance to change in football. The league is still there, everyone has to play by the same rules. There's not actual problem that you are outlining, no symmetry which is being destroyed.

yes there is, home and away. Scotland might be an exception, thanks for educating me about that, but really, not a lot of people follow it, and for most of us, league home and away without stupid extra matches played on other continents.

Like I said, I wonder about not adding extra games, but making each team give up 1 home and 1 away game to be played outside of England.

Tv news said it was 10 extra games for the 20 teams involved, and that seems to be what I read online.

But why do it? money of course. stupid, greedy, disrespectful of the traditions of football. You can not say it is for the good of football.

I hate the way football fans are so resistant to change for some sort of romanticised notions which dont appear to exist in reality..

do you prefer if this was like some of those other sports, where they change rules every two years to make it more "attractive"? The tradition is what gives the game its importance, the fan love which goes past generations or means we still argue over things 40 years ago. The game is fine as it is, it´s the most popular sport in the world by far, no other sport can even come close. The premiership is making money like crazy - why mess with important traditions to increase even more?

FIFA, UEFA; I hate doing this, but my faith is on you to stand up against greed.

[Paddy]

I was asking Mormont what his opinion was.

There is going to be 1 extra round of games, to be played in January. Like I said, if people have a problem with "symmetry" and fixture congestion (which I think is the biggest reason not to do it, there is enough complaint about it as it is), then I think they should look into my suggestion.

If they did it that way instead would you still find it "repulsive"?

Where are the negatives? Who's losing out here? The negativity you are espousing to the idea seems overboard and rather reactionary.

The "unfairness" that you mention is already there, some times teams have to have way more crowded fixtures lists in a short period of time than others. Yes, those clubs will complain about the congestion then, but that is only as an excuse for the possibility of poor results. You don't hear the managers in England complain about it much at any other time.

Speaking for what I know of my own team, United have a history of playing Premiership teams in the FA Cup more often than the average for other teams. In 1996 they had to play a Premiership team in every round and I think that that's happened to them other years too, but it's random. You live with it. No one complains.

In the Champion's League knockout stages, if there is extra time it is played at the stadium of one team and not the other. That's not very fair, but there's no practical way around it, so we all live with it.

Same here. Yes, teams which play the top 4 and extra time will be hard done by, but it's a random draw, so there's only a 4-in-15 chance of that happening, so next year a team might be luckier. Whatever.

It doesn't matter. The benefits for each club appears to outweigh the possible pitfalls (seeing as how they're all tentatively positive about it).

You talk of greed. Well, I guess it is greed, but so what? On it's own greed is not a bad thing. It's the things that people do because of greed which can often be bad. I'd like to make more money than I am and I'll keep trying to do that in my career. That's probably greed. Is that bad? In itself, no. If I compromise my morals or do something unethical in order to satisfy that greed? Yes.

Just because something was always done a particular way does not make it "a tradition" and does not make it a good thing. Football was "traditionally" played with 2 defenders and 5 forwards. Was it a bad thing that teams moved on from that?

Brazil introduced the concept of the "back 4" in the 1950s. That was a change to "tradition". I happen to think that was not a bad thing.

What I'm trying to say here is that there are no important traditions which are being disrespected. You appear to simply be reacting negatively to change. And no, I don't think they should change the rules every two years to make it more "attractive". Name a sport that does that. What I'm saying is that rules which improve the game for all involved or make the current rules better followed (like using technology to determine when the ball crosses the line for a goal). This is just such a change, IMO.

Again, who's losing out here? And no, it's not the spirit of football. The spirit of football will not be harmed at all by this and will survive on.

[mormont]

It is just as whoreish as running the league in the first place, charging people to attend the games, selling television rights and paying football players.

Well, football leagues were run 'in the first place' for good honourable sporting reasons, they were amateur Corinthian types.

But these days, yes, football is an entertainment business. But the foundation of that business is still the pretence, at least, of local identity. That's why we don't have all-star leagues but national ones, and why (many) fans choose the team they will follow on the basis of geography (admittedly the geography has tended to, um, broaden ). Taking the games to other countries is from one point of view simply exploiting the brand and a sound business decision. But from another point of view, it's abandoning even the pretence that football is about local identity. If you can have one game overseas, why not two, ten, why not take the whole show on the road and play the league wherever will pay to host it? And from there, the next logical step is Harlem Globetrotters FC...

I trust that answers your question, btw.

[Paddy]

Well, football leagues were run 'in the first place' for good honourable sporting reasons, they were amateur Corinthian types.

And the other two things I mentioned?

I guess I dont have that perspective because I never had a local team growing up, but we all support English league teams over here, so we never had that "local identity" thing and I don't really feel that we've suffered that much from it.

In other words, I don't believe it's really that big a deal when you get down to what makes football so important to so many people (and its certainly extremely important to a lot of people I know). Certainly, the 1999 champion's league final was quite the experience for me, even though I was watching it on a TV in my house. I was in the depths of despair and desperation for the last 20 or so minutes and then the scoring of those two goal was one of the greatest feelings I've ever experienced. I don't really feel that I would have felt more strongly about that if I had a connection to Manchester itself.

Anyway, how is playing 1 extra game a year giving that up? Half of the league games a team plays are not at home anyway. What difference is one more which is also not at home? If by playing 1 game a year outside of the league, would destroy this pretence (your word), then this "local identity" must be an extremely tenuous thing as it is. Really doesn't sound like its worth a whole lot.

And what about genuine fans in the cities/countries that they are going to play in? Are they not as much fans as people who live there? Maybe not (I think they are, myself), but I still think it's a pretty fair idea, and not going against any important traditions to give them a better chance to see their teams play more often than they do now.

If you can have one game overseas, why not two, ten, why not take the whole show on the road and play the league wherever will pay to host it? And from there, the next logical step is Harlem Globetrotters FC...

Slippery slope, Mormont? I thought you were a better debater than that, certainly, I've seen you point out to people that they're using a fallacy from it plenty of times in General Chatter.

No, the next logical step is not Harlem Globtrotters FC. That would require the leagues to be done away with completely or for them to be rigged and turned into "Sports Entertainment".

That's a very big step away and one which is neither logical nor inevitable.

ETA: Scratch that about the "not having a local football team so I've never experience it". I have. Just in a different sport.

In Gaelic Football, I support my home County, Tyrone and it's awesome.

So yeah, I do know that experience... and I can't say that it's much different from my support of Manchester United. Certainly there is a difference, but that's more to do with the sport of Gaelic Football and my pride in it as a uniquely Irish sport.

[cteresa]

More or less what mormont said. The reason I am upset is that this seems to attack the spirit of football, the home grounds, and what a league is, all for the sake of having yet more profits.

Football is also about fans, about a home stadium, about home support, that what is a league is for, to see which is the best team in a country, for the good old rivalries ( some of the local ones seem to be far older than any type of football). It s completely wtf to mess up a simple, elegant symmetric system to determine a champion, in order to have games and more money by making up a new other game to play abroad. For what? It would be better for football all round if local fans supported their local teams instead of making a fuss over jetlagged foreign stars playing a stupid made up game. AND, this is the most important point which you have ignored, say some 5 teams are seeded as the most likely competitors for the title. If the title goes into a difference of 3 points or less ( it happens. also psychologically it is important in the last weeks of the league) you can not tell me there is not a difference in fairness if one team had to play the 7th placed team and the other the 20th placed team - how fair will be that title if it was awarded then? That is the point of leagues instead of cups, cups you got random draws and chance and luck, with leagues in principle, the setup is even and equal to all so rankings count more as being the best determined ones.

Greed on its own can be good, but it needs moderation or it can destroy things, and with football, do you want to really have no worries about too much greed? or we would start having commercial breaks, or bigger goals or something to make it more appealing to any marketing group test subjects. Football evolves and changes and some changes are necessary and for the good ( you know, intelligent balls, better ways to referee, good drug tests, better pitches, maybe a tweak on the offside rule or the 3-points-for-a-win thing ) and with a purpose to improve football and reward attacking play or punishing rule breaking. With this, I see no purpose, except make yet more money (excellent, if there was financial need. But with the money being made, it seems absolutely unnecessary to use making more money as an argument).

BTW, you are forgetting an important point - what the premiership needs right now, is not just more money, it needs more recognition and respect from the important parts of the international press and even european markets. Winning more CL titles would be good. Getting to be first on the UEFA coefficients rankings would help. Or considering the most mediatic player in the world right now ( which he is), did you see Cristiano Ronaldo not winning any award lately? I think it was Pepe or Deco coming out a few weeks ago and saying if he was playing in Spain he would have received one of those awards in December. Dunno if it is true, perhaps. You need money to get great players. You also need to keep them fit (refereeing could be improved). But great players will be ambitious for personal recognition and if your status as a league is seen as not serious and popular only for betting markets, it might make you lose stars - which by moving to other leagues will diminish the marketing value of yours.

[cteresa]

In other words, I don't believe it's really that big a deal when you get down to what makes football so important to so many people (and its certainly extremely important to a lot of people I know).

It is important, really it is. For the fan support on the stadium, for example in Benfica there is a famously bearded fan which goes to all games and gives advice to players ( who take it). And you got memories of this place, that seat, that game, that player when you were a child. That was the ground where this happened or that happened, you got ghosts there (really), where ahem nevermind somebody hit somebody else, where we beat this team or that. It has a soul, the place is important. For me, I got some souvenirs from my great uncle´s trips to those european finals way before I was born, and it is important. I got the stories my family tells me of things way before.

Anyway, how is playing 1 extra game a year giving that up? Half of the league games a team plays are not at home anyway. What difference is one more which is also not at home? If by playing 1 game a year outside of the league, would destroy this pretence (your word), then this "local identity" must be an extremely tenuous thing as it is. Really doesn't sound like its worth a whole lot.

See above, it is different to play team ranked 7th or 19th.

And what about genuine fans in the cities/countries that they are going to play in? Are they not as much fans as people who live there? Maybe not (I think they are, myself), but I still think it's a pretty fair idea, and not going against any important traditions to give them a better chance to see their teams play more often than they do now.

They won t be buying the real thing when buying a ticket for that. The points will be real, the players will be jetlagged,the atmosphere will be of a friendly. The ground will have no ghosts there to keep watch .

That would require the leagues to be done away with completely or for them to be rigged and turned into "Sports Entertainment".

That's a very big step away and one which is neither logical nor inevitable.

Oh, dear I am with mormont here, it does not look that far away from this to me. Thank goodnes for FIFA (I feel ill saying that)

[mormont]

And the other two things I mentioned?

Were covered in the description of football as an 'entertainment business'.

I guess I dont have that perspective because I never had a local team growing up, but we all support English league teams over here, so we never had that "local identity" thing and I don't really feel that we've suffered that much from it.

No. But on the other hand, those teams would not have been there for you to support were it not for the fans who paid each week at the turnstile. By and large, those fans were there because they identified with the team, and by and large that was for geographical reasons (at least in part). Whatever reason it was for (and remember, I come from a background where the predominant reason was actually religion, not geography) there was a sense of identity, and it is that sense of identity that for most people makes football so important. Without it, what's left? A handful of big franchises, not a healthy league structure. From a business POV, that makes perfect sense. But it does destroy football's uniqueness, IMO anyway (and I think a lot of people agree).

Slippery slope, Mormont?

Not really. This is more a case of being unable to lose your virginity 'a little bit'.

A 'slippery slope' argument would be one that said that any game played for any reason away from home would lead to the Harlem Globetrotters. But that's nonsense. Away games are not a problem: every game is an away game, after all, as well as a home game. That's the basic principle of the game. Games played at a neutral venue are another issue, but still, they are the exception rather than the rule and are normally done for some recognised sporting or safety reason. There is no 'slippery slope', because the basic principle of there being a home team is not compromised.

Does this proposal compromise it? Not in your view, clearly. But in mine, yes, because there is no other principle that overrides it - only money. You can say the same of 'exhibition' games, of course, but they are not competitive games.

Once you have accepted that the principles of the game can be overridden for no other reason but money, well... you're already at the bottom of the slope, in my view. You can slide no further. It's just a case of 'how often', and for the money men, that is 'any time it pays'.

[Paddy]

More or less what mormont said. The reason I am upset is that this seems to attack the spirit of football, the home grounds, and what a league is, all for the sake of having yet more profits.

Once again, there is no attack on the "spirit of football", whatever that is. This does not damage it. If I felt that this measure could harm English football, I would be very much against it.

As it is, I'm not particularly FOR it either. I just think that there isn't much of a negative to it and if they want to do it, they should be free to. I think it will help in spreading Football to the places where it hasn't found much purchase yet.

Honestly, I think this would be the biggest boost to getting Americans to become a "proper" soccer playing nation that there ever has been. Bigger than hosting the World Cup. Why? Because it wont be a "one-off" thing. It'll be an annual thing and it'll help.

The NFL staged a match in London a few months ago, with a view to expanding their sport and it was successful enough that they are going to do it again this year. I'm not sure whether the home game was given up by the New York Giants or the Miami Dolphins, but the one thing I'll point out is that the New York Giants went on to win the Superbowl this year. Yes, its a different sport and all, but people were making the exact same accusations of unfairness and harm to teams and players doing the travelling and whatnot. It doesn't seem to have had such a bad effect on that team. Maybe it's not such a big factor as you are making out, no? I dont think there's any proof that that is the case, anyway.

Football is also about fans, about a home stadium, about home support, that what is a league is for, to see which is the best team in a country, for the good old rivalries ( some of the local ones seem to be far older than any type of football). It s completely wtf to mess up a simple, elegant symmetric system to determine a champion, in order to have games and more money by making up a new other game to play abroad. For what? It would be better for football all round if local fans supported their local teams instead of making a fuss over jetlagged foreign stars playing a stupid made up game. AND, this is the most important point which you have ignored, say some 5 teams are seeded as the most likely competitors for the title. If the title goes into a difference of 3 points or less ( it happens. also psychologically it is important in the last weeks of the league) you can not tell me there is not a difference in fairness if one team had to play the 7th placed team and the other the 20th placed team - how fair will be that title if it was awarded then? That is the point of leagues instead of cups, cups you got random draws and chance and luck, with leagues in principle, the setup is even and equal to all so rankings count more as being the best determined ones.

Right. There is a possiblity for a slight unfairness. As I said, there is already possibility for unfairness in leagues and cup competitions as they currently exist, but it's acceptable and we accept that there's no way around it and you deal with it. For example, I think we can all agree that there are many instances when momentum is very important in football. There are often enough times when a smaller team will have to play all the top teams in a row, leading to a series of defeats. This can carry on so that it affects the teams results afterwards. That's unfair, but there's not a whole lot we can do about it. We agree that the fixture list is generated randomly and what you get is what you get.

This system seems to not have that much unfairness in it. As i said, a lot of the teams seem to think its is an acceptable amount of unfairness for what they feel they will gain.

I ask you again. If they decided to do this, but without adding an extra game, but by each team giving up 1 random home game and 1 random away game, would you still have the same problem with it?

Greed on its own can be good, but it needs moderation or it can destroy things, and with football, do you want to really have no worries about too much greed? or we would start having commercial breaks, or bigger goals or something to make it more appealing to any marketing group test subjects. Football evolves and changes and some changes are necessary and for the good ( you know, intelligent balls, better ways to referee, good drug tests, better pitches, maybe a tweak on the offside rule or the 3-points-for-a-win thing ) and with a purpose to improve football and reward attacking play or punishing rule breaking. With this, I see no purpose, except make yet more money (excellent, if there was financial need. But with the money being made, it seems absolutely unnecessary to use making more money as an argument).

I do worry about too much greed (Too much strongly implies that the greed is causing a bad thing). But the "international round" is not in itself a bad thing, going by everything I've seen. If it were, or had negative aspects, I'd be against it. The fact that they are doing it for greed is irrelevant. The idea should be judged on its own merits.

Like I said, I do see a positive from it and benefits to it. Spreading the publicity of football and making more Americans (and other places too!) more interested in Football. And that benefit is much more widespread than just the English Premiership. [As you said, they already make bucketloads of money ]

BTW, you are forgetting an important point - what the premiership needs right now, is not just more money, it needs more recognition and respect from the important parts of the international press and even european markets. Winning more CL titles would be good. Getting to be first on the UEFA coefficients rankings would help. Or considering the most mediatic player in the world right now ( which he is), did you see Cristiano Ronaldo not winning any award lately? I think it was Pepe or Deco coming out a few weeks ago and saying if he was playing in Spain he would have received one of those awards in December. Dunno if it is true, perhaps. You need money to get great players. You also need to keep them fit (refereeing could be improved). But great players will be ambitious for personal recognition and if your status as a league is seen as not serious and popular only for betting markets, it might make you lose stars - which by moving to other leagues will diminish the marketing value of yours.

Right. I'm not sure how much of it that awards thing is due to bias. I really think that most voters thought that Kaka' was the better player last season and that there were better players than Henry in previous seasons, even if I personally disagree. I dont think that their playing in Spain would have changed that - certainly not for C. Ronaldo last season. If Ronaldo doesn't get the awards this year, I will have to wonder much more strongly about bias. He's clearly streets ahead of every other player on the planet [though there's a lot of the season left to go ].

In any roads, I think that any such bias is a bad thing and has more to do with problems in the Sports media in the countries on the continent than with anything in the English Premiership.

I don't know how the other countries will view this move (if it goes ahead), but as you can probably guess by this stage, I have yet to be given a reason why a negative view of the "international round" is anything other than irrational.

[Paddy]

Teresa and Mormont,

Your views on the importance of the local identity thing... I have to believe they are biased. I know you think it is something special, but it doesn't seem like you've experienced what support is like without it and I can tell you from my experience that it is no different.

It's exactly to me like when someone is asked "what makes your nationality/race/identity/tribe unique?" and then they go on to list a whole load of generic positive values. Like generosity, honesty and bravery. Honesty isn't unique to any nationality or race, but people the world over like to think it is unique to their. That's irrational and rather small-minded.

Same here. People who have no or little connection to a particular place can (and trust me, they do) have a very real, very strong connection to a team from that place and for those people, it is absolutely as real, as strong and as valid as it is to a person who grew up in the same city as that that team and supports them for that reason. They've been through the same highs and lows, experienced some amazing player doing the impossible [i'll tell you, supporting the team that Cristiano Ronaldo is playing on does that for me these days. A friend of mine who supports Aston Villa has determined that people should take to always referring to Ronaldo as "PantomimeVillian Cristiano Ronaldo", because he really is ]

Yes, Mormont, you are right that the locality thing is where the teams come from and it is what brought them out of their humble beginnings, but that was over a 100 years ago for the vast majority of teams (Wigan being the only current exception). It was their position a supporters of the team that brought them together, it doesn't matter that they came from the same place, that's just a side issue. It might be what caused most of those people to support that team, but not all and it makes no sense for supporting a club to be so exclusive. IMO, it's a much closer step to make that sort of thing a requirement and to make it about more unsavory things. As you say, around your parts its about religion... dont you think thats a bad thing that should be moved away from rather than embraced?

What I'm saying is that the identity of a football team's supporters these days is simply that they are supporters of that team. And it should be that and nothing else. To be otherwise is archaic.

But then, that's all really a side issue to this. I really cannot see how having one international round will make any difference to any of that stuff. You listed off a bunch of exceptions that already exist, but all you've said about them being different is that they dont compromise you being a "home team". Having an international round compromises that exactly as much as playing games at another teams stadium, just like half of all games that teams play in competition.

Once you have accepted that the principles of the game can be overridden for no other reason but money, well... you're already at the bottom of the slope, in my view. You can slide no further. It's just a case of 'how often', and for the money men, that is 'any time it pays'.

Fair enough. I think that's overstating it, but whatever, I agree with you.

But you still have to tell me which principle of football it is that an international round is compromising. Calls to tenuous romanticised ideals that I have not seen as being anything real or positive about football have as much swaying power on me as someone saying that it is a principle of Football for players to be White [except for a whole lot less disgust, that is ].

[Jon AS]

Your views on the importance of the local identity thing... I have to believe they are biased. I know you think it is something special, but it doesn't seem like you've experienced what support is like without it and I can tell you from my experience that it is no different.

Well, you are just as biased, you know?

As far as I can tell, the situation you, as a football fan in Ireland, find yourself in is actually the exception rather than the norm. While the Premiership may be the default league to follow for the Irish, most (European) football fans follow their own domestic leagues, and while we take an interest in what's going on in other countries (or at least the "bigger" ones) our primary allegiance is indeed local.

I am not saying that there aren't people in other coutries who primarily follow English football, but they are not part of the domestic fanbase that forms the backbone of the league, so playing league games in other parts of the world just seems silly. In fact, I would guess that most people who would turn up for these games would not in fact be actual fans of the teams playing (how many Derby County fans can be found in China, by your estimate?), they'd be there because it would be marketed to them as some great event (and now that I think about it, those poor souls who do end up paying for a Derby game would be sorely disappointed...). Those who only care about the revenue created by the game may dismiss that, but the fact is these games would not have the character of genuine Premiership games. So why pretend that they are by awarding points for them?

[The Inquisitor]

Well Paddy, but the local identity thing is essential to football... and it works for every team.

Benfica, Man Utd, Hearts and Real Madrid are nothing without their city and local fanbase... what I beleive makes my team unique is its past and its traditions. 9 European cups, 30 Ligas, Di Stefano, Bernabeú, Juanito, the "cantera" and homegrown players, our stadium and how it affects its rivals, the european comebacks in the 60's, 70's and 80's, Zidane and the "galacticos" etc etc etc. Granted, we have the biggest number of fans in the world... but what makes us Real Madrid are our past, traditions, histories and legends, and that's why we are so popular, that's what attracts people in China and Japan who have just come to football to feel an affinity for our clubs. The local issue: just take a look at the stands of Old Trafford, Estadio da Luz and the Bernabeu... people from all over the world dream to come to them to watch a match in those hallowed pitches... for pete's sake, don't tell me that you can feel the magic of Anfield, San Siro, the Bernabeu etc etc. when a match is held is there. People are seduced by that local awareness/folklore and join it. But it is that local thing that seduces them, as long as it is not excluding and used politically (here's for Barça... when you mix that up with a political message you are excluding fans that are not local, and it gives it a nasty new dimension)

For instance, you had something pretty unique and local going on last week with the anniversay of the Munich tragedy.

Now to a lesser extent that happens also with less succesful clubs, but equally historic teams in our counties that are fighting in the pits of inferior categories... they are glued together and have solid fanbases because of their own folklore.

I know that making say, Liverpool play a home match in a season far away is not going to change things a lot in terms of direct impact to the standings... but it is a mockery of what Liverpool home matches are: it robs fans and players alike... playing a math in Anfield is something every player (even rivals, no matter how big or small their respcetive clubs might be) want to experience... it is an integral part of what Liverpool means to have their supporters chant "the you'll never walk alone", and what compels fans together to share a bond even if they are from Norway: that local identity and its own folklore.