Fanks for the memrees

One question on every Spurs fan's lips is whether Harry Redknapp will still be Spurs manager at the end of the season.  One part of it is whether he'll walk away, tempted perhaps by the England job, disillusioned by the mob of fans (who I believe to be in the minority) suddenly denouncing him as incompetent following a poor run of form.


I must make this clear from the outset - I am not one of that mob that has suddenly sprung up after a few weeks of poor results, that a few months ago were saying he was great.  My opinion on matters of football benefits from, or suffers from (depending on your view) a fair degree of inertia.  Lazy journalism is very much a results based concept, either a team is winning, in which case everyone and everything is great, or it is not, in which case the manager, the team, the owners or whatever other scapegoat you care to name is the devil incarnate.


It wasn't so long ago that Harry was the next best thing since sliced bread.  Gareth Bale was touted as the best left-winger in the country (world?!)(universe??!!), and Modric was the super-creative playmaker that the mighty Chelsea were willing to break the bank for.  The accolades were flowing and the enthusiasm of the commentators knew no bounds.  That it was all tainted with wild hyberbole was of no concern to those either riding the wave as fans or filling the sports pages.


But scientific principles state that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  However far the pendulum swings in one direction, it will swing back in the other direction by virtually the same amount.  Now that the results haven't been going so well, oh how the tune has changed.


Of course the silent majority of Spurs fans will remember the wilderness that was the 90s, when we would have given a limb to be talking about whether we'd be finishing 3rd or 4th, hoping that we might just get a sniff at the UEFA cup.  We are where we are because of Harry and I don't think the fans shouldn't forget that.


The second half of the season always sees injuries and suspensions, and coupled with the fact that we had a run of very difficult fixtures it was always going to be impossible to sustain the form we had shown earlier.  What is apparent to me is that Spurs and Arsenal have both played their best stuff during periods when they weren't under any pressure.  


We started the season badly, soundly beaten by Utd and City.  No-one was talking about Spurs for the Champions League, let alone the title.  Whilst the spotlight was firmly on the Manchester clubs, Chelsea and Arsenal, we carried on for the most part under the radar and went on the best run we've had in decades.


But then the press started building us up and some fans starting believing the hype.  Before we knew it, someone decided to get cocky telling Arsenal to "mind the gap".  But now, all eyes were on Spurs.  No longer would 4th be enough, it had to be 3rd (or better) and a finish above their North London neighbours for the first time in a generation.  Unfortunately our players are not accustomed to such pressure.  Having so long been underdogs fighting their way back from the foot of the table, they now found themselves constrained by the fear of losing that which they had worked so hard to obtain.  So the slide began.  


At the same time, Arsenal were foolishly written off and in a heartbeat the pressure on them was lifted.  They responded with an incredible run of their own, starting with a 5-2 win against us from 2-0 down, to now find themselves 5 points ahead.


Now it is just possible that the tide will turn again.  Just as they wrote Arsenal off now they're again doing it to Spurs.  A loss to Norwich and an FA Cup humiliation have done nothing to instil in the fans or the media any confidence that Spurs can secure 4th place.  The emergence of Newcastle as challengers together with the ever present threat of a Chelsea buoyed by their Champions League exploits all point to a season of disappointment for Spurs that at one stage promised so much.  And yet all good things must come to an end.  With the pressure firmly back on Arsenal to hold onto their lead, their 2-1 home loss to Wigan could represent a little wobble.  At the same time, this just might have been the perfect time to dismiss Spurs' chances, and they might just be able to get back to playing football.


But back to Redknapp. Taking everything into account, would I get rid of Redknapp on the basis of the results?  I would say no.  If the season were to finish today we would by usual standards have had a great season.  With everything that has gone on both on and off the pitch, even a 5th place finish would have a genuine mark of respectability bearing in mind the number of top clubs now fighting for places. 


Yet, I think his time has nonetheless come, for a different reason.  Redknapp is renowned for "putting an arm around players", making them feel valued, and bringing out their underdog spirit.  That is the spirit that took "2 points from 8 games" Tottenham to the Champions League the next season, and has largely kept them there or thereabouts since.


But the next step is surely to bring about a belief that Spurs are not the underdogs who can fight and win against the best teams, but that they are one of those best teams.  That they do have an entitlement to challenge and win at the highest level.  That is the mentality that United have had for years, the belief that they are the best and that winning is their right.


That is not something that a man like Harry brings.  Harry wants the world to tell him "You can't do it", so that he can go out and prove them wrong.  But when people start saying "You can do it", as quickly as the fire is lit Redknapp's own humility will extinguish it.  Contrast Ferguson or Mourinho - these are men with a level of self-belief bordering on arrogance.  Not only do they believe that they can do it, but they are quite happy to proclaim such belief.


And so even if Spurs qualify for the Champions League, the time has surely come to change the dressing room mentality.  The most important signing Levy needs to make this summer is a world-class manager with a track record, a man for whom there is a high level of respect, and of whom there is a little fear, who can look the players in the eyes and say "This is our time".


Spurs' fortunes will now turn on a few remaining games, but whatever happens, it just might be time to say "See ya later 'Arry, and fanks for the memrees".

Harry, England and Euro 2012.

When Harry Redknapp was finally acquitted of charges of tax evasion, there was never a better moment to repeat the oft asked question of whether he would become the next England manager.


Aside from the obvious point that a conviction would put his availability into doubt, depending on the nature of his sentence, it would be yet another scandal under the FA's belt to appoint a person with a criminal record.


When he was cleared, in virtual unison an entire nation clamoured for his appointment, calling upon him to lead England to glory at the European Championships.  Coincidentally, or not, Fabio Capello resigned hours later, creating the possibility of a fairytale scenario for England and the FA. 


But for me, something didn't feel right.  Now, the obvious answer to that might be that as a Tottenham fan who is not also an England supporter (more about that some other time), I had no vested interest in seeing Redknapp take the England job, and certainly no desire for it.  It's old news that he took the Premier League's bottom club in October 2008 and in 18 months turned them into Champions League qualifiers.  Two seasons on and they're seeking Champions League football again, with a real chance of bettering their 2010 fourth place finish.


All of which raised the question... Why England, and why now?


In recent history, all I have seen in respect of the English national team is confusion.  Confusion about what constitutes success, about what type of characters they need on the pitch, what style of play or tactical approach should be used, and of course the confusion over whether England needs to play its "own game" to be successful or adapt so as to absorb continental, and even global influences.


The success of the Premier League has only served to fuel this confusion.  The managers of the 20 top flight clubs are of 10 different nationalities, with the current top 5 being from Italy, Scotland, England, France and Portugal.  Sitting top is Mancini's Manchester City, and though City probably have England's next generation in their side in players such as Hart, Lescott and Richards in their side, none of their success would be possible without the multitude of foreign players around them.  Neither do City appear to fit the mould of the defensive Italian stereotype, on course to set goalscoring records this season.


Is it any longer possible, therefore, to make distinctions along national lines?  By definition, international football does this in terms of player selection, but is it feasible for a country such as England, whose top division is permeated by such a wide variety of foreign playing and managerial talent, with several different tactical styles, to confidently say what "English" football is?


Without a defined objective, is it even possible to select the man to achieve that objective?  Of course one might say that the objective is always to win, and that would be fair enough.  But such a trite statement offers no assistance in establishing how to go about this.  What everyone really wants to know is, for a given set of players, what is the best way to organise them so that winning becomes easier and opponents find it harder to beat them?


Instead of defining this objective, choosing the England manager appears to have turned into a game of cat and mouse.


After the cool, calm and ultimately quirky Hoddle, the fashion was passion, and Keegan was the choice.  But he didn't bring instant success, the country cried out for experience.


Eriksson had the experience, but because England didn't win the 2006 World Cup, the country cried out for an Englishman.


McLaren was an Englishman (and still is, even though he speaks it with a terrible Dutch accent) but he was deemed too soft and when the "wally with the brolly" failed to qualify for Euro 2008 the country cried out for a tough guy.


Capello was a tough guy, but when England fell flat on its face in South Africa, the country cried out for an Englishman again...


And so the cycle continues.  Manager comes in, supposed new style, team doesn't do as well as expected,  suddenly everyone is a footballing genius crying out for a different style and a different manager.  No lasting football philosophy, just chopping and changing every time things don't work out.


Now flavour of the month is Redknapp, who supposedly would "put his arm around the players" and turn an average side into European Champions.  He's got the passion, so they say, and definitely has the experience.  And most importantly of all - he's English.  Ticks all the boxes and there's no reason why England wouldn't love to have him.

But what about from Redknapp's perspective?


When asked in the past, "Would you manage England?", the answer was always going to be "yes".  No English football manager could, in the face of such a direct question, feasibly say "no".  With due respect to the other clubs he'd managed, Bournemouth, West Ham, Southampton and Portsmouth, they weren't going to be pulling up trees in the honours stakes.  If the question about managing the national side comes up, one keeps one's options open.  It's a big step up and a very attractive proposition.


Managing Spurs, however, is a different cup of tea.  Redknapp's Tottenham are without doubt the best of the Premier League era, and one has to go back to 1990 for the last time they finished in the top three.  With a little more work and investment the Redknapp project might even see them champions, a feat they have not achieved for over 50 years.  For the first time in his managerial career Redknapp has at his disposal a squad to challenge for honours and really make his mark on English  football.  Already a hero, he could achieve legendary status at White Hart Lane. 


Against that, the England job chews up quality managers and spits them out.  Respected football names such as Eriksson and Capello subjected to character assassination and sent home with the tag of "not cutting it".  That the England players have so regularly underperformed is conveniently overlooked, but ultimately it is the generals that claim credit for victories and who also fall on their swords in defeat.  There is no time for a 5 year project, no opportunity to create a philosophy, and no dipping into a transfer market and doing a bit of business off the pitch when your current crop isn't doing the business on it.


Redknapp may well go on to manage England in the future, but for me, his time isn't now.  England need to undergo a period of transition and bring through a new generation, and Euro 2012 may just present that opportunity.  For once, instead of excessive hype followed by excessive disappointment,  I'd like to see the media take a low-key approach and say "We probably won't win this, but we'll should just go out there and play as best we can".  Whoever takes charge now, won't significantly improve England's chances, nor will they necessarily damage them.  The fans, likewise, must be realistic about their expectations.


Once the foundations are in place, a man like Redknapp could take England to the next level and perhaps even achievable the unthinkable at the next major tournament, or the one after.  Right now, however, he's started something special at Spurs and in my view, he'd be foolish to relinquish the sweet taste of domestic glory to take a sip from the poisoned chalice.
-
Follow me on Twitter:  @Tanel76

Spurs vs City - the aftermath

I take quite a philosophical view about football matches - the way I see it you win some, and you lose some, and if you can win more than you lose you're generally doing ok.  

Of course there are always talking points but more often than not these days, and unfortunately I must say, those talking point seem to revolve around the decisions of the referee rather than the football itself.

Take yesterday's match between table-topping Manchester City and third placed Spurs.  A Spurs win would have put them ahead of Manchester United, albeit only until United's later match against Arsenal.  

As a Spurs fan I considered that as much as a win for us would have been a great thing, this was a game where we could actually go out and play, and believe it or not, not be under pressure.  City had demolished us 5-1 at White Hart Lane on the opening day of the season and whilst Spurs have improved considerably since then, City have hardly stood still, setting new benchmarks for both themselves and the Premier League.

Talk of Spurs winning the title was, I always believed, premature, and whilst it is an admirable ambition to strive to reach the highest you can, we should in no way be disappointed with a 2nd or even 3rd place finish which in itself would be beyond our expectations at the start of the season.  The danger is that having tasted the wonderful free-flowing football and the success it has, up until this point, brought us, fans will lose sight of where we started and start to somehow view not winning the title and losing ground to the Manchester clubs as some kind of failure.

As it happened, Spurs narrowly missed out.  After a wonderful fightback from 2-0 down a 95th minute penalty gave City the points - final score 3-2.  

The talk, however, has been all about Balotelli, the scorer of that penalty, being allowed to remain on the pitch following an apparent stamp on Tottenham's Scott Parker's head.

To be honest, I don't want to go there.  I don't like what he did to Parker and don't condone it in the slightest.  But neither am I a Tottenham fan looking for an excuse, or a reason to complain.  We can always look for "what if's" in matches but the fact remains that King brought Balotelli down, conceded a penalty, and Balotelli still had to score it.  It could have been a foul on another striker, and someone else could have scored it, and so on.

And Spurs had a great chance to win it themselves only minutes earlier, with another storming run and low cross by Bale, met by the outstretched foot of Defoe who toe-poked the ball literally inches wide.  Lots more what ifs, of course.  What if Bale had played the pass a fraction slower, or a foot further behind?  What if Defoe hadn't ever so slightly adjusted his run towards the centre of goal but had continued dead straight, so he could connect fully with the ball?

These things can be debated to death but one thing, for me, was beyond argument.  Spurs showed some steel to go with their style and their resilience in not only keeping their heads up and coming back from 2-0 down but then not being afraid to take the game to City and press for the winner was a delight to watch.

I, for one, would much rather be focusing on that, than to become embroiled in the whole row about Balotelli's antics.  The authorities may or may not deal with him but nothing's going to bring the points back from yesterday and I would always rather to look forwards than back.

City took the points but to win a game with a bundled second goal and a penalty doesn't scream "we're the better team".  Spurs fans, myself included, have absolutely nothing to worry about and maybe, just maybe, yesterday's disappointment will serve only to fuel a run of form in the second half of the season as good as, if not better, than the first.

- - - - - 

Follow me on Twitter:  @Tanel 76

It's a Sin...

The idea of a "sin-bin" is not a new one and from time to time the idea of bringing it into football is floated, especially given that it is used in other sports.  It's one of those ideas that periodically pops up at the back of my mind, and after sports journalist Henry Winter of The Telegraph asked the question on Twitter today, it prompted me to again take another look. 

This does tie in with Luis Suarez's eight game ban, and the question of whether a punishment fit the crime. As they say, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, so we need to look at whether the current system does adequately legislate for on the field offences, and whether it does so fairly.  If a sin-bin system can improve upon what we already have and fill a few gaps, then there is no reason not to seriously consider it.

If you're still wondering what a sin-bin is, then essentially we're talking about taking a player out of the game for a defined period of time, during which they sit on the bench/stands (the "sin-bin") and after which they rejoin the game.

Without going into the detail of the Laws of the Game, broadly speaking the yellow/red card system operates as a scale, such that minor offences (eg. timewasting, persistent fouling) receive a yellow card (a "booking") whereas major offences (eg. violent conduct) receive a red, and a sending off.  

It also operates on a "warning" basis, such that any player who has received a booking who subsequently receives another, also receives a red card and is sent off at that point.

Up to a point the system works well, and for the most part the "dual penalty" system has stood the test of time.  But there are two problems which remain:-

1)   A player can be sent off at any time in a game.  At the extremes this could be in the first few seconds, or in the final minute of injury time.  The offence may be the same, the punishment the same, but the practical effect is vastly different.  A team who has a player sent off in the first minute plays the whole match with 10 men, whereas the team who has a player sent off right at the end of the game might barely be affected.

2)   Where a player commits a foul there is already some grey area as to whether a yellow card should be given in the first place.  According to Law 12, *persistently* infringing the laws of the game is a yellow card offence, so what happens if it's your first foul?  Admittedly FIFA's guidance for referees on interpretation does distinguish between "careless" tackling and "reckless" tackling, the former warranting only a free kick, the latter requiring a yellow card, but in practice can the difference between carelessness and recklessness be easily recognised?  A player may make a careless tackle that the referee doesn't like, receive a yellow card, and then seconds later after protesting his innocence receive a second yellow card and be sent off. Because of the finality of a sending off, he and the whole team are excessively punished for a few moments of what is essentially innocent exchange.

In my view we need to ask how the sin-bin would solve, or at least mitigate these problems, for it to be a genuine contender.  

First of all, I think it would eliminate the huge difference between first minute/last minute sendings off. Let's say that we agree on a period of 15 minutes.  This will apply equally at any point during the game right up to the 75th minute, after which it becomes progressively less of a punishment as there are less than 15 minutes remaining anyway (not counting injury time).

So, it's not a perfect system, because there is still a difference between being "binned" in the 10th minute and in the 80th minute, but it's not so much of a huge difference between playing 1 minute or 89 minutes.

Secondly, without the finality of a red card, it allows a "cooling off period", during which a player who is perhaps getting a little hot-headed can be taken off, reflect for a while, then come back in and make a fresh start before emotions get the better of him.

Thirdly, it takes away some pressure from the ref.  Where a player has already received a yellow card, perhaps for a "technical" offence such as timewasting, then the ref has a dilemma because any subsequent bookable offence will result in a red card.  The ref has basically two choices - give the second yellow, and perhaps unduly punish the player and his team, or let it go unpunished and incur the wrath of the opposing team, manager and fans.  Neither option is particularly attractive or conducive to maintaining on the field relations or respect for the referee.  By allowing the ref to take a player out of the game for a short time, everybody "wins" as it were, and at least the player knows he can come back in and redeem himself. 

I'm not saying do away with red cards, but I think these have to be for "malicious" offences  such as violent conduct or spitting, or complete recklessness in challenges.  In my view a red card isn't just a technical sanction, it also carries a stigma.  The "walk of shame" is more than just an procedural event, it speaks, on some level at least, as to that player's professionalism and reputation.  For that reason I don't particularly like the idea of a player being sent off for what might be two rather innocent events, as explained earlier.

Of course, if a player has been sin-binned and offends again, perhaps for the third time overall, then you might argue fair's fair and it's time to go.  Two cautions might be bad luck, three starts to demonstrate a pattern.

Or one might consider progressive time periods, say 10 minutes for the first offence, 20 for the second, 30 for the third.  Over 90 minutes if a player keeps offending he'll most likely miss most of it anyway, so we achieve a similar result to the red card whilst still balancing things up.

Bottom line, I like the idea and it needs to be considered seriously.  The real sin is refusing to consider change at all.

- - -


Follow me on Twitter:  @Tanel76

Luis Suarez racism row

The main talking point of the day has been the FA's decision this week to impose an 8 game ban on Liverpool's Luis Suarez, following a finding of misconduct against for comments made by him to Manchester United's Patrice Evra during the match between the sides on the 15th October 2011.

Much has been said, not all of it entirely accurate, but when in doubt I say one should go direct to the source, so calling up the FA's original statement on their website I noted the following:-

On 16 November 2011, The Football Association charged Luis Suarez with misconduct contrary to FA Rule E3 in relation to the Liverpool FC versus Manchester United FC fixture on 15 October 2011.

A hearing took place from 14-20 December 2011 before an Independent Regulatory Commission of The FA to consider the charge.

The Independent Regulatory Commission announced its decision on 20 December 2011, which is as follows:

1. Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
2. the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);
3. Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for eight matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum of £40,000;
4. the [penalty] is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision.

Now the £40,000 fine is barely worth mentioning, given the astronomical salaries that players of Suarez's standing are earning, but opinion is squarely divided on whether the 8 game ban was justified.  At the one end there are those that believe that Suarez is being made an example of, and at the other there are those who argue that nothing less than a "zero tolerance" approach to racism in football is acceptable.  

For me, several issues emerged from the whole affair.

Firstly, I have to be honest, as an individual Suarez is not my cup of tea.  I'd go far as to say he's an annoying little mouthy git.  

But  labelling a person a "racist", even a person who we generally don't like, is a serious matter.  Not only because our society, and indeed our laws, deem racism itself to be a serious matter, thus we should be very careful when making such an allegation, but further because if the term "racist" is to be banded about at every available opportunity, it merely serves to undermine very real racism that ordinary people, far less privileged and far less affluent that Mr Evra, face in the real world.

Secondly, what do we really mean when we call someone a racist?  The real problem, surely, is racial discrimination, where a person is treated less favourably by virtue of their race.  This is illegal in the vast majority of countries, and rightly so.  Likewise, incitement to racial hatred is also an offence in many jurisdictions, where, essentially, threatening words or behaviour are used with the intention of stirring up racial hatred.

The common element is harm.  As a collective society, individual freedoms cannot be absolute.  The limit on my freedom is, broadly, the point at which the exercise of that freedom causes harm to others.  Sometimes the law tolerates a small "overstepping" of the mark, where it is considered that the value in the freedom is so great that a small infringement on another's rights is acceptable, and sometimes the law takes the opposite approach and penalises recklessness, carelessness or attempted (yet incomplete) offences on the basis of potential harm.

No doubt whatever was said to Evra was an unpleasant experience for him.  Unpleasant enough to prompt Evra to make the initial complaint.  But what was the level of harm?  To be clear, I'm not adopting Sepp Blatter's stance and saying that "it's all good fun".  What I'm saying is that we need a way to assess the harm, having regard to the context of what was said, the intent, the loss suffered by the person on the receiving end of the remarks, and then we decide what punishment fits the crime.

As it stands, Suarez has received the longest ban for an "on the field" offence that I can remember (contrasting situations such as Rio Ferdinand missing a drugs test and receiving a ban of 8 months).  If Suarez had run out onto the field and aimed a strong side kick at Evra's knee, he would have been sent off and received a 3 match ban for violent conduct.  The harm to Evra would have been much, much greater, quite possibly ending his career.  

Quite clearly then, the powers that be deem it more acceptable to physically injure a player than to insult their background.  In football terms, Suarez has effectively been told "You have committed the worst possible crime", and banned for almost three times the number of games that he would have been banned for had he headbutted Evra, punched him in the face, or left him crippled with an irreparable cruciate ligament.

Of course in such cases the criminal law might well step in and other sanctions might be imposed in the Courts, but to the extent that the football authorities mete out their own justice there has to be a logical consistency to the scale of punishments for different offences.

This is all the more puzzling given that the only evidence against Suarez appears to be the testimony of Evra himself, bringing me on to my third point.

If we take the view that Suarez has received an exceptionally strong punishment as a statement of policy, then exceptional punishment must surely require an exceptional standard of proof.  There is a big question mark over whether the word of one person over another could even satisfy the civil standard of proof, i.e. the balance of probabilities, let alone satisfying the criminal standard i.e. beyond reasonable doubt, or some other comparable standard appropriate to the contended gravity of the offence.

Apparently no-one else heard the comments else not only would we be looking again at the level of "harm", we would also be in a different situation in terms of evidence.  One against one is barely a case to answer, many against one and your number's up.

The chairman of each Independent Regulatory Commission is a legally qualified barrister, which makes this all the more difficult to understand.  If anything this leads me to the conclusion that the Commission was under significant pressure from within to make a strong statement here, especially in view of the ongoing embarrassment of the John Terry situation.  

This way, the FA have their cake and eat it.  Terry is one of their own, their captain, and so it's someone else's decision and whatever happens, happens.  That Uruguayan striker on the other hand, who nobody except Liverpool fans really likes, he can be made an example of and the rule book (which is a rather big book) can be quite fully thrown at him.

So here's what will happen.  Liverpool will appeal and though the decision will stand, the length of the ban will be reduced.  Liverpool and Suarez will claim victory, demonstrating that the initial punishment was disproportionate.  Evra and the FA will claim victory, arguing that the decision having been upheld underscores the decision to bring charges at first instance.  And so everybody wins, everybody walks away, and the mutual backslapping amongst the football fraternity can begin.

Well, I say everybody, but not quite.  The real losers here are the average guys who the morning after something like this, receive a few more sideways glances.  Maybe it's the Uruguayan guy that comes into the coffee house every day and who everyone now thinks he's a racist because South American culture has been called into question.  Or it might be the Senegalese guy that people down the street are cursing at under their breath because they (rightly or wrongly) see the Evra incident as another example of political correctness gone mad.

The danger with things like this is that inevitably, in order to unite, one has to divide.  There is an inherent paradox in that in striving for a world where we do not define people by their skin colour,  in order to protect the rights and freedoms of those vulnerable to discrimination we invariably end up defining those people by their skin colour.  

An argument between two men in a park becomes an issue of black against white, third parties get involved whether welcomed or not and a justified reaction becomes an unjustified overreaction, and instead of racial tensions being eased, they are merely fuelled.  Racism isn't nice, and it isn't right, but before we jump on every available bandwagon I feel we ought to step back and think about whether in the name of good, we are actually the ones doing the harm.




Follow me on Twitter - @Tanel76

Stoke v Barcelona

No... this isn't the latest European fixture, although a few Stoke fans might wish it were so.  


Rather, this is following on from an interesting discussion that I was listening to on TalkSport Radio the other night.  It wasn't the first time that Stoke City's style of play was under scrutiny and inevitably the conversation drifted in the direction of Barcelona.


Yes, in the last few seasons the Catalan giants have wowed us all with fluid, one-touch passing football, awash with technical brilliance, almost to the point of embarrassing their opponents.  Their 3-1 win away to fiercest rivals Real Madrid last weekend merely served to underline that quality.


Meanwhile, 1,100 miles North, Stoke City were employing their own brand of football against high-flying Spurs.  The visitors were unbeaten in 11 games, with 6 straight league wins, and whilst an away win at Stoke was by no means a formality they were considered well capable of extending that run and pressing home their title ambitions.


Alas (I say, as a Tottenham fan) it wasn't to be.  Spurs found themselves a goal down after just 13 minutes, and right before the break conceded a second.  Neither goal could be described as a classic but there was a strong element of determination about both.  For the first, Crouch had to battle hard with Gallas in the Spurs box before cutting back for Etherington to slot home.  The second was "route one" stuff with Shotton launching in a long throw Rory Delap style, Walters finding space and flicking the ball on and Etherington again cropping up at the far post to loop the ball up beyond Friedel.


Not pretty by any means, but they all count.  Despite plenty of Spurs pressure in the second half and Adebayor converting a penalty, Spurs couldn't do enough to get a result.  The referee, Chris Foy, came under fire for a string of decisions and the consensus is that Spurs had a perfectly good goal ruled out for offside, were denied another penalty for a handball, and had Kaboul harshly sent off for a second yellow.


Had the result been different, the talk would most likely have been about the London club's title challenge.  As it was, Stoke's reward for their victory was yet another scrutiny of their playing style, deemed by many to simply be physical, direct and lacking in entertaining flair.


"It's not exactly Barcelona", came the comments.  "Everyone should play like Barcelona, shouldn't they?  That's what we want to see, isn't it?"


Well I've looked hard and yet I still can't find anything in the Laws of the Game that say a goal has to start with 25 passes and end up with a volley into the top right hand corner.  Or for a player to run the length of the pitch, twisting and turning and beating 8 players before coolly dinking the ball over the flailing keeper.


No, to win a game, you have to score, full stop.  I'll say it again, they all count.  And stopping the other team scoring is just as much a part of winning football matches as scoring goals yourself, and I will say, as a Spurs fan, that if you can restrict Modric, Van de Vaart, Adebayor and Bale to a single penalty over 90 minutes, then you deserve a result, even if you might need a little help from the ref now and then. :-)


We all love to watch Barcelona, but football is a competitive sport and if it works, it works.  Credit to Stoke for playing the way that suits them.  If you have a Messi and an Iniesta in your side then great, but if you don't you do whatever you can to succeed.  When that ball crosses the line I don't hear many fans saying "Oh, that wasn't pretty".  Instead I see thousands jumping up and down like crazy and celebrating the goal.  


If Stoke have a poor run and can't win games, then no doubt the Stoke fans will make their feelings known and Tony Pulis will have to justify his tactics.  But until then, if they're not complaining then why should anyone else?  


Frankly, my dears, they just don't give a damn. 


Follow me on Twitter! - @Tanel76

Introduction

Hello all, 


Welcome to Soccer Straight Talk, a place where I'll be looking to strip away the bluff and the bluster, the hype and the hyperbole, the myth and the mystery and all that other stuff that we're constantly hearing in the media about the beautiful game.


I'd like to share my views with you about issues in football, (with a bit of bias towards Tottenham Hotspur in particular!) and hope that you'll find something intellectually stimulating enough to comment on.


Let's go!


Tanel.