News of Paul Wood's misfortune in the Grand Final has gone mainstream. All the dailies are carrying the story with the general air of awe and sympathy matched by Wood's own stoicism. But alongside that, there's a nasty undercurrent, the general gist being "if that was a footballer, he'd never have played on".
Has it come to this where the Rugby League public is so unsure of itself that it needs to exploit one man's testicular misfortune to make a petty point about... who knows what at the expense of players in a totally different code?
Yes, diving in football and feigning injury to gain an advantage are the hot topics du nos jour, but to suggest that footballers would act any differently to Wood is specious nonsense. It also paints fans of the thirteen-man game as the stereotype would have it; with a chip on both shoulders. It does the game no favours. Football has it's problems, but attempting to jump on those and seek to exploit them with a straw man argument about someone losing a part of their anatomy is downright bizarre.
It happened during the Olympics too, with athletes lauded for, ostensibly, not being footballers. It's difficult to know why or what point was trying to be made. The point is that footballers are under far more scrutiny than any other sportspeople. Their on-field and off-field conduct is pored over in excruciating detail in all the national dailies and while there are a number of deeply unpleasant characters in that game, so there are in others. By the same token, there are a much greater number of characters that aren't deeply unpleasant. Moreover, to laud an athlete from a different game simply for not being a footballer is an infantile argument that also undermines the actual achievement that one would be seeking to praise.
As far as Rugby League goes, talking up the positives is absolutely fine and Paul Wood's is a story that has universal appeal. While we're not as big a sport as football, we can get away with pushing that line rather than Ben Blackmore getting convicted of assaulting Father Christmas being the major talking point of the week. In football, both would be big news spread across a number of back pages. With limited room for Rugby League, it's lucky that Wood's misfortune, courage and good humour have bumped what would otherwise be an embarrassment to one side.
By all means, seek to push the good side of our game. There is much to celebrate. But having a needless and cheap shot at a different sport while doing so undermines the point and comes across badly. And neither should we ignore those issues that aren't so positive and get all uptight when they're reported. We can't have it both ways
Anyway, Phil Babb (from ages ago) and Lukas Piszczek (from last weekend) reckon anyone attempting to make a ludicrous point about footballers not carrying on after suffering a hugely painful blow is dead wrong.
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
Monday, 21 May 2012
A brief history of promotion and relegation
There is nothing more British than promotion and relegation in sport.
Just like those cucumber sandwiches we are always eating, it is an
intrinsic part of our national identity. Now Andy Burnham has repeated
the claim, and as a former secretary of state for sport he must surely
know what he is talking about. In the Guardian he is quoted as saying
"I don't think the closed shop approach that we have in rugby league at
the moment is consistent with the British way of doing things. The
dream factor is the lifeblood of any sport – it keeps hope alive within
the club and it keeps fans going through the turnstiles."
But when even football's famed pyramid system only came into being 25 years ago, it does make you wonder how so many sports have survived without any lifeblood.
There are 14 different top-flight leagues for professional team sports or which are regularly televised in the UK. Only half of these have promotion and relegation, of those four are the home nation football competitions. Outside of football, the longest current example of promotion and relegation only dates back to 1984.
In England, rugby union has had promotion and relegation since the RFU first accepted the concept of leagues in 1984. While it still retains this for its Premiership, it is regularly accompanied by discussion as to its suitability.
The first official Scottish league system in rugby union was introduced in 1973, while in Wales it took until 1990. But in 2003 the Celtic League replaced those as the top domestic competition in both nations and Ireland. A closed shop where the only admittance is by invitation.
Cricket's first class counties, another closed shop, split into divisions for the first time in 1999. Initially with the limited overs National League, then the following year in the County Championship. The turnstiles probably did not notice. Changes to the first class game were neither to keep hopes alive or attract fans, but to provide a better development environment for England test players.
Meanwhile, competition from the new Twenty20 format, which uses regional divisions, saw attendances at domestic one-day matches decline. After ten seasons the divisional competition was scrapped and a new 40-over competition replaced it and the knock-out trophy. This swapped the system of promotion and relegation for a random draw, each season the 18 first class counties and three invited representative teams placed into separate pools.
Following the second world war, ice hockey had struggles in Britain. In 1982 the British Hockey League was founded, and four years later added a second division with promotion and relegation. This lasted for ten years until the top division was replaced by the Ice Hockey Superleague. Like its successor, the Elite League, this was another closed shop where admission was by invitation.
A similar history exists for basketball, which was first organized into a league in 1972 and added a second division three years later. But after 13 years of promotion and relegation the top division of the National Basketball League was replaced by the British Basketball League, a franchised closed shop.
Although still an amateur sport, netball's Superleague has been televised by Sky Sports for several seasons. This, like its predecessor the 2001 Super Cup, is a franchised closed shop with teams created for it.
Finally, speedway has a tumultuous history of leagues breaking away and merging but it was not until 1991 that promotion and relegation was introduced between the top two British League divisions. At least until being lost to further restructuring in 1995. In 2008 the Elite League introduced a promotion playoff, however no Premier League side has ever won this. Despite that, teams have still switched between leagues through resignation and election, as they did when it was a closed shop.
Say what you will about licensing or the way the RFL administer it, as many do, regularly, but the idea that Britain has a strong tradition of open and automatic promotion and relegation is a myth. Even those sports which do employ this system require promoted teams to meet minimum standards to ensure they will also be viable as a business.
Beyond football, no other sport has the money or depth to provide a suitably graduated system between its top tier and those behind it. If there is a British tradition, it is leagues constantly reinventing themselves as they struggle to find sustainable structures. Only football and rugby union have continuously maintained promotion and relegation between professional and semi-professional levels. And this only for the last 25 years in England, although the Scottish Football League has combined the two for longer.
Burnham is correct in saying the closed shop approach of rugby league is inconsistent with the British way. If it were it would mean Super League only allowing teams to join through invitation. For as long as the RFL continue to guarantee a place to qualifying Championship clubs the game will be decidedly un-British.
Follow the author on the twitter, @emijy
But when even football's famed pyramid system only came into being 25 years ago, it does make you wonder how so many sports have survived without any lifeblood.
There are 14 different top-flight leagues for professional team sports or which are regularly televised in the UK. Only half of these have promotion and relegation, of those four are the home nation football competitions. Outside of football, the longest current example of promotion and relegation only dates back to 1984.
In England, rugby union has had promotion and relegation since the RFU first accepted the concept of leagues in 1984. While it still retains this for its Premiership, it is regularly accompanied by discussion as to its suitability.
The first official Scottish league system in rugby union was introduced in 1973, while in Wales it took until 1990. But in 2003 the Celtic League replaced those as the top domestic competition in both nations and Ireland. A closed shop where the only admittance is by invitation.
Cricket's first class counties, another closed shop, split into divisions for the first time in 1999. Initially with the limited overs National League, then the following year in the County Championship. The turnstiles probably did not notice. Changes to the first class game were neither to keep hopes alive or attract fans, but to provide a better development environment for England test players.
Meanwhile, competition from the new Twenty20 format, which uses regional divisions, saw attendances at domestic one-day matches decline. After ten seasons the divisional competition was scrapped and a new 40-over competition replaced it and the knock-out trophy. This swapped the system of promotion and relegation for a random draw, each season the 18 first class counties and three invited representative teams placed into separate pools.
Following the second world war, ice hockey had struggles in Britain. In 1982 the British Hockey League was founded, and four years later added a second division with promotion and relegation. This lasted for ten years until the top division was replaced by the Ice Hockey Superleague. Like its successor, the Elite League, this was another closed shop where admission was by invitation.
A similar history exists for basketball, which was first organized into a league in 1972 and added a second division three years later. But after 13 years of promotion and relegation the top division of the National Basketball League was replaced by the British Basketball League, a franchised closed shop.
Although still an amateur sport, netball's Superleague has been televised by Sky Sports for several seasons. This, like its predecessor the 2001 Super Cup, is a franchised closed shop with teams created for it.
Finally, speedway has a tumultuous history of leagues breaking away and merging but it was not until 1991 that promotion and relegation was introduced between the top two British League divisions. At least until being lost to further restructuring in 1995. In 2008 the Elite League introduced a promotion playoff, however no Premier League side has ever won this. Despite that, teams have still switched between leagues through resignation and election, as they did when it was a closed shop.
Say what you will about licensing or the way the RFL administer it, as many do, regularly, but the idea that Britain has a strong tradition of open and automatic promotion and relegation is a myth. Even those sports which do employ this system require promoted teams to meet minimum standards to ensure they will also be viable as a business.
Beyond football, no other sport has the money or depth to provide a suitably graduated system between its top tier and those behind it. If there is a British tradition, it is leagues constantly reinventing themselves as they struggle to find sustainable structures. Only football and rugby union have continuously maintained promotion and relegation between professional and semi-professional levels. And this only for the last 25 years in England, although the Scottish Football League has combined the two for longer.
Burnham is correct in saying the closed shop approach of rugby league is inconsistent with the British way. If it were it would mean Super League only allowing teams to join through invitation. For as long as the RFL continue to guarantee a place to qualifying Championship clubs the game will be decidedly un-British.
Follow the author on the twitter, @emijy
Saturday, 25 February 2012
Formations and philosophies
I watch a lot of football. I mean, a lot, from the top European and South American leagues down to non-league. By the end of this season, I'll have sampled the atmosphere of the San Mamés in Bilbao as well as the tea at Seel Park, Mossley in Evostik division 1. Given that there are eleven players per side and one of those rooted to his goal, there are a bewildering array of ways that coaches will arrange those ten outfield players.
The W-M formation was blown out of the water by the 1950s Hungarian side. 3-4-3 dominates Italy at the moment, 4-4-2 is the now-traditional English system. Five at the back with wing-backs, lone front man, wide strikers, false 9s, false 10s, false 10s playing as real 9s - there are so many ways to play the game. Nobody is necessaily right, nobody is necessarily wrong. It's all about philosophy and how your vision of how the game should be played fits with the players you have at your disposal. In rugby league however, despite the two additional players over the round ball game, the game has resolutely stuck to what would be described in football as a 1-4-2-3-2-1 formation.
In some ways, the numbering system and roles associated with those numbers could be stifling to innovation, but we've had squad numbers for some time and little has changed. Deviation from the norm only comes with playing an extra front-rower or half-back at loose forward to either add size or creativity or swapping centres and second-rows around with the only difference being where they stand in the defensive line.
More recently some coaches are trying new things. Last night, the Catalan Dragons went to St Helens and won in dramatic circumstances. With new signing Leon Pryce on board in the halves, Trent Robinson has named Thomas Bosc at full-back with regular full-back Clint Greenshields pushed out to the wing. They don't play like that though. Effectively, the Dragons play with two full-backs, one defending either side of the field, a tactic developed perhaps in response to the excellent 40/20 rule. Huddersfield have moved Scott Grix into the half-back role, but in truth he was playing there last season anyway. Nathan Brown is also on a one-man mission to change the roles of all his forwards into mobile, running players, presumably with the aim of running bigger sides off their feet. It's early days yet, but it might just be crazy enough to work.
This is to be encouraged. Innovation drives the game forward and when the rules are tinkered with, it allows for clever coaches to exploit that or force them to defend against it. So bring on the false 7, the extra 13 and the double full-back. Bring on the pub bores (like the author of this piece) harping on about it endlessly and why coach x is a dinosaur for not adapting and coach y is a visionary for doing something outlandish and daring. I want to see the rugby league equivalents of Marcelo Bielsa, Arrigo Sacchi, Rinus Michels and Jurgen Klopp emerge. Versatility of players has been a key issue for some time already. Now let's have versatility of thought. For whoever comes up with that innovation nobody else sees, there's is the world and everything that's in it.
The W-M formation was blown out of the water by the 1950s Hungarian side. 3-4-3 dominates Italy at the moment, 4-4-2 is the now-traditional English system. Five at the back with wing-backs, lone front man, wide strikers, false 9s, false 10s, false 10s playing as real 9s - there are so many ways to play the game. Nobody is necessaily right, nobody is necessarily wrong. It's all about philosophy and how your vision of how the game should be played fits with the players you have at your disposal. In rugby league however, despite the two additional players over the round ball game, the game has resolutely stuck to what would be described in football as a 1-4-2-3-2-1 formation.
In some ways, the numbering system and roles associated with those numbers could be stifling to innovation, but we've had squad numbers for some time and little has changed. Deviation from the norm only comes with playing an extra front-rower or half-back at loose forward to either add size or creativity or swapping centres and second-rows around with the only difference being where they stand in the defensive line.
More recently some coaches are trying new things. Last night, the Catalan Dragons went to St Helens and won in dramatic circumstances. With new signing Leon Pryce on board in the halves, Trent Robinson has named Thomas Bosc at full-back with regular full-back Clint Greenshields pushed out to the wing. They don't play like that though. Effectively, the Dragons play with two full-backs, one defending either side of the field, a tactic developed perhaps in response to the excellent 40/20 rule. Huddersfield have moved Scott Grix into the half-back role, but in truth he was playing there last season anyway. Nathan Brown is also on a one-man mission to change the roles of all his forwards into mobile, running players, presumably with the aim of running bigger sides off their feet. It's early days yet, but it might just be crazy enough to work.
This is to be encouraged. Innovation drives the game forward and when the rules are tinkered with, it allows for clever coaches to exploit that or force them to defend against it. So bring on the false 7, the extra 13 and the double full-back. Bring on the pub bores (like the author of this piece) harping on about it endlessly and why coach x is a dinosaur for not adapting and coach y is a visionary for doing something outlandish and daring. I want to see the rugby league equivalents of Marcelo Bielsa, Arrigo Sacchi, Rinus Michels and Jurgen Klopp emerge. Versatility of players has been a key issue for some time already. Now let's have versatility of thought. For whoever comes up with that innovation nobody else sees, there's is the world and everything that's in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)