And so it's been announced - the England squad for Euro 2012.
No Rio Ferdinand (good), still a place for John Terry (bad), and wasting a place to allow the thug Rooney to play once his suspension has been lifted (bad).
Inclusion of Andy Carroll is a surprise but he has hit form recently.
A shame not more youngsters in my opinion.
Goalkeepers
Joe Hart, Robert Green, John Ruddy
Defenders
Leighton Baines, Gary Cahill, Ashley Cole, Glen Johnson, Phil Jones, Joleon Lescott, John Terry
Midfielders
Gareth Barry, Stewart Downing, Steven Gerrard, Frank Lampard, James Milner, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Scott Parker, Theo Walcott, Ashley Young
Strikers
Andy Carroll, Jermain Defoe, Wayne Rooney, Danny Welbeck
Standby
Jack Butland, Phil Jagielka, Jordan Henderson, Adam Johnson, Daniel Sturridge.
Showing posts with label John terry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John terry. Show all posts
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Saturday, 12 May 2012
Roy's dilemma: Ferdinand or Terry
According pundits on Radio 5 this is Roy Hogdson's big dilemma this week. Should he pick John Terry or Rio Feedinand for the forthcoming Euros?
What an awful choice.
Should the new England manager pick a proven drug cheat who has been patchy with his form this season and, as he's getting on a bit, is likely to be tiring after a long season, or should he choose a hot-headed thug, with a poor disciplinary record this season, who hasa pending court case for racist abuse and who has also been off form lately?
Drug cheat or racist thug? Tough choice.
I hope Hodgson surprises everyone. Nobody is expecting much from the team at the Euros this year. Why not pass over all the tired has beens, skip a generation and pick a youthful squad who will be the core of his selections as England, hopefully, head towards the next World Cup in Brazil in 2014.
Sadly, I fear he'll give the old guard a final hurrah - and, consequently, England won't get beyond the group stage.
What an awful choice.
Should the new England manager pick a proven drug cheat who has been patchy with his form this season and, as he's getting on a bit, is likely to be tiring after a long season, or should he choose a hot-headed thug, with a poor disciplinary record this season, who hasa pending court case for racist abuse and who has also been off form lately?
Drug cheat or racist thug? Tough choice.
I hope Hodgson surprises everyone. Nobody is expecting much from the team at the Euros this year. Why not pass over all the tired has beens, skip a generation and pick a youthful squad who will be the core of his selections as England, hopefully, head towards the next World Cup in Brazil in 2014.
Sadly, I fear he'll give the old guard a final hurrah - and, consequently, England won't get beyond the group stage.
Labels:
100 days to go,
Drug cheat,
England,
Euro 2012,
euros,
hodgson,
John terry,
rio Ferdinand. Racism,
Roy Hodgson,
selection,
squad
Sunday, 15 April 2012
COMMENT: Video technology - why not?
Why on earth FIFA, or UEFA, or even just the FA, hasn't introduced video technology is beyond me. This evening the FA Cup Semi-Final became a nonsense after Chelsea were awarded a goal that despite the fact that the ball hadn't crossed the line.
It's been a bad weekend for British sport, what with the bloodbath that was the Grand National and now goals being awarded that clearly weren't goals, and in both instances it's the authorities who are to blame.
Ok, so the ref was unsighted - it happens - and apparently neither if his assistants could see either - I guess that can happen - but despite not seeing the ball cross the line the ref still awarded the goal. Why? What made him decide that the Chelsea celebrations were more genuine than the Spurs players' protests? Surely, if he didn't see it he shouldn't award it?
And what of the Chelsea players who did see that the goal hadn't crossed the line, but still celebrated as if a goal had been scored? I do hope that the FA take action against these cheats. John Terry, in particular, should never be chosen as England captain again and, I'd go as far as to say, he shouldn't be selected for the national team ever again. Today he blatantly cheated to ruin an important match. If there was any justice he should be banned for life from all football - his cheating was as bad as Ben Johnson or Dwayne Chambers drug offences. He is morally corrupt and his prescience on any football field again is unwelcome.
So what should happen?
The FA should order an immediate re-match. The ref should be struck off - you can it award something you didn't see. And the Chelsea cheats should be banned for life.
I know it won't happen. The football authorities don't act in the interest of fair play. After all, they upheld Shaun Derry's red card for QPR against Manchester United last week, when everyone who saw the replay clearly saw that Ashley Young cheated by taking a dive. This weekend the same cheat took a dive in the match against Aston Villa, again resulting on a penalty for Man U - he shouldn't even have been on the pitch.
Football must weed out the cheats. They subvert the sport, they ruin the game, they make a mockery of the rules of the game. Ashley Young, along with John Terry, should be banned for life.
And then video technology has to be introduced. It happens on cricket and rugby, why not football? The delay, at crucial moments, is a matter of seconds, but it ensures fairness, justice and the correct result.
If Chelsea win the FA Cup, Manchester United win the league, and John Terry represents the national team they may as well insist that, in future, all players wear a red nose and have a squirty flower.
It's been a bad weekend for British sport, what with the bloodbath that was the Grand National and now goals being awarded that clearly weren't goals, and in both instances it's the authorities who are to blame.
Ok, so the ref was unsighted - it happens - and apparently neither if his assistants could see either - I guess that can happen - but despite not seeing the ball cross the line the ref still awarded the goal. Why? What made him decide that the Chelsea celebrations were more genuine than the Spurs players' protests? Surely, if he didn't see it he shouldn't award it?
And what of the Chelsea players who did see that the goal hadn't crossed the line, but still celebrated as if a goal had been scored? I do hope that the FA take action against these cheats. John Terry, in particular, should never be chosen as England captain again and, I'd go as far as to say, he shouldn't be selected for the national team ever again. Today he blatantly cheated to ruin an important match. If there was any justice he should be banned for life from all football - his cheating was as bad as Ben Johnson or Dwayne Chambers drug offences. He is morally corrupt and his prescience on any football field again is unwelcome.
So what should happen?
The FA should order an immediate re-match. The ref should be struck off - you can it award something you didn't see. And the Chelsea cheats should be banned for life.
I know it won't happen. The football authorities don't act in the interest of fair play. After all, they upheld Shaun Derry's red card for QPR against Manchester United last week, when everyone who saw the replay clearly saw that Ashley Young cheated by taking a dive. This weekend the same cheat took a dive in the match against Aston Villa, again resulting on a penalty for Man U - he shouldn't even have been on the pitch.
Football must weed out the cheats. They subvert the sport, they ruin the game, they make a mockery of the rules of the game. Ashley Young, along with John Terry, should be banned for life.
And then video technology has to be introduced. It happens on cricket and rugby, why not football? The delay, at crucial moments, is a matter of seconds, but it ensures fairness, justice and the correct result.
If Chelsea win the FA Cup, Manchester United win the league, and John Terry represents the national team they may as well insist that, in future, all players wear a red nose and have a squirty flower.
Labels:
Ashley young,
cheats,
Chelsea,
FA,
fa cup,
football,
football association,
John terry,
Manchester united,
semi final,
spurs,
video technology
Monday, 6 February 2012
COMMENT: It's time to rid ourselves of Fabio Capello
Fabio Capello hasn't been the most popular of England football managers, and far from the best, but, with his comments about John Terry and the captaincy he has, it seems, broken his contract with the F.A. and should be sacked immediately.
Fabio Capello has been England manager for 4 years now. He followed in the wake of the lamentable Steve McClaren and so, in comparison, a rotting pig's head would have been able to do a better job.
In his time as manager, which, let's be honest, is really a very part-time job, he's been pocketing a whacking £6 million pounds per year (yes, £6 million part-time, not pro rata) but hasn't found the time to learn English in order to be able to talk to the press or instruct the team without reliance on a translator.
Also in his time, England have qualified for two major tournaments. For a strong footballing nation, qualification should be the default. The team have given many poor performances, struggled to beat mediocre and poor teams and were a disgrace in the 2010 World Cup.
Yesterday, he was interviewed by Italian TV and said he was unhappy that the FA had removed the captaincy from John Terry, who has been charged with racially abusing a fellow player last October.
Hang on a minute, Mr. Capello, in any other workplace if a worker was accused of racially abusing a co-worker he'd be suspended until the matter was resolved. It is an outrage that Terry, a disposable character, has been allowed to hang on to the captaincy so long, and it is,similarly, monstrous that he is still being selected by Chelsea, the tea news playing for when the alleged offence took place.
many will argue that the British legal system means that John Terry is innocent until proven guilty. That is true. Until the case is heard in court we have to assume Terry's innocence and it is the role of the prosecution to prove his guilt in the matter, but in employment law when a serious allegation like this is made a suspension comes into operation.
Capello's support for Terry is bizarre. he selected him as his full-time skipper but had to take away the captain's armband when Terry had, shall we say, issues in his private life that unsettled the England changing room. In his place, Capello appointed known drug cheat Rio Ferdinand, but, as soon as he could here-appointed Terry. Why on earth would you do that? According to reports Terry is as unpopular on terraces as he is with the team.
Capello's contract ends this summer and he's already said he's off after the Euro 2012 championships. It's very likely that he's broken the terms of his contract with a very public criticism of his employers but, even if he hasn't, I think it's time to replace him with a new manager.
Who will the new manager be? Well, the tabloid's favourite, Harry Redk app, would seem as much of a liability as Terry Venables was. He may not be everyone's first choice, but I'd choose Ray Wilkins - calm, experienced and a master tactician.
As for Capello, who cares. he's been very poor. Even if he hasn't breached his contract (I smaintain there's a very good chance he has) the pay off now would be very small. It's time to look to the future.
Ciao bella, Fabio!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
John Terry's punishment:
http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2012/02/opinion-john-terrys-punishment.html
John Terry's racism charge:
http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2012/02/comment-john-terrys-racism-charge.html
Racism in the UK:
http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2011/12/opnion-racism-in-uk.html
Fabio Capello has been England manager for 4 years now. He followed in the wake of the lamentable Steve McClaren and so, in comparison, a rotting pig's head would have been able to do a better job.
In his time as manager, which, let's be honest, is really a very part-time job, he's been pocketing a whacking £6 million pounds per year (yes, £6 million part-time, not pro rata) but hasn't found the time to learn English in order to be able to talk to the press or instruct the team without reliance on a translator.
Also in his time, England have qualified for two major tournaments. For a strong footballing nation, qualification should be the default. The team have given many poor performances, struggled to beat mediocre and poor teams and were a disgrace in the 2010 World Cup.
Yesterday, he was interviewed by Italian TV and said he was unhappy that the FA had removed the captaincy from John Terry, who has been charged with racially abusing a fellow player last October.
Hang on a minute, Mr. Capello, in any other workplace if a worker was accused of racially abusing a co-worker he'd be suspended until the matter was resolved. It is an outrage that Terry, a disposable character, has been allowed to hang on to the captaincy so long, and it is,similarly, monstrous that he is still being selected by Chelsea, the tea news playing for when the alleged offence took place.
many will argue that the British legal system means that John Terry is innocent until proven guilty. That is true. Until the case is heard in court we have to assume Terry's innocence and it is the role of the prosecution to prove his guilt in the matter, but in employment law when a serious allegation like this is made a suspension comes into operation.
Capello's support for Terry is bizarre. he selected him as his full-time skipper but had to take away the captain's armband when Terry had, shall we say, issues in his private life that unsettled the England changing room. In his place, Capello appointed known drug cheat Rio Ferdinand, but, as soon as he could here-appointed Terry. Why on earth would you do that? According to reports Terry is as unpopular on terraces as he is with the team.
Capello's contract ends this summer and he's already said he's off after the Euro 2012 championships. It's very likely that he's broken the terms of his contract with a very public criticism of his employers but, even if he hasn't, I think it's time to replace him with a new manager.
Who will the new manager be? Well, the tabloid's favourite, Harry Redk app, would seem as much of a liability as Terry Venables was. He may not be everyone's first choice, but I'd choose Ray Wilkins - calm, experienced and a master tactician.
As for Capello, who cares. he's been very poor. Even if he hasn't breached his contract (I smaintain there's a very good chance he has) the pay off now would be very small. It's time to look to the future.
Ciao bella, Fabio!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
John Terry's punishment:
http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2012/02/opinion-john-terrys-punishment.html
John Terry's racism charge:
http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2012/02/comment-john-terrys-racism-charge.html
Racism in the UK:
http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2011/12/opnion-racism-in-uk.html
Sunday, 5 February 2012
OPINION: John Terry's punishment
The fact the maximum penalty John Terry can receive for his race hate is a fine of £2,500 highlights a couple of issues which parliament need to address.
1) Race hate crimes need to have more serious punishments. A fine of £2,500 is simply not sufficient.
2) Fines need to be as a percentage of income/worth NOT a flat tariff for everyone. £2,500 is a month's salary for many. For John Terry it is less than a morning's work. This is wrong.
3) Court cases cost a lot and, currently, this is paid by the tax payer. Court costs SHOULD be recouped from the guilty.
4) Any crime which has an anti-social element, as the race hate charges Terry has been accused of, must have a custodial sentence. Anti-social behaviour means you should give up your place in society for a fixes period of time.
5) This isn't Terry's first scrape with the legal system. Clearly his previous punishments were insufficient. Two strikes and you're out, now matter what the crime is.
1) Race hate crimes need to have more serious punishments. A fine of £2,500 is simply not sufficient.
2) Fines need to be as a percentage of income/worth NOT a flat tariff for everyone. £2,500 is a month's salary for many. For John Terry it is less than a morning's work. This is wrong.
3) Court cases cost a lot and, currently, this is paid by the tax payer. Court costs SHOULD be recouped from the guilty.
4) Any crime which has an anti-social element, as the race hate charges Terry has been accused of, must have a custodial sentence. Anti-social behaviour means you should give up your place in society for a fixes period of time.
5) This isn't Terry's first scrape with the legal system. Clearly his previous punishments were insufficient. Two strikes and you're out, now matter what the crime is.
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
COMMENT: John Terry's racism charge
Today John Terry found that the trial for his alleged use of racist insults against Antonio Ferdinand won't take place until 9th July - just over a week after the Euro 2012 Championships have finished.
Terry has pleaded not guilty to making racist comments in a match between Chelsea and QPR last October. Today, in the Magistrates' Court, he pleaded "not guilty".
Now I realise and accept that, as the law stands, John Terry is currently innocent until proved otherwise. Howev, the police have investigated the accusations and the Criwn Prosecution Service have decided, based on that investigatin, that Terry has a case to answer.
Yes, the fact he has a case to answer doesn't stop him being innocent.It just means he has a case to answer.
But, should Terry go to Poland/Ukraine in June to represent England in the Euro 2012 Championships and, if he does go, should he still captain the England team (a position he only regained in March 2011 having been stripped of it a year earlier due to "troubles" in his private life)?
Personally, I think there are many issues that are raised if Terry is selected and goes:
1. What about his relationship with Les Ferdinand (Antonio Ferdinand's brother) who is likely to be in the England squad?
2. What of the FA's "KICK RACISM INTO TOUCH" campaign?
3. Will Terry's mind be on football or his impending court case?
4. Will he have the support of other black players in the squad?
5. What effect will it have on the FA's credibility?
I'm undecided. I strongly support the notion of innocent until proven guilty but I do wonder whether Terry's inclusion in the squad, let alone being captain, raises too many questions. It's not as if he has an unblemished past - there are several incidents in his past that make him an unsuitable ambassador for the country on the international stage.
I suspect the FA will somehow manage to fudge the issue... and hope he picks up a metatarsal injury in April/May that will prevent him going!
Terry has pleaded not guilty to making racist comments in a match between Chelsea and QPR last October. Today, in the Magistrates' Court, he pleaded "not guilty".
Now I realise and accept that, as the law stands, John Terry is currently innocent until proved otherwise. Howev, the police have investigated the accusations and the Criwn Prosecution Service have decided, based on that investigatin, that Terry has a case to answer.
Yes, the fact he has a case to answer doesn't stop him being innocent.It just means he has a case to answer.
But, should Terry go to Poland/Ukraine in June to represent England in the Euro 2012 Championships and, if he does go, should he still captain the England team (a position he only regained in March 2011 having been stripped of it a year earlier due to "troubles" in his private life)?
Personally, I think there are many issues that are raised if Terry is selected and goes:
1. What about his relationship with Les Ferdinand (Antonio Ferdinand's brother) who is likely to be in the England squad?
2. What of the FA's "KICK RACISM INTO TOUCH" campaign?
3. Will Terry's mind be on football or his impending court case?
4. Will he have the support of other black players in the squad?
5. What effect will it have on the FA's credibility?
I'm undecided. I strongly support the notion of innocent until proven guilty but I do wonder whether Terry's inclusion in the squad, let alone being captain, raises too many questions. It's not as if he has an unblemished past - there are several incidents in his past that make him an unsuitable ambassador for the country on the international stage.
I suspect the FA will somehow manage to fudge the issue... and hope he picks up a metatarsal injury in April/May that will prevent him going!
Saturday, 24 December 2011
OPNION: Racism in the UK
Along with many of the population, I was glad to hear that Luis Suarez, the Liverpool footballer, was to be banned for 8 matches by the F.A. for racially abusing Patrice Evra. The F.A. has long campaigned to "Kick Racism Out If Football" and this sent a strong message to the remaining Neanderthals associated with football, as well as the wider society. It also thumbed its nose at Sepp Blatter, the head of FIFA, who, early this year, made the rash and, quite frankly, ridiculous claim that there is no racism in football. He said any "bad words" should be forgotten in a handshake.
Similarly, I was very glad to hear that John Terry, somehow still the England football captain, was to be charged with racially abusing Anton Ferdinand.
See that Mr. Blatter, racism is alive and well and not just on the terraces, on the pitch.
Now I realise that racism is the wrong term for bad-mouthing based on skin colour. We are all humans. We are all part of one race, the human race, but it has come to be used as the terminology for ethnic hate derision, so I'll use it too!
So where are we with racism in the second decade of the twenty-first century? Is it still a problem?
Well, along with various premiership footballers, and any number of offensive chants at football grounds up and down the country, I believe racism is, sadly, alive and well throughout huge swathes of society.
A couple of years back a couple of Tory MPs got into hot water for telling racist jokes at dinner parties. I know a number of people who felt that, because they were at private events, they should be allowed to say what they want. It was all very 1984 and "Big Brother" and the Political Correctness brigade "picking" on "ordinary people".
Yes, really, supposedly educated people, some who are teachers, who, basically, defended the right to be racist as long as it was done in public.
To me that's appalling, and I told them so.
But, I guess, the problem is that we live in a society where the blatant racism of the monarchy's husband is laughed off as "eccentricity" and he's lauded as a "British institution" and a "National Treasure". Well, he's an ill-informed, ignorant racist and he should be pitied and/or prosecuted for his disgraceful comments.
It's only 30 years ago that sitcoms like Mind Your Language were broadcast in prime time. A sitcom whose only "humour" was racial stereotypes. Today, I'd like to think, such a programme wouldn't be made, though racial stereotypes can still be found on British television.
The brilliant sitcom character Alf Garnett should have put an end to racism. He showed how idiotic his views were and how mid-placed his fears were but, sadly, the far right saw him as a hero and not simply a buffoon.
One thing, however, niggles in the back of my mind. As a kid, I was taught "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" - should it really be an offence to call someone a name? Any name?
Nobody would end up in court for calling someone "four eyes" or "porky", both physical attributes, but use a racial term and there's the full weight of the law to punish. Is this right? Does it make sense?
Surely, the use of such name calling shouldn't affect the person being called but merely demonstrate that the caller is a bit stupid?
Surely, showing everyone that you're a pathetic, ignorant idiot is sufficient? Should verbal racism really be punishable? It is, after all, just name-calling.
Perhaps people from ethnic minorities need to get a thicker skin? After all, many black people happily use the term "nigger" to describe themselves but feel pain if a white person uses it. That surely can't be right. Words are words and they should belong to everybody. Would it be right is homosexuals were the only people allowed to use the term "gay"? I think not.
I think it's right that racists aren't allowed to hold positions of power and responsibility because their use of racially divisive language might suggest they will show preference to certain racial groups, but, if it never goes beyond words, should the law really be bothered?
I certainly don't want my country, or any country, represented by someone who uses racist language and, as such, I hope that, if found guilty, John Terry should never be selected to play for the national team again but I don't see any reason why he should go to jail. We can all mock his stupidity, his ignorance, how pathetic he is and, as such, hope his employer will educate him to understand that his racism is unacceptable and that is, probably, as far as things should go.
Maybe, now that it's over 50 years since the mass immigrations of the 1950s from former empire countries, it's time that all ethnicities learnt to live with each other and, as long as it is just words, maybe they should be laughed off?
Is it time for ethnic minorities to man up? Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
I'm undecided.
Similarly, I was very glad to hear that John Terry, somehow still the England football captain, was to be charged with racially abusing Anton Ferdinand.
See that Mr. Blatter, racism is alive and well and not just on the terraces, on the pitch.
Now I realise that racism is the wrong term for bad-mouthing based on skin colour. We are all humans. We are all part of one race, the human race, but it has come to be used as the terminology for ethnic hate derision, so I'll use it too!
So where are we with racism in the second decade of the twenty-first century? Is it still a problem?
Well, along with various premiership footballers, and any number of offensive chants at football grounds up and down the country, I believe racism is, sadly, alive and well throughout huge swathes of society.
A couple of years back a couple of Tory MPs got into hot water for telling racist jokes at dinner parties. I know a number of people who felt that, because they were at private events, they should be allowed to say what they want. It was all very 1984 and "Big Brother" and the Political Correctness brigade "picking" on "ordinary people".
Yes, really, supposedly educated people, some who are teachers, who, basically, defended the right to be racist as long as it was done in public.
To me that's appalling, and I told them so.
But, I guess, the problem is that we live in a society where the blatant racism of the monarchy's husband is laughed off as "eccentricity" and he's lauded as a "British institution" and a "National Treasure". Well, he's an ill-informed, ignorant racist and he should be pitied and/or prosecuted for his disgraceful comments.
It's only 30 years ago that sitcoms like Mind Your Language were broadcast in prime time. A sitcom whose only "humour" was racial stereotypes. Today, I'd like to think, such a programme wouldn't be made, though racial stereotypes can still be found on British television.
The brilliant sitcom character Alf Garnett should have put an end to racism. He showed how idiotic his views were and how mid-placed his fears were but, sadly, the far right saw him as a hero and not simply a buffoon.
One thing, however, niggles in the back of my mind. As a kid, I was taught "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" - should it really be an offence to call someone a name? Any name?
Nobody would end up in court for calling someone "four eyes" or "porky", both physical attributes, but use a racial term and there's the full weight of the law to punish. Is this right? Does it make sense?
Surely, the use of such name calling shouldn't affect the person being called but merely demonstrate that the caller is a bit stupid?
Surely, showing everyone that you're a pathetic, ignorant idiot is sufficient? Should verbal racism really be punishable? It is, after all, just name-calling.
Perhaps people from ethnic minorities need to get a thicker skin? After all, many black people happily use the term "nigger" to describe themselves but feel pain if a white person uses it. That surely can't be right. Words are words and they should belong to everybody. Would it be right is homosexuals were the only people allowed to use the term "gay"? I think not.
I think it's right that racists aren't allowed to hold positions of power and responsibility because their use of racially divisive language might suggest they will show preference to certain racial groups, but, if it never goes beyond words, should the law really be bothered?
I certainly don't want my country, or any country, represented by someone who uses racist language and, as such, I hope that, if found guilty, John Terry should never be selected to play for the national team again but I don't see any reason why he should go to jail. We can all mock his stupidity, his ignorance, how pathetic he is and, as such, hope his employer will educate him to understand that his racism is unacceptable and that is, probably, as far as things should go.
Maybe, now that it's over 50 years since the mass immigrations of the 1950s from former empire countries, it's time that all ethnicities learnt to live with each other and, as long as it is just words, maybe they should be laughed off?
Is it time for ethnic minorities to man up? Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
I'm undecided.
Labels:
ethnic,
John terry,
Luis Suarez,
nigger,
prince Philip,
Racism,
racist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)