If you have anything to add on any subject, mail us at email@example.com
VAR: Not going well
How mean was that Video Assistant Referee for chalking off Chile’s first-half ‘goal’? I mean, that guy was marginally offside and in the NFL, they give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player. This (VAR) one won’t end well…
…It’s not that I don’t appreciate that the correct decision is eventually/always reached, it’s that it takes 30 energy sapping seconds to do so. F*** off FIFA, leave our football alone.
Cortez (and wtf is up with this one commentator thing?) MUFC, Botswana
…Are FIFA deliberately arseing around with VAR in order to put fans off?
Why the lack of transparency in communications? What could they possibly be hiding? Thoughts on a postcard to…..
But the decisions were right…
I don’t know if many people seen the RTE coverage of Confederations Cup but today’s games took the biscuit. At half time in Chile vs Cameroon game audiences were subjected to a rant by Damien Duff, Didi Hamann and Brian Kerr of how the VAR had gotten offside wrong. Any rational person could see these three nitwits had no clue of basic offside rules or depth and perception on cameras. At the end of the game they went back to talk about the two VAR decisions in the game.
Brian Kerr broached the point that unless they had some technology that could pick a person’s exact place on field the VAR was useless (how stupid do you need to be to not know that time software is readily available?) followed by Hamann saying they needed to get a camera to permanently follow the last defender otherwise they would eventually get a decision wrong. Maybe my tolerance for stupidity is diminishing but come on how can you open your mouth and talk about things, and get paid for it, when having no clue of the basics of it. Not once did the panel say they got the decision wrong just kept harping back to “how did VAR get it right” . Both decisions took less than a minute. Both were right. Please stop employing brain dead ex-footballers as analysts.
Shane O’Brien, Mayo (will eventually win All Ireland)
Let’s embrace it
I’m not sure the mailbox is watching the Confederations Cup but during the Portugal v Mexico match, they used technology to call out an offside goal. So now we have goal line technology and offside technology.
I’m sure the old heads will not like this a bit, but for me, this is one of the best decisions the governing body has done in years. The EPL led the way in advancing goal line tech, they should lead the way with this as well. The game should be able to get rid of controversy in the most important aspects of it, goal scoring.
The next chapter of this should be adding reviews like they have in tennis. Each team gets one review call, where they ask a fourth official to review a call and if wrong, you loose your review. This is important, because as has been shown for years the refs get a lot of calls wrong, and this would be a helping hand. This can be used for red card situations or fouls leading to a goal. It will also help in situations where a ref favours one team, unthinkable they say, but I feel like it happens.
All this will of course lead to reduced goals in the game, so I suggest FIFA should add rules that open up the game a little bit more. The mailbox has pretty of good ideas on this topic, so I’ll leave it at that.
Dave (Technology is not the enemy, let’s embrace it), Somewhere
Two 35-minute (plus ten) halves?
I’ve written on this subject before, but the letter wasn’t published. However, with the recent proposal to trial 2 x 30 minute halves i thought i’d try and share my suggestion again.
Firstly, the problem i have with 30 minute halves is that we might end up with no more actual football being played. With in-play time-wasting we might even end up with less ‘football action’ than we have now too.
Anyway, my proposal would be to have two 35-minute halves with the final ten minutes of each half having the clock stopped. Time-wasting is my biggest bugbear with football. Referees never seem to add on enough or even abide by their supposed guidelines of adding 30 seconds on for goals or substitutions .The most tense part of the game is ruined with goalkeepers taking a minute to take a goal kick or players taking up to a minute to walk off the pitch when substituted. And that’s just two examples – there are many more.
The first 35 minutes in each half will continue as they always have – but we then provide the real value-for-money for fans at the end. It would also stop a whole match being a ‘stop-start’ frustration for those watching.
Surely, at the end of the day we want to see more football, not less. At the moment, too many teams are rewarded for anti-football or actually not even playing football in favour of milking the clock. I can see what someone might be looking to achieve with the 2 x 30 minute suggestion, but it doesn’t go far enough to improve the spectacle in my opinion.
I’d even be open to only introducing my theory for the second half of matches – so that games don’t overrun so much and by the fact that teams have, in the main, never really tried to kill the game and waste time in the first half of matches.
I’m sure this suggestion will be hammered by those football purists – who can’t the see the value of the VAR system or goal-line technology.
Simon Tostevin, Guernsey
Let’s have some underrated great goals
So, the summer is here, and Confederations Cup aside, there is not much to talk about in the way of actual football. Before I move on, they are making an absolute Town Halls of the Video Assisted Ref at that tournament.
Now, onto the subject of this mail. We all love a good thread. I was thinking about great goals of years gone by at the weekend and thinking about goals that, in my opinion, should be talked about more when discussing great goals. Underrated Great Goals, if you will.
Now, the place is the Niedersachenstadion in Hanover, Germany. The date 15/06/1988.
Ireland are playing the Soviet Union in their second group game of the tournament. You don’t need me to remind you how the first one went.
Towards the end of the first half, big Mick McCarthy launches a huge throw-in to the edge of the 18 yard box, and Ronnie Whelan swung his left leg at it and sent the ball flying past Rinat Dasaev.
Now, some say he shinned it, but I’m not having that.
Apparantly Oleg Protasov equalised but I don’t remember this as well!
I think this goal deserves way more recognition than it gets.
So, mailboxers, what gets your vote as the most Underrated Great Goal (title still needs work)
Ronaldo: So worth it
After reading that United could be after Ronaldo and Morata for 183m plus De Gea (who was just auto-corrected as Dr Tea) I can’t help but think they’d be fools not to.
As a Swans fan I don’t particularly care but when I look at United last year I can’t help but think things were a bit weird. They had a solid defence and created tons of chances – they just couldn’t put them away.
Who doesn’t think that Ronaldo and Morata would fix that? Ronaldo may be 32 but he’s a machine, Morata may not be Real’s first choice but his record speaks for itself.
As far as the money goes, well, I think we’re all liable to forget how little money means to the club’s at the top, especially corporate sponsorship machine like Manchester United. It’s a literal drop in the ocean.
Losing Dr Tea would be an issue, sure. But Romero’s proven a decent understudy and he’s first choice with his country. Not just any country, Argentina; it’s hardly like they’d be lumbered with Wayne Hennessey (I say lovingly as a Welshman).
If I were them though, I’d go all out for Donarumma. Imagine the pitch. *In Italian* Alright fella, I know we’ve not done so well recently but we’re in the Champions League, you’ll be protected by one of the best defences in the league – which we’ve already strengthened, we’ve got Pogba already and we’re bringing in Morata and Cristiano-mothereffing-Ronaldo to bang em in for us. Oh. And, I’m not sure if this matters but we’ve got one of the best managers in football history and we can afford to pay you a metric ton of money. Nope, don’t know how much it is, we just hand it out on pallets these days. Cheers Gianluigi, see you for pre-season.
P.S. Guys, Llorente and Siggy ain’t that good, please write your clubs and convince them not to bother. Thanks.
Ronaldo to Man City? Not a chance
Thought I chip in bit late with the potential (not going to happen though) transfer of Christiano Ronaldo. Ted, Manchester, suggested Ronaldo might be tempted to work for Guardiola. Well, I will give my left testicle if that transfer ever happens. I think Ronaldo would be even further down the list of players Pep would like to work with than even Zlatan. Pep is a manager that demands total obedience in tactical sense from all of his players. Aguero, great poacher, is his latest example. Even when scoring a lot, he was dropped because he didn’t work tactically as Pep wanted. You really think Cristiano would listen to Pep and track back putting team before his own targets? Never ever going to happen Sir.
Matti Katara, Helsinki
Would Man City fans go back?
Just a meandering pointless thought as I make excuses not to go out into the bloody sun. If Man City could go back to the good ol’ days of first division play-off drama and Niall Quinn saving penalties, would they? There’s no doubt that Sheikh Mansour’s project has brought a great amount of joy and excitement to the blue half of Manchester (f*ck you, Aguerooooooo), but would their fans relish a hypothetical opportunity to relinquish the pressure, coverage and general tomfoolery that billions in the bank entails, and go to a game on a Saturday for the sake of loyalty and habit to support your team as they win or struggle,as you win or struggle alongside them, without the “Get well Ilkay” t-shirts or whatever commercial nonsense is being churned out? Although getting to see David Silva in action on a weekly basis is a mighty fine perk.
(I get the feeling I already know what Chelsea fans would choose if asked the same question)
Damo, Laois, MUFC
Man United miss a Van Nistelrooy
I’ve been going through all those tabs that have stayed open on Firefox for the last few days – articles and links from F365, most of them. Doing so, I finally came to the tribute to Ruud van Nistelrooy. Great article, that, on Planet Football, and watching the Goal Machine video made me a tad nostalgic of those early 2000s, when I first got into watching football (yes, a late starter, I was), and was drawn in by the fast-paced Manchester United of the time.
Reading this article, and watching our current situation, along with the transfer market shenanigans, got me to the realisation that since the few years of van Nistelrooy, we haven’t really had a prolific striker except the two seasons of Van Persie.
The goals-per-appearance stats for all United forwards to have played more than 100 games for the club post 2000 read:
68% Ruud van Nistelrooy
55% Robin van Persie
45% Wayne Rooney
38% Dimitar Berbatov
37% Javier Hernandez
34% Louis Saha
20% Danny Welbeck
A few thoughts emerge from this (and the rest of the list, going back a century) –
* Ruud van Nistelrooy was bloody good at scoring goals. The highest goals to apps ratio in the history of the club.
* Wayne Rooney has done pretty well at 45%, considering he spent a lot of time playing midfield, and just generally defending even when he played an out-and-out striker. Still wish he leaves soon, but, credit where credit is due.
* The strikers of the 90s were all mostly between 35%-45% in their goals:apps ratios, obviously because there were so many of them playing at the same time they ended up sharing the spoils.
* Denis Law and David Herd, around the same time as each other, had distinctively high strike rates, of 59% and 55% respectively. However, they’re both leagues apart in their legacy (or maybe that’s just my ignorance – today was the first time I heard about David Herd.)
* The case for Alvaro Morata is solid – given our poor goal scoring record in recent seasons, critical we land him, or someone like him, who can make things happen in the box.
This has gone longer than I intended it to be. On to better emails now, then?
Fatmanwalking, Sydney, MUFC
When it’s okay to objectify women…
1 – F365 rightly stands against click-baiting. So please stop indulging in this yourselves with headlines like ‘Morata rules out joining one potential club’, when you could just put ‘AC Milan’ in the title purely because you know that means you won’t get the clicks. You’re better than that
2 – So, I get where Mediawatch is coming from with ‘objectifying women’ objections. When it applies to something like the deplorable reaction to Teresa May meeting Nicola Sturgeon to discuss Brexit, for example, I’m all with you. But is there not a point where, say, said woman is a glamour model; who therefore makes a living specifically from encouraging objectification; whose career is unarguably helped by ’20 photo gallery’ articles; and who’s career is at least arguably helped by an association with a famous footballer; when this objection is null and void? I just about understand the “you need to defeat the system” argument but that: (a) seems a bit unrealistic/ a denial of human nature; (b) is wildly unrealistic to expect the tabloid press to take that kind of principled stand.
(Prefer anonymity on this one, as I’m still not sure whether I have a point or not), Chelsea fan
BRING IT ON
Woodward has four fantasy signings and I’ve got my four threesome fantasies. IT’S…GONNA…BE…A…GOOD…SUMMER.