Now, if you're reading this I'm going to guess that you like your sports. But we've all got certain things that niggle and annoy us about our favourite games - I do anyway. So I thought I'd make a list of some of them.
I. Soft Fouls on Goalkeepers (Football)
This collision was given as a foul against Gonzalo Higuain during the World Cup Final 2014. Credit: Reuters
Now, this one is at the top of my list for a reason, and thank you to my long-suffering girlfriend for listening to me shout at the telly every time it happens. Nothing angers me more in football than the number of soft fouls given in the goalkeeper's favour. Now, I do realise they are perhaps the mot vulnerable players on the pitch given their tendency to dive at players' feet and thus risk injury. But the allowances that Premier League referees give keepers is absurd, and the example I want to use is an altercation between Alexandre Lacazette and Emi Martinez.
Lacazette and Martinez tussle off the ball during a Premier League match: Aston Villa 1-0 Arsenal, 6 February 2021. Source: BT Sport.
Whilst the ball is in the box by this image still, this was also how the corner started; with Martinez tussling with Lacazette, who was simply trying to stand his ground in front of the keeper. Thus, a legal move. Yet, even though the ball is some way off the pair at this point, Martinez elects to initiate contact with the striker in a bid to gain an advantageous position. In the rulings of the game, if a goalkeeper wants to try and claim the ball, the attacking player has no responsibility to get out of their way. Instead, any contact in this way should be given as a penalty to the attacking team. So let's see what happens on this particular play.
Now, the fact this decision was given against the striker and in the goalkeeper's favour is outrageous. Not only did Lacazette not initiate the contact with Martinez, but the keeper intentionally manhandles the striker and effectively removes him from this passage of play. The ball actually ends up falling into the position that Lacazette had previously occupied. What is even worse is that Martin Keown states that this decision was 'well spotted by the referee', suggesting that this precedent is well established in the league. Soft fouls against goalkeepers have become widely accepted and common place, so much so that even VAR does not want to get involved. And it always wants to get involved.
If referees were to become more hesitant with their whistle when it comes to soft fouls on goalkeepers, it would force shotstoppers across the leagues to calculate their positioning instead of relying on a call bailing them out. Give the league's strikers a chance of standing their ground from corners, instead of taking the easy way out. No wonder only 3% of corners are converted.
II. Weather Delays (Cricket)
Rain Stops play at Lords in 2018. Source: @HomeofCricket
Cricket and rain. Name two worse partners in crime. Now, clearly I am not suggesting that someone puts a stop to rain when there's a cricket match due to be played. But thinking about it, if someone could have a word with Zeus then that would be great.
No, I am talking about the lack of haste and flexibility shown by those in cricket when a black cloud appears overhead. I understand the potential dangers of lobbing a leather cricket ball about when there's rain in the air: poor visibility, slippery surfaces and damaged wickets. And that's all fair enough. But it seems that whenever there is a rain delay, it takes half hour for a pitch inspection, and then a further 30 minutes before another ball is bowled. By which time, another fateful cloud could drift overhead and we've already lost an hour of possible play due to a lack of urgency from the umpires.
Umpires aren't particularly known for their haste. Source: ecb.co.uk
This issue came to the fore in the Englnd vs Pakistan series in the summer, where only 86 overs were delivered in a two-day span that should have seen close to 200. In an era when Test Cricket seems to be clinging to dear life amidst the upsurge of franchise T20 competitions, weather delays provide no solace for broadcasters that have paid enormous amounts of money to televise a couple of sessions here and there. No wonder it's all going to pot.
Instead, would it not make more sense for the umpires to inspect the pitch as soon as rain is out of the air and clouds seem paler to get back out there immediately. Cricket, perhaps fast bowling aside, is not a sport that requires too much warming up of the body, so players could definitely adjust to a new quickness surrounding rain delays. If we could just get the games going half an hour faster, that could be the difference between a washout draw and a result.
The umpires faff around with the light metre, England vs Pakistan 2020. Credit: Adrian Dennis/NMC Pool.
Another easy fix could be to play around the rain schedule. Let's say rain is scheduled between 12 and 3; would it not make sense to start play around 9am instead of the usual 11am, to ensure as much cricket can be played as possible? England captain Joe Root suggested as much in the summer. Another comment he made was around the issue of bad light - something that "needs to be addressed" by those "higher up the chain". This is another annoyance for fans, who could wait all day to see some cricket played after multiple rain delays just to see the sides taken off the pitch for bad light.
In a modern day game that has access to impressive floodlights, this seems crazy to me. Of course, we want no one hurt during a match out of desparation, but surely there has to be an in-between. Whilst pundits Michael Vaughan and Shane Warne can be amongst the more outspoken at times, their suggestion that the pink ball could be used to ensure games could be played with floodlights is certainly one that needs some consideration.
In an era when Test Cricket is begging for a younger generation of fans, it seems ridiculous to me that there is not a greater effort to improve on the handling of weather delays. It is yet another example of how T20 cricket has adapted to modern times, in a way that reduces Test matches to the Dark Ages.
III. NBA Veteran Arrogance (Basketball)
I'm afraid hate is still hate, big man. Source: Bleacher Report.
As the NBA has emerges as a league that focuses more on shooting, flexibility and quick scoring, it has little use for the conventional big men and defensive-mindedness of a bygone era.
Whilst this may be more interesting for the viewer, it seems this isn't the case with the league's veterans. Certain ex-players seem to thrive on bad-mouthing the modern NBA and its stars in a desparate attempt to cement their own legacy and stay in the limelight. Lets take Shaquille O'Neal. I think his recent interview with Utah Jazz star Donovan Mitchell is perhaps the most awkward and needless encounter you'll see for a while:
As well as this, Shaq's gripes have often been with big men, having been a Centre himself. Amonsgt other instances, O'Neal told Dwight Howard to "sit your a** down" in asserting his superiority as 'Superman', JaVale McGee to "be happy I made you famous you thin-skinned millenial", and suggested he would have had 45 points and 16 rebounds in three quarters if he played against Gobert. As none of these players come close to Shaq in terms of talent, O'Neal seems to lead with an unnecessarily nasty tone in putting the current players of the league down, perhaps to elevate his own era of basketball. His comments downplaying Gobert's well-earnt contract, "...this should be an inspiration to all the little kids out there. You average 11 points in the NBA, you can get $200million", is enough evidence of this.
Shaq's attitude toward modern players is well known around the league.
Shaq suggests that his demeanour with current players should be used as fuel for improving their games. Just a reminder, he's an analyst, not a coach or captain. After receiving criticism for his Donovan Mitchell comments, Shaq suggested "I know what I'm doing when i'm trying to get my guys to play a certain way. The way they're playing right now - you're welcome, 'cause they wanna shut me up. Please shut me up."
Of course, everyone has a right to criticise, but O'Neal's way of going about it seems like downright, disprepectful hate. Despite the obvious gulf in skill with these stars, Shaq still feels the need to cement his position as a former great, suggesting "aint nobody playing done what I've done besides Lebron and Steph Curry." To keep himself relevant, he even takes credit for a player's upsurge in form - in my view this is humiliating and ridiculously needless.
Now, lets compare this attitude with how some other veterans view the modern game. Reggie Miller, the second all-time leading three point shooter, is unconcerned of keeping this record as he speaks to Stephen Curry:
Elevating the modern stars of the game is the key to allowing it to progress and evolve, as all sports need to. Kevin Garnett also goes the Reggie Miller-way about it, suggesting players in his era would not have the skill to play within the rules of the modern game: "can you imagine not hand-checking Michael Jordan? Naw...but if you have any creativity and ambition, you can be a great offensive player in this league" (NY Times). Let's uplift the NBA's young stars, not put them down.
IV. Bringing Everyone Back for Corners (Football)
Southampton defending a corner with everyone in the box in a 2018 fixture vs Leicester City. Featured in an article by Mohamed via moesquare.medium.com.
Corner kicks can be a very useful tool for teams looking to gain an advantage over their opponents, especially when there is no way through via open play. But this advantage is not large enough to warrant the current popular tactic of bringing every defensive player into the box. This strategy breeds negativity, and is far more likely to result in more pressure defensively.
Yes, 11 men guarding the box is clearly a strategy that is more likely to prevent a goal in the short term, of which only 3% of corners result in anyway. But on the remaining 97% of instances, the defensive team is put on the back foot again. With no strikers or players available to gather the ball when it is cleared, the attacking side is likely to recycle possession and pump the ball back into the box with little trouble. The graphic below clearly shows this:
The lack of pressure on the halfway line does not allow for a team to 'get out' once they have cleared the corner. Therefore, the defensive team is unable to progress. Alternatively, if the defending side were to leave even one attacker up, this would actually aid both sides of this play: defending the corner as well as progressing up the field. Just one attacker, that would probably be switched off defending anyway, would need to be marshalled by two defenders, and therefore leaving fewer attacking presences in the box. The graphic below shows the possible positioning if two strikers are left up:
The defending side would still keep the numerical advantage in their own box, whilst also now possessing possible outlet passes if the ball were to be won. This would clearly aid progression, and allow the backline to get up the pitch in turning defense into attack. I have no idea why Premier League sides who had previously played with this more positive strategy now employ such a backward tactic. I would understand if this was League Two football, but it does not sit right with me that even champions Liverpool keep everyone back. We're not all playing Big Sam football, please.
Comments