The Importance of Sport (NEW CONCEPTS)

[Wile E. Coyote]

Maybe but UEFA have introduced new rules. They are upping the level of losses to €60m over three years, and introducing a spending cap. It's called ‘squad cost ratio’ on wages, transfers etc, to 70 per cent of a club’s total revenue. It's supposed to be working by 2025-2026. Wiley reckons this is why Chelsea are spending like bonkers now, and are willing to face a Man City type financial penalty. Less wiggle room.

[Mick Harper]

Says It All

[Mick Harper]

Three academic experts, asked why football was the most popular sport on earth by far, trotted out three different reasons, all of which had one thing in common -- they had nothing specifically to do with football. It didn't occur to any of them to say, "I don't know." Nor even, "Nobody knows." They certainly didn't say, "Well, one theory might be..." They just launched three expositions of great certainty... and irrelevance.

You might think, upon hearing two fellow-experts disagreeing with them, they might pause for thought, even have a discussion, but not a bit of it. Each of them understood that somehow they were all correct, just giving voice to one aspect or other of the problem. None of them was in the least interested in pursuing the answer to this really quite interesting (even significant) question.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Grant]

It’s obvious why, and I’ve seen it mentioned several times so pretty orthodox really.

[Mick Harper]

I agree, best not mention it. Poor Wiley.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I have just trialed point 5 to see what actually happens.

[Mick Harper]

Actually I think the answer is 'nobody knows' but I will advance three notions off the top of my head

1. It requires the least equipment of any sport (apart from maybe running). As we know from our days of yore, any vaguely spherical object and you are in business. You don't even need jumpers for goalposts since shifting dustbins serves.
2. It requires the least skill. Kicking stones down the pavement is something you learn as soon as nurse lets you off the reins.
3. No limit on numbers. One on one up to... twenty vee twenty is playable.

[Grant]

Those three points are important, but doesn’t explain the success of the professional game. Surely it’s the fact that in no other sport are so few points made. An average of just three goals a game and just one goal for every ten shots means that the inferior team has a serious chance of winning.

In American gridiron football if a professional team plays an amateur one we know the pro team will win. Same in all other football games except soccer.

[Mick Harper]

To some extent the success of the amateur game would explain the success of the professional game, and as far as I can recall our games used to end up something like 23-21 -- and we only had a forty-five minute lunch hour.

Although I accept your point about the low scoring producing unpredictability, everyone thirsts for more goals so I don't think that can be a vital factor. MoTD always puts the nil-allers at the end and they know what's best for us. Field hockey is even lower-scoring, or was until they introduced the penalty corner. Now it's just who's got the best penalty-corner routine. Nobody outside the sub-continent would pay to watch that, would they?

But basketball and gridiron do have something in common with soccer at the pro level. All three are conducive to constant technical improvement. You only have to compare them with rugby -- union or league -- where the action merely gets faster, heavier, more brutish. All thoroughly worthwhile objectives but a bit samey.

Time of game might be a factor. There are few professional sports that are guaranteed to be over in ninety-or-so minutes but cf boxing guaranteed to last ninety minutes. I speak before VAR of course.

[Mick Harper]

Arsenal 1 Brentford 1

Either Mikel Arteta reads my posts on the AEL or he is another deep thinker about the game. The last brick in the edifice was achieved when they worked out on the training ground a drill for playing the ball out from the back when the opposition park a couple of forwards on the edge of the area. Albeit it took them a coupla years. So what's gone wrong now?

My strictures re strikingless strikers struck home. I suppose Jesus's absence couldn't be helped (if his presence would have, which is doubtful) but relying on Nketia and not buying a cheap'n'cheeful pro tem replacement in the window could have been. Trossard has turned out to be yet another tricky winger, of which Arsenal currently have a warehouse round the back of the Emirates full of.

Which brings us to Saka. He has not 'beaten his man' since about September. He has even given up trying. Now it is true that his general play otherwise is still excellent but if you're going to park a man out on the touchline and the defence know he can be left to his own devices (they used to have to double-team him) things at the highly organised Premiership are likely to go awry...

[Mick Harper]

[Mick Harper]

Boring, boring Arsenal. It's true. This all-a-go-go style of Arteta was exhilarating when it was producing something at the other end. But now that it isn't -- not one decent chance against Brentford or Everton and precious little before that -- it is just style for style's sake and grows wearisome.

It is also true that a decent striker would make a difference. When, after some quickfire Arsenal tip-tappery, someone dinks it up and the goalie gratefully cradles it in his arms, the crowd might groan at the dinkerer but they should be directing their ire towards the Arsenal hierarchy for not buying strikers with an instinct for being Johnny-on-the-spot just that smidgeon before the ball falls into the goalie's lap. Even if he doesn't quite get there, his looming presence might persuade the goalie to drop it, punch it or otherwise contribute to the goals-for column.

Neither Nketia or Jesus or anyone else on the Arsenal books is this kind of striker-with-a-nose (and a sly knee in the groin). In fact there is a case for an old fashioned target man (to be brought on late in the game à la Giroud) and launching some old fashioned crosses -- which thankfully Arteta has persuaded his lads not to do in the ordinary way of things.

But above all, Mikel, they're getting wise to your ways and double-teaming Odegaard out of the game or at least out of the top third of the pitch which means it's time for Plan Z. Don't take two years over it this time, we've only got till the midweek match with City. Thank God he reads my posts. But so does Guardiola...

[Mick Harper]

The two stars of the Premiership weekend? Willian and Dominic Solanke. What are we running here, a retirement home for broken down has-beens. I'll be getting the dubbin out myself if this carries on. No, dear, it goes on the boots not the hair.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I think the problem for Nathan Jones was that at Luton he was essentially a coach/manager, and by most accounts a very good coach. His skill set is passionate motivator coach. The problem is, at the start of the season most premiership teams are looking for something a bit more cerebral from their managers these days. I blame Wenger for this trend. You only really turn to the passionate motivator coach like a Dyche when you are bottom and desperate, sometime after Christmas.

The best person for Southampton is paradoxically now Nathan Jones. They should consider rehiring him. They will probably go for Lampard. The only Premiership manager to actually lose to Nathan.