Support Triffic On Facebook

Apr 302012
 

Harry Redknapp appears to have been overlooked as the FA have approached Roy Hodgson for the vacant England managers job.

Redknapp in my opinion only has himself to blame, he had the world at his feet and he let the hype get to him and his team as you can see Spurs clear dip in form since Harry got linked to the job, have the FA picked up on this as a reason to overlook Redknapp or is there another issue that may have meant that Harry Redknapp was never going to get offered the England job?

The FA picked a 4-man panel tasked with finding and appointing the new England manager, one of these men is Sir Trevor Brooking who is by no means a fan of Harry Redknapp. Brooking blamed Redknapp for the circumstances that saw Redknapp replace Bonds as manager in 1994, a grudge that Sir Trevor still holds and has had very few dealings with Harry Redknapp since then. The distance between the men is so great that it has even been asked of Brooking, informally, whether he could work with Redknapp as England manager. He said he could, but it would no doubt be a further uneasy truce.

What Sir Trev says to the media and behind closed doors are two different things, it is of some opinion that Sir Trevor Brooking didn’t even want to entertain the idea of having to work with Harry Redknapp so headhunted Roy Hodgson to replace Fabio Capello.

Draw your own conclusions and speculate why but if one of the men responsible for selecting the next England manager hates you with a passion then is it any surprise that Harry was never approached?

 Posted by at 12:23
Apr 252012
 

There’s two outcomes in this blog involving the final CL place for next season that could break our hearts.

To me it’s fate that we will finish 4th and Chelsea will win the CL, they are getting results and are high in confidence under Roberto Di Matteo and for Spurs fans we are all used to harsh disappointments.

There is another scenario that Newcastle pip us to 4th, yes I know Chelsea could as well but for the benefit of this blog we will go with Newcastle. Newcastle to finish 4th and Chelsea lose in Munich in May would leave us kicking ourselves that we allowed 4th place to slip away.

If we finished 4th and Chelsea won the CL I would be gutted as it’s not a one-off game you’re losing in, the one thing you fought for all season could be snatched away by someone elses success. I guess we only have ourselves to blame for whatever happens, we had 3rd place in the bag and we could have enjoyed watching Arsenal panic over the Champions League final but instead it’s us.

I don’t think it matters anyway because unless we up our game we will finish 6th. What would leave you feeling the most sickened, Chelsea winning the CL and us finishing 4th or Newcastle pipping us to 4th and Chelsea losing in Munich?

Are you thinking of placing a bet on an upcoming Spurs fixture? Why not come and get all of the latest free bets offers at Freebets.com today and increase your chances of winning big!

 Posted by at 20:04
Apr 242012
 

Well he was everyone’s choice a couple of months ago, Spurs were sitting pretty in 3rd place and had the world at their feet and just 2 months later it has all gone wrong for Tottenham.

We were 10 points clear in 3rd and we now sit 5th, a position that is now maybe considered a underachievement by many Spurs fans. A 5th place or even 6th finish is certainly nothing to get excited about if you’re Spurs, it’s just an average finish and it doesn’t give off the sound that the manager has done a great job as he has finished us at our current expectant level.

Someone like Roy Hodgson has taken West Brom above their expectant level this season into a comfortable position, The Baggies usually find themselves in a relegation scrap but not this year thanks to Roy. This begs the question that would Harry still be favourite for the England job if Spurs finish 6th when there are others out there who have done better with the resources available to them at their current club.

 Posted by at 17:50
Apr 222012
 

I’ve not seen many people put it this way before but a fella on my previous blog made a great point which I thought deserved to be looked at in a bit more depth.

Basically many people even the skeptics a few weeks ago who are now slowly converting to the belief that the curse of the England job is what is affecting Tottenham. All the evidence point to it, players don’t listen to Redknapp like they used to, Redknapp himself doesn’t seem as committed to the cause as he was and it will have a knock on effect. No matter what he tells the media everyone in the club will know the situation, Levy and the players will know Harry will not be at Spurs next season.

Now you only have to look at our dreadful run since then, it’s one of the worst in the Premier League, we couldn’t do it again if we tried. You can look at it in hidsight now, rarely does a manager who is set to depart a team do well in his final few months, at a professional level everyone has to be on the ball 100%.

We were all saying that Harry should stay until the end of the season but maybe that was the worst thing that he could do, we look at it now and maybe we should have let him go. The only trouble is that our great chairman who is sometimes our Achilles heel isn’t going to let Harry go without compensation. The FA would only take Harry now if we released him from his contract by dismissal otherwise they will wait until the season ends. Under no circumstances is Daniel Levy going to sack Harry Redknapp and pass up the opportunity of compensation even though it may end up doing us much more financial damage in the longer run. This is where the business side has been put before the greater needs which is football.

At the time Capello walked out on England I thought Harry should stay but I have now seen some of the crazy decisions he has made in previous weeks and I fear we have got it wrong, the best thing for Levy to have done was to tell the FA if the want Harry it was now or never and get his replacement in, a club in limbo is never a good thing and that’s where we were and where we still are. It’s now clear the club, fans and players all need to know. Even if Harry knew he was going to be the England manager he should have come out with a load of baloney and denied it just for the good of the club. Harry being Harry though never does what’s best for the club he does what’s best for himself when it comes to answering media questions, he likes to stir it up a bit by saying silly things like “no Englishman could turn his back on his country”.

Failure to get this matter cleared up and get a new man in has cost us dear, to the point of utter embarrassment in our current run of form. A team that had 3rd place sewn up and were title contenders are now a laughing stock. It’s like the old Tottenham we all knew, just when we thought we had finally turned a corner we should have known it was too good to be true.

Thank you Harry for all you have done, you have given us some great times but if your heart is not in it then do the selfless thing and walk away, our fans deserve that respect at least.

 Posted by at 19:20
Apr 212012
 

I am fed up of writing the same old dribble, we lost again.

It’s been 2 months since we scored an away goal in the league from open play, we don’t deserve to be in the top 4 and Harry doesn’t even deserve the England job if we don’t finish there after the position we were in.

There’s going to be a lot of negative comments flying about, feel free to put them below, don’t hold back anything goes. Arsenal fans you are also welcome to rip us to shreds as we did you earlier in the season.

 Posted by at 19:31
Apr 212012
 

Game is live on ESPN at 17:30 and you can find some streams in the Forum if you don’t have ESPN.

There is no time to mess about anymore, we are now 5th after Newcastle’s win today and if we lose today then 4th place is effectively out of our hands and then it really is time to start panicking.

Out of the FA Cup and a disastrous new year so far, a form that would have seen us relegated had we had results like this all season. A win today would be a massive boost but the problem we face now is that we play all the teams around the bottom of the table who are fighting for their lives and won’t give us an easy ride, just like Wigan beating United Liverpool and Arsenal.

Starting XI

Spurs

Friedel; Walker, Gallas, King, Assou-Ekotto; Parker, Sandro; Modric, van der Vaart, Bale; Defoe.

 Cudicini, Bongani Khumalo, Rose, Adam Smith, Lennon, Livermore, Giovani.
 Posted by at 16:40
Apr 182012
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t know what the problem is, many people blame the England job on the fact that Tottenham are now in free fall, an allegation that everyone around the club denies but the facts don’t lie that since Harry has been linked to the England job we have been well below par.

I was on the train on the way home from Wembley on Sunday and people on the train were saying that you can see the difference in the players, they aren’t playing for Harry anymore, they aren’t likely to listen to someone as much if they think he isn’t going to be around next season.

We can’t blame it all on the England job because many of us have witnessed Harry’s tactics in some recent games have been very poor although on Sunday I think he played our best team available on the day we just fell apart in the end. Harry has always been known as a great motivator but recently he seems to have lost his touch, do the players not listen to someone they believe will be elsewhere next season?

If the players need any motivation they should do it for themselves and the fans, they want to play CL football, nobody else can make it happen but them. You can see the tension in them when they play which wasn’t there a few weeks ago. Our trouble is that Harry can only motivate, teams come to us now which a Plan A and a Plan b but we will only ever have a Plan A, there is no backup plan for us if it’s going wrong, it’s Plan A or nothing.

We have let 3rd place slip out of our grasp but on Monday night Arsenal threw us a lifeline, we now need to win our remaining matches and we can take back 3rd. Let’s start with QPR away at the weekend, with Arsenal playing Chelsea if we win against QPR we will have a game in hand and if Arsenal were to lose then 3rd would be back in our hands. If we lose and Chelsea beat Arsenal then it will be Europa for us and forget giving Harry the England job and just sack him.

 Posted by at 20:05
Apr 152012
 

Firstly a message for Martin “Double-Vision” Atkinson:

‎”Referee” Martin Atkinson, you are a disgrace to the game. You watched that ghost-goal from a better angle than the linesman and you still give it even though it was NOWHERE NEAR the line!

I hope you can’t sleep tonight after once again propping up the ‘bigger club’ for your own ends and theirs.
I hope you realise the need for a few more refereeing lessons on what is defined as a goal.
I hope you hang your whistle up or put it somewhere really really safe!
I hope you know what I meant by that you double-vision, biased blueblood.
You got it wrong wrong wrong and you know it.

Not taking anything away from Chelsea and Didier Drogba who ravaged us in the end, but that’s not to say
that the second goal (ghost-goal) wasn’t a veritable tipping point for it!!!

Martin Atkinson had the best view of it where there were no players blocking his view, and he gives the goal regardless. Time and time again, we have been screwed over by referees, whether it be over a bad penalty claim, miscommunication of a free kick or goals which in reality were or were not.

How many big games do we have to lose before goal-line technology gets implemented in football or an appeal system is put in place to help referees make better-informed decisions???

I had a look at FIFA’s rather weak arguments for keeping technology out of the game and will demonstrate them one by one, using mainly England’s World Cup defeat in 2010 to Germany as an example. A goal which should’ve been given in one scenario; and a goal which shouldn’t have been given in another scenario.

Apart from pure penny-saving, FIFA have no other valid reason for rejecting every call for such technology to be introduced.

I will make holes in every point FIFA have against it so that they eventually look like Sepp Blatter’s native cheese type—Emmenthal for those enquiring further. For even more information on the topic of Swiss cheese with holes in it, google “Swiss cheese” or alternatively “Diego Maradona’s liver.”

But before that, let us look at their mission statement and what they stand for, besides profit like any business does (even though sport was never meant to be commercialised):

1) THEIR MISSION:

A) “Develop the game…”

HOLE— They have not developed the game much beyond the “silver goal” rule in extra time, as implemented by current president Sepp Blatter.

B ) “touch the world…”

HOLE— Rather than just touching the world, they’ve given it a nasty poke in the eye with full force by trying to save money any way they can, notably by rejecting goal-line technology.

C) “and build a better future.”

HOLE— Any new technology is for the future!

In the past and in the present, officials have had to bare the brunt of outrage when they get a decision wrong and also have to live with it for a long time afterwards (ask that Soviet linesman from the 1966 World Cup Final for more details).

Introducing technology like this will ensure that officials’ decisions are corrected if wrong the first time and prevent backlash because decisions are final and they can change everything in a game.

2) WHAT THEY STAND FOR:

…Integrity— They ‘ believe that, just as the game itself, FIFA must be a model of fair play, tolerance, sportsmanship and transparency’:

HOLE— Fair play goes out the window when a legal, above-board goal isn’t given and also when a total non-goal is given.

Tolerance?

That’s a funny one, considering that they’re not listening to good ideas put before them.

Sportsmanship isn’t there if players are allowed to dive without being disciplined for it by referees being too gullible to deal with weak South American or Ibero-American players in particular.

Transparency means you can see what their true agendas are. Judging by their persistence with rejecting goalline technology, one has to ask whether there’s a hidden agenda somewhere. Their reasons which I’m about to blow holes in don’t ring true to me, hence me blowing holes in them.

So here we go then.

Fresh from the 124th meeting on March 6th of the IFAB regarding FIFA and their position on technology in football are FIFA’s reasons for not implementing goal-line technology.

Take everything written by them with a pinch of salt. You certainly will after you remember all the duff decisions made by officials over the years:

POINT 1)

FIFA SAYS:

The universality of the game: one of the main objectives of FIFA is to protect the universality of the game of association football. This means that the game must be played in the same way no matter where you are in the world. If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV.

I SAY:

It’s still the same rules! It’s just with technology introduced to verify officials’ decisions.

If they mean ways of officiating the match should remain universal, that is also flawed.

Lower tiers of tennis and rugby do not have “Hawk-Eye” (tennis) or audible dialogue (rugby), but even though hawk-eye in professional tennis was initially opposed by purists, Hawk-Eye has now been widely accepted, but with the compromise of limited challenges against an umpire’s decision.

Technology in professional rugby has been welcomed without the call for it in grassroots rugby. Still, officials presumably confer with each other on giving tries at grassroots level if needed.

POINT 2)

FIFA SAYS:

The simplicity and universality of the game of association football is one of the reasons for its success. Men, women, children, amateurs and professionals all play the same game all over the world.

I SAY:

If it’s the same game, it should be the same rules. As in the ball being over the line means a goal, regardless of whether it hits the back of the net or not!

POINT 3)

FIFA SAYS:

The human aspect: no matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?

It is often the case that, even after a slow-motion replay, ten different experts will have ten different opinions on what the decision should have been.

I SAY:

Who says the referee would need to be stripped of responsibility at all?

There are at least two giant video screens at every major stadium which play replays and follow the game on camera. All the referee would have to do is watch a short replay of the issue at hand. Maybe the referee can alert the 4th official who can ask the screen-operator for a replay of the desired event.

I mean, all the 4th official does is hold up an LED monitor at certain points in the match (OOPS, MENTIONED TECHNOLOGY AGAIN. MY, MY, AM I NAUGHTY!). It’d give him something else to do. Seriously though, those LED thingies aren’t seen at grassroots football, yet FIFA and all other professional football governing bodies use them at matches.

What’s more, LED indicators aren’t vital, hence grassroots games getting by quite easily without it.

At stadiums, substitutions and injury times are announced on a PA system anyway! That too is technology used by FIFA. So basically, they haven’t lived up to their mission statement of universality of the game. If they truly had, there’d be nothing electronic at stadium matches.

One more thing, technology is made by humans, so technically, human arbitration is always present in football. This type of human-made intervention (goal-line technology) in football would help to REMOVE ALL HUMAN ERROR.

POINT 4)

FIFA SAYS:

Fans love to debate any given incident in a game. It is part of the human nature of our sport.

I SAY:

THAT DOESN’T MEAN WE’RE JUMPING FOR JOY WHEN OUR TEAM GETS SCREWED OVER FOR A LEGITIMATE GOAL!

Fans also love to call governing bodies of football money-grabbing fat-cats because of their commercialising football through countless adverts without caring for the spirit of the sport itself.

Fans would still have other things to debate like team selection and individual players. If anything, some fans no longer want to talk about goals/offsides that weren’t or officials that aren’t!

POINT 5)

FIFA SAYS:

FIFA’s goal is to improve the quality of refereeing, making referees more professional and better prepared, and to assist referees as much as possible. This is also the reason why refereeing experiments (such as with additional referees or the role of the fourth official) will continue to be analysed, to see how referees can be supported.

I SAY:

ANOTHER WAY TO IMPROVE REFEREEING IS STARING YOU RIGHT IN THE FACE!

Goal-line technology would save an awful lot of earache for referees and assist them as much as possible like they aim to do. FIFA aren’t even prepared to experiment with goal-line technology. Despicable stubbornness prevails here.

POINT 6)

PART A

FIFA SAYS:

The financial aspect: the application [or testing] of modern technologies can be very costly, and therefore not applicable on a global level. Many matches, even at the highest level, are not even televised. For example, we have close to 900 preliminary matches for the FIFA World Cup™, and the same rules need to be applied in all matches of the same competition. The rules need to be the same for all association football matches worldwide.

I SAY:

The cheek of it: FIFA have made MILLIONS from international tournaments, enhanced further by giant sponsorship/advertising deals.

For the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa, ticket prices have been astronomical! It makes Category A ticket prices at White Hart Lane look like a couple of pounds! Take a look at the following link:

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/organisation/ticketing/pricesandmatches.html

Pay attention from here:

As you can see on their site, the best pitch-side seats (Category 1 ) for a group game cost $160 each! That’s over £100 per ticket!

Taking an average of the South African stadiums in use for the event—with both capacity and attendance considered—they take in 50,000 fans every time. 30,000 of those tickets would be Category 1 (along the pitch) while the other 20,000 would be behind the goals or in the corners (Category 3 ).

30,000 Category 1 tickets (pitch-side seats along the touchline) sold per match at $160 each take in $4.8m (nearly £3.2m) every match. 20,000 Category 3 tickets (behind the goals/in the corners) sold at $80 each (approximately £53) take in $1.6m (just over £1m).

$4.8m + $1.6 = $6.4m ~ £4.2m per game.

$6.4m multiplied by the number of group games to which this pricing applies (48)
equals a massive $307.2m (around £200.4m) just for that phase of the tournament!

It begs the question of—apart from paying for energy bills (surely not all of the revenue goes towards that) and staff—where does the rest of the money go!?

Surely some of that revenue could be retained for use in experimenting with goal-line technology at least, otherwise people may get suspicious of FIFA board members simply lining their own pockets.

Wouldn’t look very good seeing as their aim is to contribute to the “good of the game”, would it?

PART B

FIFA SAYS:

The experiments conducted by companies on technology in football are also expensive. The decision of the IFAB, after careful consideration and examination of studies conducted in recent years, to give a clear answer on technology in football is also positive in this regard as these companies will now not spend significant amounts of money on projects which in the end will not be implemented.

I SAY:

You need to test technology before deciding to implement it anyway! Duh!

POINT 7)

FIFA SAYS :

The extended use of technology: the question has already been raised: if the IFAB had approved goal-line technology, what would prevent the approval of technology for other aspects of the game? Every decision in every area of the pitch would soon be questioned.

I SAY:

What the hell is the difference between investing in goal-line technology and investing in LED thingies, earpieces to communicate and signals in the linesmen’s flags which alert the referee of an offside call (the latter three technologies already being in force throughout professional football) besides the degree of usefulness!?

The flags with signals are the least useful. The referee does have eyes (in theory) and it’s out of line with what Sepp Blatter said about “keeping the human aspect of refereeing in football.”

If FIFA wanted to keep refereeing so human-based, why did they need to blow millions on flags that make a sound using one-button signal technology when the referee should be able to see the flag being raised/waved by himself?

Hypocrisy I say!

POINT 8)

FIFA SAYS:

The nature of the game: association football is a dynamic game that cannot be stopped in order to review a decision. If play were to be stopped to take a decision, it would break up the rhythm of the game and possibly deny a team the opportunity to score a goal. It would also not make sense to stop play every two minutes to review a decision, as this would go against the natural dynamism of the game.”

I SAY:

Union rugby is a “dynamic game.” Tennis is a “dynamic game.” I’m guessing what FIFA mean by dynamic is that it’s fast-paced and would look very lacklustre if it stopped too often.

Maybe so, but in football, referees may choose to play advantage on fouls. That’s enough to keep a game flowing as much as possible.

In rugby, the game always stops for scrums and throws but that’s one of the rules and fans of that particular sport still maintain enjoyment. Only boring people get bored quickly and FIFA representatives sound like that right now.

It doesn’t take a massive chunk of a referee’s life to reconsider and look at a video replay (another good idea in my opinion).

In rugby, tries can be reviewed. Can take a while but as I said, fans of that sport do not mind because it’s all in the name of totally fair and impartial refereeing.

In tennis, players can challenge a call (up to a MAXIMUM of three times in a game) and it’s a simple 10-second clip of the ball’s path and point of landing. A substitution of a football player takes longer than that!

What do FIFA want to do next?

Deny throw-ins because they “stop the game”?

Are you going to have all the subs just randomly throw a ball back onto the field to keep the game “flowing” or will the game just be abandoned because it “slowed down too much?”

Give me a break…

IN CONCLUSION

Compromise is something FIFA missed out in their mission statement. My proposal would be to introduce it but, like in tennis, have a limited number of challenges (I would accept just one as that’s the usual number of controversial decisions in a match if any).

It’s not just the ball which had crossed the line at the World Cup, it was the level of FIFA’s stubbornness and unwillingness to discuss the issue with advocates of goal-line technology. I call it a “Blatter problem.”

There is absolutely no point in having rules or professing them if you’re just going to forget those rules, one of which states that a goal is granted if the entirety of the ball crosses the line.

Why does the net have to ripple for it to be a goal?
Why does there need to be a scuffle on the goalline for it to be difficult to make the right decision?

You might as well not have a “back of the net” and instead stick a badminton net there!!! At least it ripples immediately when something hits it!

PLUS…

It doesn’t need expensive testing (more money in FIFA’s pockets and pensions, eh?), the ripple is more “visible” to even the most Uruguayan official’s eyes and doesn’t involve “TECH-NOLOGY”, that word which—when said in the company of Sepp Blatter himself—constitutes one euro being put into the company swear box.

I bet Sepp Blatter still sends messages to FIFA colleagues via homing pigeon! Get with the future you want to build, not the past which you evidently want to live in.

I am now going outside to catch a pigeon with strong-enough legs to carry this much writing to Switzerland and back…

Apr 152012
 

These type of occasions have been too few and far between for Spurs fans over recent history, so many disappointments over the last 20 years with just a couple of League Cup wins to our name.

It’s pretty embarrassing for a club like Tottenham to have not featured in an FA Cup final since we won it back in 1991 but today our long wait comes to an end after we beat Chelsea. We have had many semi final heartbreaks since then against Arsenal, Everton, Newcastle and Portsmouth so it’s safe to say we are well overdue a semi final victory.

Starting XI

Tottenham Hotspur

Cudicini, Walker, Gallas, King, Assou-Ekotto, Lennon, Modric, Parker, Bale, Van der Vaart, Adebayor.

Subs : Friedel, Nelsen, Rose, Giovani, Livermore, Sandro, Defoe

 

 Posted by at 17:17