The other day while looking at the Adelaide Advertiser i saw this article. This is another one of those articles written but journalists who don't know much about football (soccer) but still decide to write a negative article.
To start off with the journalist wrote "In just about every sport you can name, the ultimate object of the team or individual is to win. Not so in soccer" This comment is so stupid I'm literally sitting at the computer screen thinking how to respond. Of course the objective of football is to win the match and just because a match finishes as a draw doesn't mean the teams didn't try to win the game.
The journalist then claimed"A premiership points system which was devised, or revised, to reward scoring but which, instead, has inflicted a desultory defensive mindset on nine out of 10 encounters." This claim is simply wrong since the numbers of draws in English football has not been affected by the three points for a win system which was introduced in 1981. The first country the system was used in.
This article was also the first time I had ever heard of a football player who plays in a forward position described as a demented wood duck " leaving some poor hapless forward to roam ahead like a demented wood duck hoping to spot a worm". I wonder how much footballing forwards like Fernando Torres, Samuel Eto and Archie Thompson like being referred to as demented wood duck's.
Next in the article wasn't an error about football but a racial stereotype "little Japanese". Obviously the journalist doesn't know about the two Japanese centre-backs who played against Australia in the world cup qualifying match, Yugi Nakazawa (187 cm) and Marcus Tulio Tanaka (185 cm). Simply that is two tall Japanese men. The Japanese squad named for the match also featured six other players who are at least 180 cm tall. Not really "little Japanese".
This ignorance of the height of the Japanese centre backs also raises an interesting point. In the article 5 of the paragraphs are about the Japan v Australia match. You would think the journalist would of watched the match and noticed that a couple of the Japanese defenders were quiet tall. Yet it would appear from the afore mentioned ignorance of the height of the Japanese centre backs that the journalist didn't watch the match. Hopefully the journalist didn't comment about a match he had never seen.
The journalist then wrote "in Tim Cahill, they have one of the most potent goalscorers in the the game". Now I know in Australia we all love Tim Cahill, his 2 goals he scored against Japan which were our first goals at a World Cup and although he's got a great record for scoring as a midfielder, he is no where near being one of the most potent goalscorers in world football.
Next the journalist claimed "that even one away goal would have guaranteed their sought-after ticket to South Africa". Firstly one away goal would have absolutely nothing for Australia if we had lost the match to Japan in a score line 2-1 or 3-1. We'll just assume the journalist meant if Australia had won the match 1-0. With the draw between Australia and Japan the table for World Cup qualifying is Australia top with 10 points, then Japan on 8, Bahrain and Qatar both have for points and bottom is Uzbekistan. If Australia had beaten Japan, Australia would now have 12 points and Japan would be on 7 points. This would have put Australia 8 points ahead of Bahrain and Qatar. However with four matches to go in qualifying Bahrain and Qatar still would of had the possibility of overtaking Australia on the table. Although a win against Japan would of got as closer to qualifying for the World Cup unlike the journalist claimed it would not of guaranteed qualification to South Africa 2010.
The journalist then wrote "Ultimately, poor Cahill .......... was accorded just one meaningful touch". A shot at goal is different to a touch, in the match Tim Cahill did only have one shot at goal, he also had a lot more meaningful touches of the ball which weren't shots. What the journalist wrote here could indicate a lack of knowledge about football, which leads to the question why is he writing about it? Or it can indicate the journalist didn't watch the match found the stats for the game which would told him Tim Cahill had only one shot, which leads to the question why are five paragraphs of his article about an match he didn't watch?
Next the journalist wrote "Nonetheless, the result - a nil-nil draw .... later was lauded by all the experts as precisely what Australia wanted from the encounter" Experts are experts for a reason they know what their talking about. Simply a draw for Australia against Japan is what we wanted. Especially when your playing away in front of nearly 70,000 hostile fans (Japanese football fans are regarded as some of the best and loudest fans in world sport) against the toughest opponent in your group, missing 3 of your best players (M. Viduka, H. Kewell,
B. Emerton), with most of the squad arrive 48 or less before the match meaning they don't train together properly before the match and with the whole squad either have been on a long flight from Australia or Japan. For some reason the journalist forgot to mention all these factors.
Finally the journalist wrote "So, no doubt, will it be replicated tonight in Melbourne ...... a Melbourne outfit spotted yesterday installing a battery of Exocet missiles in front of goal". The journalist might want to take whoever told him this information to the hospital because their obviously delusional. Now i know i have the benefit of hindsight, and that Melbourne won. But it wasn't like Melbourne defended for 90 minutes and got a lucky goal. Melbourne won the match 4-o, scoring three of their goals in the first half. That's what the experts call attacking football.
No comments:
Post a Comment