Almost exactly two months after first denying that his position at the club was in danger, Tottenham announced the sacking of their manager Martin Jol on Thursday. Sevilla boss Juande Ramos is set to replace the Dutchman.
According to reports, Jol was informed that he has been fired prior to Spurs UEFA Cup match against Getafe. Although the news wasn't made public, rumors were already widespread, and the White Harte Lane faithful showed their support to Jol by chanting "Stand up for Jol" during the Getafe match. Jol's last match in charge of the Spurs symbolized the season for Spurs, as they took the lead through Jermaine Defoe early on, but went on to lose the match 2-1. When Defoe scored, videos showed Jol uncharacteristically somber, not celebrating unlike his previous demeanor, further fueling the rumors that were flying about at the time that his rein had come to an end.
Whether the change would bring about positive results at White Harte Lane would only be know in the next couple of months, but one things for certain- Tottenham were horrible in their handling of the situation. Back in August, they did no favors to Jol by clearly approaching Juande Ramos and offering him Jol's position, barely three months and a couple of matches after Jol lead them to a second consecutive fifth place position, even threatening to break into the top four. Although the Spur's Board denied any move to bring in Ramos, and said that Jol enjoys 100% support from them, Ramos accepted that he had been approached.
Jol's former colleagues showed sympathy to his removal, with Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson saying that Jol would be rather "relieved" that it's finally over, and added that his impressive record as manager would make it easy for him to find another position quickly. True this season Spurs had the worst start to their campaign in nineteen years, but back in 2005-06 also they never started well, only to finish fifth in the League. The problem lied in the fact that Jol had lost the respect of his players, as a result of being too "light" with them. ESPNStar's Steve McMahon said on a show that Jol was being punished for mistakes made by the players, and not him, since they never showed any drive to perform and improve during their matches this season.
"You can't just turn up and expect to win", McMahon was quoted to have said.
What future are the bookmakers predicting for Spurs? The odds are equally in favor of them getting relegated as they are for them to make the Champion's League. Many experts said that by sacking Jol, Spurs have lost a chance to create a dynasty, similar to Nottingham Forest's back in the 70s, and the ones at Manchester United under Sir Alex Ferguson, and at Arsenal under Arsene Wenger.
"There seems to be a far less patient approach in football now but Arsene has been there 10 years and I have been here 21," Ferguson said in an interview," I think you can see there have been rewards for both managers and clubs."
e shtunë, 27 tetor 2007
e enjte, 25 tetor 2007
You call that insult???
Yet again, Indian sportsmen are being booked for having insulted the national flag. Remember Sachin Tendulkar and Narain Karthikeyan being barred from wearing the tricolour on their respective helmets back in 2005? This time, it's the turn for the Indian T20 World Championship winning squad.
In probably the most ridiculous story I have yet heard related to Indian T20 team's victorious South Africa sojourn, the Chief City Magistrate of Nagpur Nagar accepted a complaint against the team members for "insulting" the tri-colour during their celebrations. The person who filed the complaint was seemingly "offended" when the Indian players wrapped the tri-colour around themselves and rolled on the ground when some of their mates jumped on top of them.
Meaning no disrespect to the complainant and the Indian judiciary system, but, for heaven's sake, does Team India's actions show "disrespect" to the national flag? In 2005, the reason given to Tendulkar on why he couldn't sport the tricolour on his helmet was that, since his helmet was kept in a bag with his other sporting accessories, namingly his pads, guards, and so on, it wasn't fit for something as important to national sentiment as the country's flag to be kept alongside with them.
Rewind to Athens 2004. Maurice Green wore spiked shoes in the colours of the U.S. flag at the Olympics. Germany 2006. Wayne Rooney showcases his boots at the World Cup which had a miniature English flag at the back of the heel section. Both are lauded for their patriotism and passion. What if an Indian sportsman had shown his pride in representing his country in a similar way? Based on the cases that have already occurred, he could have easily faced a jail term or a huge fine.
The judiciary and the government has to realise that sportsmen do get very sentimental when they represent his country, and like to show that to the public. They have major restrictions on the gear they wear, and don't get many options wear to showcase their passion. For a cricketer, all he can personalise is his bat, shoes, helmet, and any additional accessory such as wrist bands. A Formula-1 driver gets no other option but his helmet. When Narain Karthikeyan was told to remove the flag, he did nothing to hide his disappointment at having to do so, and said that now all he can do is sell that portion of his helmet to some sponsor. This in a year when Narain Karthikeyan had spent each Rupee of his income to be able to represent India on the F1 circus, yet was willing to sacrifice some additional earnings to show how much he loved his country.
No sportsman, in their sound mind, would do anything to upset the national sentiment by disrespecting their nation's flag in front of such a large crowd, and when being watched by millions of viewers. Give these guys a break.
In probably the most ridiculous story I have yet heard related to Indian T20 team's victorious South Africa sojourn, the Chief City Magistrate of Nagpur Nagar accepted a complaint against the team members for "insulting" the tri-colour during their celebrations. The person who filed the complaint was seemingly "offended" when the Indian players wrapped the tri-colour around themselves and rolled on the ground when some of their mates jumped on top of them.
Meaning no disrespect to the complainant and the Indian judiciary system, but, for heaven's sake, does Team India's actions show "disrespect" to the national flag? In 2005, the reason given to Tendulkar on why he couldn't sport the tricolour on his helmet was that, since his helmet was kept in a bag with his other sporting accessories, namingly his pads, guards, and so on, it wasn't fit for something as important to national sentiment as the country's flag to be kept alongside with them.
Rewind to Athens 2004. Maurice Green wore spiked shoes in the colours of the U.S. flag at the Olympics. Germany 2006. Wayne Rooney showcases his boots at the World Cup which had a miniature English flag at the back of the heel section. Both are lauded for their patriotism and passion. What if an Indian sportsman had shown his pride in representing his country in a similar way? Based on the cases that have already occurred, he could have easily faced a jail term or a huge fine.
The judiciary and the government has to realise that sportsmen do get very sentimental when they represent his country, and like to show that to the public. They have major restrictions on the gear they wear, and don't get many options wear to showcase their passion. For a cricketer, all he can personalise is his bat, shoes, helmet, and any additional accessory such as wrist bands. A Formula-1 driver gets no other option but his helmet. When Narain Karthikeyan was told to remove the flag, he did nothing to hide his disappointment at having to do so, and said that now all he can do is sell that portion of his helmet to some sponsor. This in a year when Narain Karthikeyan had spent each Rupee of his income to be able to represent India on the F1 circus, yet was willing to sacrifice some additional earnings to show how much he loved his country.
No sportsman, in their sound mind, would do anything to upset the national sentiment by disrespecting their nation's flag in front of such a large crowd, and when being watched by millions of viewers. Give these guys a break.
e hënë, 22 tetor 2007
Sport and Racism
In South Africa, racism and sports have been intertwined right from the end of World War II, largely due to apartheid, which crushed the hopes of so many sportsmen of color (for example, see "The First Great Indian Golfer" below this post). But even though apartheid is long gone, racism is very much still a big factor in South African sport. Post the Springboks first World Cup triumph in 1995, many legislators voiced to the country's rugby federation to take the opportunity to showcase South Africa's racial mix. The debate of racial quotas has been raging ever since.
Sports is undoubtedly an ambassador for a country in its own way, basically because more people tune into watch a mega sporting event than any news program presenting the the visit of an "official" ambassador from another nation. The South African government certainly tried to take advantage of this to show that they were well and truly over apartheid and that blacks from the country had as much scope in sports as the whites. But, in following a selection process that includes race as an important attribute, are they running the risk of fielding teams consisting of players that don't deserve to be a part of it based on their abilities?
This topic first hit the Indian sporting circles back in 2005, when South African-born English cricketer Kevin Pietersen hit three centuries in their tour ODI series on their of South Africa, and in turn picked up the Man of the Series award. Whenever the Barmy Army would give Pietersen a standing ovation for his heroics as he would walk back to the dressing room on being dismissed, the home fans would stand up and show their backs to him, calling him traitor for having left his home country. But Pietersen didn't bother about his reception, and never said he made a wrong decision to change in nationality. He hailed that, despite some amazing performances, including a warm-up match against Naseer Hussain's England side in 1999, when he took four wickets and scored 61runs batting at No.9, he was dropped from his state's first team. He was never shy to say that he believed this was because of the racial quota system. He moved to Britain searching the opportunities he believed he deserved.
Now back to rugby. Unlike cricket, which adhered to the government's desire to field a team of diverse races, the rugby federation never let the officials interfere with the team's composition. Due to their stand, the Government has always been at odds with the federation. At one stage, the head of the parliament's sports ministry even suggested to impound the Springbok's passports till they take a more favorable stand to their desires. Although the team won the recently held World Cup, it wouldn't have gone unnoticed to the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, that when he congratulated both the English and his country's team, that Engalnd had as many black players as the Springbok's had. Whether that would result in a push by the South African administration to bring in more black players into the team, or accept that the the best crop are the ones wearing the country's colours at the moment, remains to be seen.
Sports is undoubtedly an ambassador for a country in its own way, basically because more people tune into watch a mega sporting event than any news program presenting the the visit of an "official" ambassador from another nation. The South African government certainly tried to take advantage of this to show that they were well and truly over apartheid and that blacks from the country had as much scope in sports as the whites. But, in following a selection process that includes race as an important attribute, are they running the risk of fielding teams consisting of players that don't deserve to be a part of it based on their abilities?
This topic first hit the Indian sporting circles back in 2005, when South African-born English cricketer Kevin Pietersen hit three centuries in their tour ODI series on their of South Africa, and in turn picked up the Man of the Series award. Whenever the Barmy Army would give Pietersen a standing ovation for his heroics as he would walk back to the dressing room on being dismissed, the home fans would stand up and show their backs to him, calling him traitor for having left his home country. But Pietersen didn't bother about his reception, and never said he made a wrong decision to change in nationality. He hailed that, despite some amazing performances, including a warm-up match against Naseer Hussain's England side in 1999, when he took four wickets and scored 61runs batting at No.9, he was dropped from his state's first team. He was never shy to say that he believed this was because of the racial quota system. He moved to Britain searching the opportunities he believed he deserved.
Now back to rugby. Unlike cricket, which adhered to the government's desire to field a team of diverse races, the rugby federation never let the officials interfere with the team's composition. Due to their stand, the Government has always been at odds with the federation. At one stage, the head of the parliament's sports ministry even suggested to impound the Springbok's passports till they take a more favorable stand to their desires. Although the team won the recently held World Cup, it wouldn't have gone unnoticed to the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, that when he congratulated both the English and his country's team, that Engalnd had as many black players as the Springbok's had. Whether that would result in a push by the South African administration to bring in more black players into the team, or accept that the the best crop are the ones wearing the country's colours at the moment, remains to be seen.
Abonohu te:
Postimet (Atom)