70's Hatchet Men vs New Millenium Divers. Which is worse?

All the talk of football descending into lawless mire has a certain resonance about it as, week after week, we watch highly paid professional footballers dive, cheat, feign injury and cynically indulge in behaviour that is specifically intended to cause referees to dismiss opponents from the pitch. Players are now being yellow and even red carded for offences which, in the 1960’s and 70’s would have barely merited a free kick, let alone an early bath.

Only fans who have been around a long time are in a position to comment from experience, but having said that, any rosy memories of days gone by, when players were all brylcreemed hair and baggy shorts would probably be guilty of too much selective memory.

Not long ago, I watched a re-run of the 1970 FA Cup Final between Leeds United and Chelsea which evoked memories of one of the dirtiest matches I have ever seen in my life. These two clubs were infamous at that time, not only for their violent fans, but also for the level of intimidation and foul play they were prepared to resort to in order to win a match.

Leeds had the unholy trinity of Billy Bremner, Jack Charlton and Norman Hunter, snarling assassins who didn’t take prisoners. Chelsea were led by the chillingly nicknamed Ron ‘Chopper’ Harris, backed up by David Webb and John Dempsey, unsmiling heavies who were never far away from an unpleasant incident.

In that cup final, replay, the mood of the game was one of barely contained hatred for each other from the start. Referee Eric Jennings was officiating in his last ever game and was prepared to merely “have a word” rather than take stern action and spoil the event with strict refereeing.

The referee didn’t book anybody (coloured cards were not introduced in England until 1974) until halfway through the second half when Chelsea’s Ian Hutchinson floored Billy Bremner who was kicking at a prone Peter Osgood.

In a contrary sort of way, this game did football a favour. It convinced the FA that something had to be done to halt the decline in standards of conduct on the field.

Don Revie’s Leeds United were the worst of the bunch, so much so that when Brian Clough took over as manager, from Revie in 1974, his first act as boss was to tell the players to throw all the medals they had won into the bin because they had won them by cheating. But they were not alone. It seemed that every team had at least one ‘hard man’ in the side. Liverpool had Tommy Smith, Arsenal had Peter Storey, and not many walked away from close contact with Manchester United’s Nobby Stiles without a limp.

At the start of the 1971/72 season, the FA told referees to clamp down on the so-called ‘professional foul’ as well as deliberate time wasting, handball, tackling from behind, intimidation, jersey pulling and other forms of gamesmanship and foul play. But still football failed to purge itself, coaches simply found new ways to cheat or get around the rules.

The malaise continued to deepen until a contemptibly unpleasant world cup in 1990 persuaded FIFA to turn the screw even further which led to a warped tournament in the USA in 1994 when players were mystified to find themselves being cautioned or sent off for offences that had hitherto been considered everyday and commonplace.

In the near 20 years since that 1994 World Cup, the game has been refereed to hell and back. It has become almost a non-contact sport and the likes of Bremner, Stiles and Harris would probably not be on the field by half time, let alone finish a match in the current climate.

But is the game perfect now? No, it certainly is not. Yes, there are more goals and skill has greater opportunity to flourish but this is mainly because defenders have become too scared to tackle anybody. Has this eliminated cheating? Sadly, no. All that has changed is the nature of the cheating.

In entertainment terms, games are a considerable improvement on what occurred on that May evening in 1970, but now, instead of kicking lumps off each other, players connive to con referees. They fall to the ground as if pole axed at the slightest ‘contact’. They feign injury and roll around in mock agony, or clutch their faces to indicate (often falsely) they have been punched, elbowed or head-butted. Some wave imaginary cards in referee’s faces, attempting to intimidate the official into dismissing an opponent.

These players consider it a success to reduce the number of opponents on the pitch by nefarious means. We cannot say the game is any more sporting than it was in the days of the hatchet men. In my opinion, it is less so. Such behaviour is cowardly and makes a mockery of football’s claim to be called a sporting contest.

All cheating is wrong and violence on the field is not acceptable, but at least the physical brutes of the 1970’s were open and ‘up front’ about what they did. In their thuggish way, there was a sort of manly honesty about them. Today’s players are merely sly, underhand and deceitful; like playground sneaks, sniggering up their sleeves when they get an opponent dismissed from the field as if they’ve done something clever and ‘professional’.

Despite myself and my better instincts, there is a small part of me that cannot help but smile when I imagine that, if he had ever been tackled by Chopper Harris, Luis Suarez wouldn’t have needed to fake anything.

The re-run of that 1970 FA Cup Final between Leeds and Chelsea was watched by a current referee a couple of years ago who officiated the game by todays current standards. He concluded that there would have been 4 red cards and 18 yellow cards issued. I can only imagine that those figures would only have been higher if the same exercise had been applied for the replay!

I remember seeing some old footage of a Man U v Chelsea game, I'm sure you have probably seen it yourself. George Best glided past two Chelsea defenders and the last defender was Chopper Harris, who came sliding in from the side with his studs raised in an attempt to take Best out. George simply skipped the tackle leaving Harris on his arse, knocked the ball past Peter Bonetti the Chelsea keeper and slid the ball into an empty net before raising his arms in celebration. Genius!

BlueCoverman wrote:The re-run of that 1970 FA Cup Final between Leeds and Chelsea was watched by a current referee a couple of years ago who officiated the game by todays current standards. He concluded that there would have been 4 red cards and 18 yellow cards issued. I can only imagine that those figures would only have been higher if the same exercise had been applied for the replay!

I remember seeing some old footage of a Man U v Chelsea game, I'm sure you have probably seen it yourself. George Best glided past two Chelsea defenders and the last defender was Chopper Harris, who came sliding in from the side with his studs raised in an attempt to take Best out. George simply skipped the tackle leaving Harris on his arse, knocked the ball past Peter Bonetti the Chelsea keeper and slid the ball into an empty net before raising his arms in celebration. Genius!

Ahhhh, the genius that was George Best. What a great player he was. He was exceptional in everything he did.

I think I know the goal you are talking about and I've found it at around 1 minute 30 into the attached clip:



The question here, is: How many players today, facing that sort of tackle, would "go to ground" and writhe around in mock agony, hoping for at least a yellow card, and at best a red one for the defender. You can be sure there would be a posse of team mates around the ref, howling in his ear about "clear goalscoring opportunity" and "no last man defender."

Best, on the other hand, had his focus on only one thing: Stay on your feet and score.

Thanks for the opportunity to give a graphic example on which to base a comparison.

At Around 2 minutes 20, there is Denis Law scoring on a horrible pitch at Derby County. I think Manchester United's players would refuse to play on that, nowadays. And what about Bestie scoring at the (deserted) Stretford End against Spurs..? Four defenders and Pat Jennings between him and goal, so he just lobs the ball over the lot of 'em.

Class.

To put it simply, I'd rather have a player dive past me than break my leg.

Must admit, I watched both the Chelsea / Leeds games in (not at) Wembley and it never seemed as "hard" as legend now has it.

Every team had its hard man or two or three, but the number of serious injuries certainly never seemed much different than today, perhaps fewer then, and certainly not the insidious leaving-your-foot in that the likes of Ramires and Suarez specialise in.

The diving of today is just pathetic, but the refs could sort it in a heartbeat if they really wanted to.

kwinigolfer wrote:Must admit, I watched both the Chelsea / Leeds games in (not at) Wembley and it never seemed as "hard" as legend now has it.

Every team had its hard man or two or three, but the number of serious injuries certainly never seemed much different than today, perhaps fewer then, and certainly not the insidious leaving-your-foot in that the likes of Ramires and Suarez specialise in.

The diving of today is just pathetic, but the refs could sort it in a heartbeat if they really wanted to.

 
Agree with most of that, but the laws of the game must change. At present, Diving is supported be the laws of the game. Why?......You con the ref you get a penalty - happy days & NO retrospective sanction. You get caught diving - you get a yellow card - no big deal.  
 
Unless referees have the use of TV replays, diving will always be encouraged.............and furthermore, there will be less diving then, because players will realise the ref is going to go upstairs anyway.
 
So, any complaining FIFA go on with about diving is very hollow indeed given that the laws of the game which they are responsible for, are actively encouraging players to dive.

Stella wrote:To put it simply, I'd rather have a player dive past me than break my leg.

Wouldn't we all, Petal.  However, I feel you miss the point.  The player doing the diving isn't the one who is likely to break yours or anybody elses leg.   The player doing the diving is the one attempting to gain an unfair advantage over the person making the tackle.  

In response to John Cregan, might I point out that there is already a rule regarding 'simulation' and I would agree that that should be more rigorously enforced.  However.........

Let me explain.  In my OP, I was trying to make the point regarding the 'sport' of football, through the medium of the actual playing of it.  

Football, by its very nature, is a defence oriented game.  The mindset of the game is that the winner is not the team that scores the most goals, but the team that concedes the fewest.  Because of this, it is and always has been a low scoring game and the scoring of a goal is a moment of significant importance - and excitement - in a match.  

Since the advent of the Premiership and wall-to-wall TV coverage, and the amount of money involved in the game, football has become the slave to its paymasters.... TV companies, advertisers, sponsors, etc.  And they want a return on their investment.   They see excitement as the key to increasing the popularity of the game, increased numbers of viewers and with that, the exposure of their products.  And what is more exciting, in football, than goals...?

Most cheating and diving is centred around attacking play, obviously.  The diver in the penalty box will, if successful, obtain a goalscoring opportunity for his team.  Goalscoring opportunity = fan excitement = product endorsement.   So goes the corporate psychology.  Hey, don't blame me. I don't invent this stuff.  

The corporate desire to manipulate the way the game is played in order to achieve increasingly high numbers of goals, incidents, penalties and such like has led to all sorts of innovations.  For example:  Modern footballs swing, dip and bend through the air like beach balls before a seaside breeze, leading to shots and free kicks from all sorts of distances that were much rarer in days of yore.  It leads to more of that kind of goal being scored, but is the goal entirely down to the skill of the player, or the capricious vagaries of the ball...?

I digress, but only to illustrate my point.  This is a post about cheating and I would estimate that "Doing whatever it takes" to make the game more exciting appeals to the moneymen and who knows what sort of pressure or back-stairs deals may have been made in the murky depths of FIFA HQ..?   FIFA acknowledge that there has to be a rule on 'simulation', but having such a rule and enforcing it are two different things.  Hence, the system is set up where referees are instructed only to penalise the most blatant and obvious  (think Ashley Young vs Crystal Palace recently) offences, but let more subtle instances slide.

The overwhelming majority of fans, quite rightly, have a natural abhorrence to cheating.  We're not business entrepreneurs attempting to exploit the game for financial gain.  We're fans.  Football is in our blood.  Of course we want our team to win, and yes, we're prepared to put up with a certain amount of 'playing on the edge of the rules' but deep down, we want to win pretty much with honour but now  we're at a point in the game where we no longer feel comfortable with what we're seeing.  It's now going too far.

Which brings me back to the essential point of my OP.  Is the game more 'sporting' now, than when good old Chopper Harris attempted to take Bestie's legs off?   Perhaps the most succinct difference between then and now, is that we've replaced defensive cheats with attacking ones.  Is that a good or a bad thing..?   You can make your own mind up about that.

We had fewer goals in those times and defences did reign supreme.  There were an awful lot of bore-draws.  But is the price of a more exciting game with more goals too high..?


PS
Oh, and by the way.... I don't think more technology is the answer.

Fourth Lion,
 
If you don't think more technology is the answer, then nothing will ever change, and furthermore, what is the answer to get players to be more honest?
 
The word "cheating" is often bandied about as well - usually by the FIFA types, who, as custodians if the laws of the games are actively encouraging cheats by refusing technology............
 
For example, Luis Suarez was branded a "cheat" for stopping a certain goal by handling in the WC QF 2010. How was that "cheating"?? He did it in full view of everyone - knowing the consequences - and the laws of the game were followed correctly and to the letter - penalty/sending off/ one match ban. I would want someone in my team to do the exact same thing in a team i was supporting.................
 
In rugby, which is miles ahead of football in terms of rules/discipline/technology, preventing a "certain try" is punishable by a Penalty try/conversion from under the posts/sin binning...........

It might be simplistic, but Rugby is a much fairer sport therefore......just ask Ghana.
 
So until Football gets serious about justice on the field, stop moaning...............

John Cregan wrote:Fourth Lion,
 
If you don't think more technology is the answer, then nothing will ever change, and furthermore, what is the answer to get players to be more honest?
 
The word "cheating" is often bandied about as well - usually by the FIFA types, who, as custodians if the laws of the games are actively encouraging cheats by refusing technology............
 
For example, Luis Suarez was branded a "cheat" for stopping a certain goal by handling in the WC QF 2010. How was that "cheating"?? He did it in full view of everyone - knowing the consequences - and the laws of the game were followed correctly and to the letter - penalty/sending off/ one match ban. I would want someone in my team to do the exact same thing in a team i was supporting.................
 
In rugby, which is miles ahead of football in terms of rules/discipline/technology, preventing a "certain try" is punishable by a Penalty try/conversion from under the posts/sin binning...........

It might be simplistic, but Rugby is a much fairer sport therefore......just ask Ghana.
 
So until Football gets serious about justice on the field, stop moaning...............

Moaning..?   I'm a bit nonplussed at having that accusation thrown at me.  Rather, I would say I'm attempting to stimulate discussion on a topical subject.  

But in answer to your comments, please allow me to have a non-moan.  In my part of the world, the introduction of technology into rugby was a step backwards which has caused annoyance to a lot of fans.  Rugby fans being the people they are, are usually quite happy to accept the on field referee's decision and just get on with the game.  But now, games are often held up for a verrrrrry long time while the TMO goes over whether or not a 'try' was grounded or some such issue and the crowd gets bored, the players are standing around getting cold and everybody gets quite fed up with it all until the refmike that we can all hear comes back and says  "I can see no reason to disallow the try".  Well, thanks for that.  Can we get on with the game, now.

Not only that, but referees are calling for replays on even more tries now, for incidents that may (or may not) have occurred four or five phases back.  Players are encouraged to run to referees and cajole them into referring to the TMO in the hope that something..... anything.... please, dear Lord, let something have happened so we can get that try disallowed.   Frankly, it's getting ridiculous.

As for Suarez in the world cup, yes, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment.  The situation was handled correctly and according to the rules.  What leaves a bad taste in the mouth is the behaviour of Suarez after Uruguay won that match and progressed to the Semi Final.  He looked so pleased with himself.   So smug and glad that he had just become a hero in his homeland for doing something quite reprehensible.  You said that you would want one of your players to do that for your team.  Well, that is a matter of conscience.  I think your interpretation of 'sport' and mine differ and we should agree to disagree on that.

Perhaps though, the hero worship he received in Uruguay for that incident, the acceptance and approval of the act, has contributed to the gifted, but flawed individual we see scoring marvellous goals, but throwing himself around pitches all over the Premiership today.  

I agree your comment that rugby is way ahead of on-field discipline but it always has been.  That's the benefit of a game that was (almost) completely amateur for so long.  But I have noticed a deterioration in recent years there, too.  Professionalism.... professionalism.....

I don't think penalty goals could be introduced into football.  We see the behaviour of players now when they are attempting to get a penalty kick (the outcome of which is not certain).  Imagine how things would get if the possibility of a penalty goal was on the table...!!

I also agree that football should get more serious about sportsmanship and justice, but as I said in a previous post, the game has so completely sold out to mammon now, and I'm not at all sure the standards are being set by FIFA any more.  

Football's problems are many and varied, and I'm interested in discussing the views being put forward on this thread.   But moaning..?   You misunderstand me, sir.

Fourth Lion,
 
Firstly, forgive me - i was not having a specific go at you or your post in relation to my "stop moaning" comment......i meant that as a general go at those in FIFA who abhor "cheating", yet won't allow the laws of the game to be updated in order to stamp it out.........
 
Secondly, i have never seen a rugby TMO call have to go 4 or 5 phases back. In fact, i don't think that's allowed. I think TMO referrals are exciting and justice is done..............
 
Finally, while i abhor a lot of things Suarez has done, i have no problem with his celebrations after they beat Ghana, none whatsoever. What he did was part of the game - he didn't foul anyone - what he simply did was done to help them win - had he jumped out of the way and let it in, he wouldn't have been doing his job for the team. How was it "reprehensible". Had a player been one on one with the keeper, and was fouled by the keeper - would that have been "reprehensible" too.  
 
IMO, it would have been reprehensible not to make the save with his hand - and let Ghana take their chances with a penalty.
 
I see no reason why a law couldn't be introduced to allow a "goal" in the same way as a penalty try is awarded in rugby.

Very interesting article and thread.

Being of a similar generation as Fourth Lion and having identified with several themes in some of his other posts, not too surprising that I'm largely with him on this. A few random thoughts:

* As well as the hatchet men of the 1970s already mentioned, I would also throw in the name of Kenny Burns. If anyone is in any doubt about the genius of Brian Clough as a football manager, they should chart the career of Kenneth Burns (as Clough referred to him). A player who looked more likely to end up in a prison cell than a double European Cup winner before Clough got hold of him at Forest.

* Thuggish though they were, there was a strange sort of honesty as to how these defenders went about their business. It was known what they were about and little attempt to disguise it.

* I would though point out that not all strikers were angelic role models during this era. Francis Lee of Manchester City, in particular, had a reputation for collapsing like a sack of spuds whenever a defender went near him in the penalty area.

* Fourth Lion may be right but I was surprised to see him referring to less goals being scored in the past. I remember Bob Latchford at Everton scoring 30 goals in one season in the late '70s. That may not be particularly representative but it does show that the onion bag could still be found with some success back then - Latchford was hard working and effective but a long way off from being a great.

* I share Fourth Lion's concrns about technology being introduced. Mainly, I fear it breaking up the game too much. Once it starts, I fear it will soon go too far and being overly disruptive. ''Use just for goal line decisions'', many say. That's understandable but what if the replay shows the ball crossed the line from a handball by the attacker and not a header? Cover that as well? What if the cross for a legimate header came from a corner that should have been a goal kick? Nothing in life is perfect despite SKY's continuing attempts to persuade us otherwise. SKY have the time and the money to replay every incident they wish from an almost infinite number of angles; however, when they do, the ''experts' don't always agree. I'm not uncomfortable with trusting the decision made in good faith by a properly trained ref.

* Interesting dialogue between Fourth Lion and John as to whether something can be ''reprehensible'' regardless of the rules of the game. This came up on the cricket boards a while back concerning Greg Chappell ordering his brother to bowl under arm in an ODI; totally out of order in my book although permitted by the rules. Some raised the possibility of double standards on my part when I soon after supported Larwood's 'bodyline'' bowling. Possibly fair comment but, for my part, aggression can be acceptable if there is some degree of equality between the opponents and it doesn't lead to physical bullying of an obviously inferior individual. Thus, Hunter trying to hack Osgood in the 1970 FA Cup Final concerns me less than a modern day striker scheming for a penalty and a card for his marker. Appreciate others may be of a different view.

* Wonderful YouTube compilation. Good to see The Lawman at or near his pomp - a bit overlooked now. The show though rightly stolen by Best - so often today, a striker would go down in the box when similarly challenged rather than going on to score as Best did. A flawed person but a brilliant, brilliant footballer. My great-uncle was a pro footballer throughout the 1920s and into the early '30s. That gave his opinions more credibility in my young ears than they probably deserved but he still knew and understood the game. I remember chatting to him in the very late 1970s as he looked back on the last sixty years of football that he had played and seen. If not the absolute best, he was convinced that Best was one of the best two ever to have played English football.

guildfordbat wrote:
Francis Lee of Manchester City, in particular, had a reputation for collapsing like a sack of spuds

Those that are more unkind might say that was because he looked like a sack of spuds!  

That was an enjoyable and nostalgic YouTube compilation I agree, thanks for that Lion. Going off topic a bit but one of the things that struck me was the size of the crowds and just how tightly packed in the spectators were. When a goal was scored and everybody behind the goal surged forward in celebration surely there must have been injured people at times!

If Best was one of two Guildford, who was the other one?

Think I saw Kenny Burns' first ever Div 1 game; certainly wouldn't acuse him of being the thug that guildford portrays - you're not getting him mixed up with Gary Pendrey are you??!!??

Bob Latchford was a star, he and the very very young Trevor Francis like poertry in motion working together, albeit with untimely interruptions of PFA Chief Gordon Taylor on the wing.

But I digress. Yellow cards for diving are ridiculous - "I can see you're a cheating toerag but I can't send you on your way and I'll probably award a penalty next time".
Best thing would be to never give Suarez, Young, the rest of 'em a free kick, let alone a penalty. They'd soon get the message.

George Best was great, but Eddie Gray almost in the same class, and Charlie Cooke not far behind. Great 14-minute compilation, THANKS!

kwinigolfer wrote:Think I saw Kenny Burns' first ever Div 1 game; certainly wouldn't acuse him of being the thug that guildford portrays - you're not getting him mixed up with Gary Pendrey are you??!!??

Bob Latchford was a star, he and the very very young Trevor Francis like poertry in motion working together, albeit with untimely interruptions of PFA Chief Gordon Taylor on the wing.

But I digress. Yellow cards for diving are ridiculous - "I can see you're a cheating toerag but I can't send you on your way and I'll probably award a penalty next time".
Best thing would be to never give Suarez, Young, the rest of 'em a free kick, let alone a penalty. They'd soon get the message.

George Best was great, but Eddie Gray almost in the same class, and Charlie Cooke not far behind. Great 14-minute compilation, THANKS!

I'm possibly being influenced by a few off field antics but I still stand by my view of Burns. Mind you, Pendrey was a hard nut as well. My uncle, an ENT specialist at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Brum, once reset his nose!

Gray was certainly a class act on the pitch but sadly spent too much time on the physio's couch.

BlueCoverman wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:
Francis Lee of Manchester City, in particular, had a reputation for collapsing like a sack of spuds

Those that are more unkind might say that was because he looked like a sack of spuds!   

That was an enjoyable and nostalgic YouTube compilation I agree, thanks for that Lion. Going off topic a bit but one of the things that struck me was the size of the crowds and just how tightly packed in the spectators were. When a goal was scored and everybody behind the goal surged forward in celebration surely there must have been injured people at times!

If Best was one of two Guildford, who was the other one?

Cheers, BlueCoverman. Neat comment about Lee's looks!  

Sorry, I did leave ''the other one of the best two'' rather hanging. The player was the now almost unknown Hughie Gallacher, a contemporary of my great-uncle which may have overly influenced him although a quick scan tonight on the web confirms there was at least some some basis to his reasoning. From wiki, ''Hugh Kilpatrick ''Hughie'' Gallacher (2 February 1903 - 11 June 1957) was a Scottish football player in the 1920s and 1930s. In 624 senior games, Gallacher scored 463 times.
Gallacher lacked height and weight. However, he had excellent ball control, guile and instinct, being able to go past opposing defenders with ease. Although a mere 5' 5'', he was a handful for any defence as he possessed awesome strike power. Gallacher could shoot with either foot, dribble with the ball, head, tackle and forage. There were four occasions when he scored five goals in a game. He also made chances for other players.
He is one of the Scotland national football team's most prolific goalscorers with 23 goals from his 20 internationals ...''.

Gallacher spent the majority of his career at Airdree, Newcastle and Chelsea. As regards his international performances, only Denis Law (The Lawman, as flagged earlier) and Kenny Dalglish have scored more goals for Scotland (and in many more games). After the end of his playing days, Gallacher fell on hard times. Following the early death of his wife and with a court case to be held concerning alleged mistreatment of his son, he committed suicide by walking in front of an oncoming express train. He was 54.

I still find the furore over diving hilarious. Breaking the rules has happened in football forever. Just give them a card like you would for a clear trip to break up an attack. Personally, I've done half dives. Did one on Tuesday, player flew at me and was gonna catch me, I had to spin fast to get out the way and went down with his slight contact even though I didnt need to.

My main problem isnt diving, its feigning injury. Snodgrass pretending to get stamped on by Joey O'Brien in our recent game annoys me far more than when Etherington dived in the cup quarter finals a few years ago to win a pen.

If you wanna deal with cheating, cut out the Poopie defenders get away with on set pieces. Always remember a sunday league game where a centre back wouldnt let go of me as a freekick was being taken. I stopped and just said "will you get the Frak off" and he laughed and said "its what we do". We both just accepted that he was right. I liked that guy, but really hes happily fouling me all day long. Breaking the rules. On purpose. Like a dive.

guildfordbat wrote:Very interesting article and thread.


* I would though point out that not all strikers were angelic role models during this era. Francis Lee of Manchester City, in particular, had a reputation for collapsing like a sack of spuds whenever a defender went near him in the penalty area.

I would love to respond to all of your comments, Guildford, but that might look too much like sycophancy. Yes, I remember Bob Latchford and I remember him winning a £10'000 prize in that season, for being the first player in umpteen years to score 30 league goals in a single season.

Regarding Franny Lee, I recall the 71/72 season when he scored a record 13 penalties in one season and the way in which this was reported in many papers was that Lee had won them all in dubious circumstances. Not so. Check out this from a foggy November afternoon in 1971 (I remember this incident because I was there)


This was written up by the London Evening Standard as "Yet another suspect penalty won by Francis Lee." Lee can be seen in the clip some 20 yards away from the incident. This sort of reporting dogged him all season. He didn't win them all, but blimey.... he didn't 'arf know how to put 'em away..!!

Or how about this one from the last day of that season:



Again, written up at the time as a Lee dive (I wasn't at this game, but it was shown on MOTD).

I enjoyed your comments and as we seem to be contemporaries, I'm appreciate your contributions from a similar standpoint in time. But doesn't it just go to show how press reporting can influence a particular point of view regarding some things, when the evidence of one's eyes says differently.

Thanks, Fourth Lion.

You make a good case for Lee and an even better one as to the influence of the media on our perceptions. That's what bugs me about SKY as they try to convince us that we should expect perfection. That's just not possible in so many ways and, in my view, isn't that desireable anyway.

Of course, all reasonable attempts should be undertaken to improve the quality of decision making - in particular, the training and fitness of referees. However, it shouldn't be overlooked that football as well as being a game of skill is also one of character. The response to the odd dodgy decision is a part of that and always has been. I believe many need to be careful what they are wishing for.

At risk of sycophancy myself, I really like your YOUTube clips. I never thought I would hear Ada Coker's name again. Had his five minutes of fame and, for all I know, may well be pushing it now to be a household name in his own house!

Anyway, a board and a game of opinions. Btw, your's - from the Lionel thread - about ''the greatest goal of all time'' is unquestionably correct.

I always find it baffling how some think that using technology will disimprove the game....slowing it down.

Football is stop/start by it's very nature , and having the decisions referred will stop a lot of the "carry on" associated with contentious decisions anyway.........less dissent etc.

Surely it's worth a try for a 1 season trial in one league only.......

It will probably take an "Henry" type incident in a Champions League Final or similar type game to get FIFA to move, although Korea benefitted from horrendous refereeing decisions in 2002 at the expense of Spain & Italy and FIFA were unmoved

John - my ''stop/start'' concerns stem from the fact that - unlike, say, cricket - the occurrences and timing of the stopping and starting in football are unknown. Even in cricket, such stoppages are not without controversy and frustration. Technological breaks in football will to my mind break up and disrupt the game more, decreasing the chances of an oft desired ''good, flowing game''.

I also see the chance of a riot when City claim the ball crossed the line for a goal, the ref disagrees and waves play on, United go up the other end and find the onion onion bag only for the ref to have to say, ''Sorry chaps, scrub those last 30 seconds, it's City's goal after all!''. I suspect the consequences of that would be more ''horrendous'' than some of the matters you're trying to rectify.

guildfordbat wrote:John - my ''stop/start'' concerns stem from the fact that - unlike, say, cricket - the occurrences and timing of the stopping and starting in football are unknown. Even in cricket, such stoppages are not without controversy and frustration. Technological breaks in football will to my mind break up and disrupt the game more, decreasing the chances of an oft desired ''good, flowing game''.

I also see the chance of a riot when City claim the ball crossed the line for a goal, the ref disagrees and waves play on, United go up the other end and find the onion onion bag only for the ref to have to say, ''Sorry chaps, scrub those last 30 seconds, it's City's goal after all!''. I suspect the consequences of that would be more ''horrendous'' than some of the matters you're trying to rectify.

I see no issue with your scenario.........albeit, the chances of it happening are what........once every 10 years??

Your point basically is that if a goal is scored eg like Frank Lampard scored in WC 2010, and a referee decides to seek goalline technology when the ball next goes dead, which in this case is a a goal for Germany, that you would be more comfortable with a 3-1 to Germany scoreline than a 2-2 draw.

Having a just outcome and recognising a perfectly valid goal would be "horrendous"??

John - I feel you're leading the jury too much there with a few giant leap conclusions being tagged on to my comments and sentiments.

I've never claimed the current situation is without fault. The Lampard ''goal'' being ruled out was a travesty. You shouldn't though need technology to prevent something like that happening. Just a decent ref with efficient lineos who are prepared to stick their heads above the parapet. I've already flagged the importance of that.

Yes, technology would have made the above incident better and fairer. It's all the other less clearer incidents and their effect that I wonder about. Hence, my questioning as to where will it end and being careful as to what you wish for.

Guildford,

You were the one making the "giant leap" by inventing a scenario whereby a goal would be scored at the other end of the field following an incident where a ball was over the line, but deemed by the ref NOT to be a goal..........and a subsequent "riot".

Saying "decent" refs and "efficient" linos can sort things is simply "head in the sand" stuff...............

John - I just don't see the seriousness of the current problem that you and SKY tell me about but do foresee the game over all suffering from a surfeit of technology. Maybe that's ''head in the sand'' stuff but, in my defence, I do go back before football was invented.  

Gentlemen......

Whilst John makes very valid points, and I can understand where he is coming from, I would have to say that, for what my humble opinion is worth, I'm broadly in agreement with Guildford.

Firstly though, I might remind you that we now have goal line technology in place and I think that the way in which it has been done is both useful and appropriate.... in this instance.

The goal line is monitored by several cameras which are able to conclusively prove whether or not 100% of the ball has completely crossed the line.  If this happens, the referee's specially adapted wristwatch will flash and beep (audio and visual signal) thus informing him that a goal has been scored.  No signal = no goal.  

In this way, the referee can make an accurate decision instantly and the players can have confidence that if the ref calls "play on", then they should quit their appealing and get on with the game.  

This is a sensible use of technology and I personally consider it both useful and appropriate.   However, I do not believe that would be the case if the technology were applied to instances such as offside, foul play, etc.  

In the case of goal line calls, the goal is a static object which can be effectively monitored and an instant decision is possible.  The 'Offside Line' moves up and down the pitch and the technology to produce such an instant decision either does not exist or is so expensive / cumbersome as to be unworkable in a spectator sport.  Who wants to sit behind a machine that runs the length of the pitch..??   The offside lines we see on TV today, take a relatively long time to produce and are only 'virtual' images anyway.  They wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

As for foul play.... that is so subjective that a TV replay would only be a guide at best.  Such situations would surely affect the flow of the game as Guildford.... in my opinion.... rightly suggests.

Perhaps the only way in which such things could be effective would be if both teams were allowed one 'challenge' to a refereeing decision per half, and to be only made when play has been stopped for a playing reason (ball out of play, goal scored, whatever).  If the challenge is successful, then the situation is adjusted accordingly, if not, the actual state of things remain.  Simple.

Unfortunately, that then raises the spectre of what happens if a team has already used up their challenge, and the ref subsequently makes a howler.  With no further challenge available, it could not be corrected and that would lead to anger.... sense of injustice.... yada, yada, yada.  

I think this makes the point that technology, whilst it is a boon to TV viewers, and can be useful in some situations, is not a panacea to all of football's ills and we should be wary of thinking it so.  

As I think the point has already been made... we should be careful of what we wish for because sometimes, we get it.



PS.... Yes, I remember Ade Coker too.  He burst on the scene, scoring a couple of goals for West Ham at Crystal Palace (another game I was at.  Damn, I spent so much time at football matches as a young man.  Life was hell) and as you say, shone brightly for a while and then faded.  

Also, did you note the way the West Ham players, particularly Billy Bonds, manhandled and pushed the referee at that penalty incident.   I wonder what Paolo di Canio would make of that..?

I would like to think that Billy Bonds would probably long ago killed Paolo if they had been in the same team

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I would like to think that Billy Bonds would probably long ago killed Paolo if they had been in the same team

<laughing>.  I think you're right, Dolphin.  In a 'last man standing' situation, I would have backed Bonzo over di Canio any day.  

My comment though, was intended as a (slightly humorous) reference to the incident when di Canio, as a Sheffield Wednesday player, received a lengthy ban for pushing a referee to the ground, whereas in the clip I attached, Bonds pushes the official several times and isn't so much as shown a yellow card.

Referees were made of tougher stuff too, in those days, it would seem.

The Fourth Lion wrote:These players consider it a success to reduce the number of opponents on the pitch by nefarious means.  We cannot say the game is any more sporting than it was in the days of the hatchet men.  In my opinion, it is less so.  Such behaviour is cowardly and makes a mockery of football’s claim to be called a sporting contest.

All cheating is wrong and violence on the field is not acceptable, but at least the physical brutes of the 1970’s were open and ‘up front’ about what they did.   In their thuggish way, there was a sort of manly honesty about them.

I can see your point, but I just can't agree that diving is worse than hacking. So far as I can tell, the difference between diving to try to get a man sent off and trying to kick him out of the game is purely that one has violent intent. I'd also be hesitant to unprovoked assaults as 'manly'. In fact, quite the opposite - I've rarely seen anything so cowardly as the Cameroon team's series of assaults on Claudio Caniggia for example.

It seems to me that these sorts of issues tend to be cyclical - an issue is identified and rules are changed to mitigate against it. In turn, this creates another problem. So it is here, where harsher punishment of fouls has created a problem with diving.

I think the solution is pretty simple. Diving has to be punished as severely as hacking. By the laws of the game, diving should be an automatic yellow. However, I've lost count of the number of games where obvious dives (where the player goes to ground under no/ minimal contact and then appeals for a penalty, or where a player goes down like he's dying only to jump up when not awarded a free-kick) have just been met by the referee waving play on.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:These players consider it a success to reduce the number of opponents on the pitch by nefarious means.  We cannot say the game is any more sporting than it was in the days of the hatchet men.  In my opinion, it is less so.  Such behaviour is cowardly and makes a mockery of football’s claim to be called a sporting contest.

All cheating is wrong and violence on the field is not acceptable, but at least the physical brutes of the 1970’s were open and ‘up front’ about what they did.   In their thuggish way, there was a sort of manly honesty about them.

I can see your point, but I just can't agree that diving is worse than hacking. So far as I can tell, the difference between diving to try to get a man sent off and trying to kick him out of the game is purely that one has violent intent. I'd also be hesitant to unprovoked assaults as 'manly'. In fact, quite the opposite - I've rarely seen anything so cowardly as the Cameroon team's series of assaults on Claudio Caniggia for example.

It seems to me that these sorts of issues tend to be cyclical - an issue is identified and rules are changed to mitigate against it. In turn, this creates another problem. So it is here, where harsher punishment of fouls has created a problem with diving.

I think the solution is pretty simple. Diving has to be punished as severely as hacking. By the laws of the game, diving should be an automatic yellow. However, I've lost count of the number of games where obvious dives (where the player goes to ground under no/ minimal contact and then appeals for a penalty, or where a player goes down like he's dying only to jump up when not awarded a free-kick) have just been met by the referee waving play on.

Very good points, Jeremy and well made.  

Of course, my reference to manliness was not intended to infer that the act of putting the boot in is a noble act of masculinity, rather that those who indulged in the practice did it, not in a sly way, but right out loud for all to see.  In the main, they would also take whatever whacks came their way without complaint.  The rule of "If you dish it out, you have to take it, too" seemed to apply (mostly) according to my recollections.

At least it made for a robust game where players were required to "stand up and be counted" rather than skulking around the field, waiting for an opportunity to do something underhand and snide.

But I stress.... I do not condone such things, I'm merely making the comparison between then and now and asking the question:  Which is worse.

I like your use of the word "hacking", by the way.  As a boy I learned my rugby at Blackheath RFC, and anybody who knows the history of football should know what that means...!!  

But I digress.  I agree your point about unfair practices being cyclical.  Most of us who can remember right the way back to the pointless.... useless.... "Four step rule" for goalkeepers can only smile now when we see goalkeepers take possession of the ball and hold it for long periods of time.  So yes.... things do tend to come full circle in the end.

By the way, giving a caution for diving is covered in law 12 under the category of "Unsportsmanlike Conduct", so players can be (and in the case of Ashley Young against Crystal Palace this season, are) yellow carded for it. That is a matter for referee's discretion as to what he considers to be "simulation", so the penalties for diving do already exist.

More serious penalties for diving offenders..?   I would love to see it, however, the footballing authorities are probably too scared of the controversy that such a directive to referees would cause.  The media would have a field day.... it would be open season on referees.... with managers claiming that they are losing players at critical parts of the season.... the rule is being applied inconsistently..... that referees are singling out star players for trophy bookings.....   We've heard it all before.  Rote responses to leading questions from interviewers that persist and are gobbled up by pundits and journos who feed off them avidly.

The managers, coaches, pundits and commentators would blame everybody but the players that are doing the cheating.  And then there are the fans.  They're the worst of the lot.

So as much as I would like to see referees take a firm hand with players who dive, it would only take one high-profile match where five or six players are booked.... or even with a couple double yellowed and sent off...... and all hell would break loose in the media.  And we've seen in the past how the FA crack when put under pressure.  Any "refereeing revolution" on diving is likely to be short lived.

Diving is an insidious sickness because what is now seen as an unpleasant, underhand and sneaky thing to do will eventually become the accepted norm.  Some say it already is.  

Where will it go from there..?

The Fourth Lion wrote:Very good points, Jeremy and well made.  

Of course, my reference to manliness was not intended to infer that the act of putting the boot in is a noble act of masculinity, rather that those who indulged in the practice did it, not in a sly way, but right out loud for all to see.  In the main, they would also take whatever whacks came their way without complaint.  The rule of "If you dish it out, you have to take it, too" seemed to apply (mostly) according to my recollections.

At least it made for a robust game where players were required to "stand up and be counted" rather than skulking around the field, waiting for an opportunity to do something underhand and snide.

But I stress.... I do not condone such things, I'm merely making the comparison between then and now and asking the question:  Which is worse.

I like your use of the word "hacking", by the way.  As a boy I learned my rugby at Blackheath RFC, and anybody who knows the history of football should know what that means...!!  

But I digress.  I agree your point about unfair practices being cyclical.  Most of us who can remember right the way back to the pointless.... useless.... "Four step rule" for goalkeepers can only smile now when we see goalkeepers take possession of the ball and hold it for long periods of time.  So yes.... things do tend to come full circle in the end.

By the way, giving a caution for diving is covered in law 12 under the category of "Unsportsmanlike Conduct", so players can be (and in the case of Ashley Young against Crystal Palace this season, are) yellow carded for it. That is a matter for referee's discretion as to what he considers to be "simulation", so the penalties for diving do already exist.

More serious penalties for diving offenders..?   I would love to see it, however, the footballing authorities are probably too scared of the controversy that such a directive to referees would cause.  The media would have a field day.... it would be open season on referees.... with managers claiming that they are losing players at critical parts of the season.... the rule is being applied inconsistently..... that referees are singling out star players for trophy bookings.....   We've heard it all before.  Rote responses to leading questions from interviewers that persist and are gobbled up by pundits and journos who feed off them avidly.

The managers, coaches, pundits and commentators would blame everybody but the players that are doing the cheating.  And then there are the fans.  They're the worst of the lot.

So as much as I would like to see referees take a firm hand with players who dive, it would only take one high-profile match where five or six players are booked.... or even with a couple double yellowed and sent off...... and all hell would break loose in the media.  And we've seen in the past how the FA crack when put under pressure.  Any "refereeing revolution" on diving is likely to be short lived.

Diving is an insidious sickness because what is now seen as an unpleasant, underhand and sneaky thing to do will eventually become the accepted norm.  Some say it already is.  

Where will it go from there..?

My apologies - I did create something of a straw-man of your argument with reference to the masculinity angle. In fact, I have some degree of sympathy with your point - there is something rather sniveling about diving. That said, from a purely logical perspective, I really think the only moral difference between the two is the violence inherent in hacking. To me, both actions are, at best, cynical cheating of players who don't back their ability in a situation, or at worst, the disgraceful strategy of trying to take an opponent out of the game.

That said, I think that reminiscences about players dishing it out, but being willing to take it too are somewhat missing the point. Why would a player who is less talented, but more violent not be willing for the game to descend into a kicking contest? I've always believed that you should never fight a man uglier than yourself, because he has less to lose. Similarly, football loses as a spectacle when skillful players have to resort to thuggery in order to defend themselves. I frankly despise players diving to con the ref, but I'll take that any day over seeing a player who can't deal with the skill of his opponent decide to simply kick him out the game instead. See Pele in '66 for an example - this demonstrates why I think hacking is worse than diving - where it represented an attempt to take out another player, it usually involved deliberate targeting of an individual.

As you point out, both actions are legislated against. However, I believe that punishments for diving are very rarely enforced. Unlike you, I believe that stronger enforcement of the penalties against diving would work. As much as managers may protest bad decisions, they would have no leg to stand on in most cases as the evidence would be freely available.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:Very good points, Jeremy and well made.  

Of course, my reference to manliness was not intended to infer that the act of putting the boot in is a noble act of masculinity, rather that those who indulged in the practice did it, not in a sly way, but right out loud for all to see.  In the main, they would also take whatever whacks came their way without complaint.  The rule of "If you dish it out, you have to take it, too" seemed to apply (mostly) according to my recollections.

At least it made for a robust game where players were required to "stand up and be counted" rather than skulking around the field, waiting for an opportunity to do something underhand and snide.

But I stress.... I do not condone such things, I'm merely making the comparison between then and now and asking the question:  Which is worse.

I like your use of the word "hacking", by the way.  As a boy I learned my rugby at Blackheath RFC, and anybody who knows the history of football should know what that means...!!  

But I digress.  I agree your point about unfair practices being cyclical.  Most of us who can remember right the way back to the pointless.... useless.... "Four step rule" for goalkeepers can only smile now when we see goalkeepers take possession of the ball and hold it for long periods of time.  So yes.... things do tend to come full circle in the end.

By the way, giving a caution for diving is covered in law 12 under the category of "Unsportsmanlike Conduct", so players can be (and in the case of Ashley Young against Crystal Palace this season, are) yellow carded for it. That is a matter for referee's discretion as to what he considers to be "simulation", so the penalties for diving do already exist.

More serious penalties for diving offenders..?   I would love to see it, however, the footballing authorities are probably too scared of the controversy that such a directive to referees would cause.  The media would have a field day.... it would be open season on referees.... with managers claiming that they are losing players at critical parts of the season.... the rule is being applied inconsistently..... that referees are singling out star players for trophy bookings.....   We've heard it all before.  Rote responses to leading questions from interviewers that persist and are gobbled up by pundits and journos who feed off them avidly.

The managers, coaches, pundits and commentators would blame everybody but the players that are doing the cheating.  And then there are the fans.  They're the worst of the lot.

So as much as I would like to see referees take a firm hand with players who dive, it would only take one high-profile match where five or six players are booked.... or even with a couple double yellowed and sent off...... and all hell would break loose in the media.  And we've seen in the past how the FA crack when put under pressure.  Any "refereeing revolution" on diving is likely to be short lived.

Diving is an insidious sickness because what is now seen as an unpleasant, underhand and sneaky thing to do will eventually become the accepted norm.  Some say it already is.  

Where will it go from there..?

My apologies - I did create something of a straw-man of your argument with reference to the masculinity angle. In fact, I have some degree of sympathy with your point - there is something rather sniveling about diving. That said, from a purely logical perspective, I really think the only moral difference between the two is the violence inherent in hacking. To me, both actions are, at best, cynical cheating of players who don't back their ability in a situation, or at worst, the disgraceful strategy of trying to take an opponent out of the game.

That said, I think that reminiscences about players dishing it out, but being willing to take it too are somewhat missing the point. Why would a player who is less talented, but more violent not be willing for the game to descend into a kicking contest? I've always believed that you should never fight a man uglier than yourself, because he has less to lose. Similarly, football loses as a spectacle when skillful players have to resort to thuggery in order to defend themselves. I frankly despise players diving to con the ref, but I'll take that any day over seeing a player who can't deal with the skill of his opponent decide to simply kick him out the game instead. See Pele in '66 for an example - this demonstrates why I think hacking is worse than diving - where it represented an attempt to take out another player, it usually involved deliberate targeting of an individual.

As you point out, both actions are legislated against. However, I believe that punishments for diving are very rarely enforced. Unlike you, I believe that stronger enforcement of the penalties against diving would work. As much as managers may protest bad decisions, they would have no leg to stand on in most cases as the evidence would be freely available.

I'm enjoying this.  A discussion..!! Excellent.

Well, I must say I agree with all the points you make, at least to a degree.  I do take your point that it does denigrate the game when a less talented player deliberately hacks another more skilful one out of a game, and yes, I remember Pele in '66.  I watched all the games of that tournament avidly and was quite shocked at the treatment handed out to him.  I also remember how FIFA put pressure on the FA to withdraw Nobby Stiles from the England squad after one very hard tackle on a French player in a group match.  Alf Ramsey threatened to resign if Stiles had to withdraw and the players all sided with Alf and said if he went, they would too.  And in the middle of a World Cup at that..!!

The FIFA and the FA backed down.  

So, what does that say about the values of the time..?  An entire squad prepared to walk out on their home world cup, to back up a manager who supported a player who had made a terrible foul.... and it really was a shocker.... The point I am trying to make here is that there was a completely different ethos to the game at that time.  It was called a "Man's Game".  It was a "Physical Contact Sport".   The prevailing attitude was that if you couldn't take it, don't cross the white line in the first place.

Did skill flourish..?  You bet it did.  George Best..... Pele..... Puskas.... Di Stefano..... just to name four.  There were others.  The Italian league was the hardest of the lot, but Greaves, Law, Charles and others all went there and did well.  They didn't wince at the thought of some rough stuff.  

Is the game being sanitised..?  Well, there has to be an argument for that and I can see the point that it is helping skill to flourish but there is another side to that coin and that is the argument that the game is now being made "artificial" and "plastic".   That it's not really football any more.  Given that defenders are deterred from tackling because the slightest mis-timing, whether intentional or otherwise, is likely to not only give away a free kick, but carries the strong possibility of at least a yellow card... with a red not entirely unlikely if the offended team can put enough pressure on the referee.  Indeed, a defender even making so much as the appearance of a tackle is enough encouragement to send an attacker tumbling to the ground.  No wonder so many goals are being scored.  Nobody dares try to prevent them..!!

We talk of "skill" but how much of that is real skill and how much is merely a case of players who would be quite ordinary in another era looking better than they are today simply because all the conditions are so heavily loaded in their favour..?

Lightweight footballs that don't fly true, so encouraging players to shoot from all distances and angles knowing that dip, swing and swerve will more likely beat the goalkeeper than the inherent merit of the shot itself..... bowling lawn pitches the likes of which 60's players could never have dreamed of playing on.... defenders that back off and daren't tackle.....

I sometimes wonder how George Best would have fared in the modern game.  With nobody kicking his legs from underneath him, a perfect surface to weave his skills on, and a light-as-a-feather beach ball at his feet, we can only speculate how good he would have been.

On the other hand, perhaps all these advantages might have made him lazy.  It might have been too easy.  Unchallenging.  At a club like Manchester United he could have sat back and enjoyed a 15 year career of hoovering up medals without really trying.  Rather than be a greater player, he might very well have been a lesser one for want of a challenging environment.  And the thought occurs to me at times, how many current players might be better than they are if they were faced with more difficult challenges..... to HAVE to face adversity.... to HAVE to run at defenders who you know are going to try to knock lumps off you, and knowing that falling to the floor and grizzling your eyes out would only bring scorn, contempt and ridicule on you from fans and players alike.

You say you prefer the divers to the brutes.  Fair enough.  That is your choice.  But personally I'm not so sure.  For all it's visceral nastiness, the game had a gladiatorial edge which stirred the blood. It was sometimes quite ugly, but it weren't 'arf exciting to watch.

Football now is becoming too technical and tactics-focused for me.  There is so much emphasis on set-pieces, especially around the edge of the penalty area.  Matches are looking so "same-ish".  On the face of it, the passing is great but we now see moves of twenty... twenty five passes where the ball doesn't move more than fifteen yards from where it started.  We get corner kicks where, within three touches of the kick being taken, it gets passed back to the goalkeeper.  Teams would rather keep possession than take a risk and try something spontaneous or "off the wall".  Frankly, you could put eleven robots on the pitch and nobody would notice.

I listen to people talk, and I read posts on here, and the conversation is all about what formation a team will play this Saturday, or who will be playing in what role, or whether so-and-so manager will rotate his squad.   Bloody hell.... where's the football..?

We used to drool over the thought of West Ham v Man Utd, not in terms of a diamond formation or a Christmas tree, or one up front or having an option on the bench to bring in a player to "sit in front of the back four if we're 1 - 0 up with 20 minutes to go".   We used to think of Bobby Moore vs George Best....  Geoff Hurst vs Nobby Stiles.  Personal confrontation.  Midfield battlers like Paddy Crerand or creators like Johnny Giles at Leeds.  The gifted ones, like Colin Bell or Tony Curry or even the extraordinary flamboyant talents of a Frank Worthington.   It was often said that it was impossible to tell what Frank would do next because even he didn't know, himself.

Those players flourished in a time when the game was hard and dogged and results sometimes had to be toughed out with sleeves-rolled-up determination.  Now, when a team gets into trouble, the players don't have the faintest clue what to do about it.  If the tactical plan isn't working, they're baffled.  I can't recall to mind the last time I ever saw a player grab a losing game by the scruff of the neck and take charge.  

No.... what they do, is turn to the manager to make a substitution to change the game.  He'll bring on a player who is briefed on the touchline with a plethora of charts, schematics and tactical plan sheets before stepping onto the pitch.  It probably took less tactical organisation for the paras to attack Goose Green than it does to play a football match today.  Bill Shankley once sent Emlyn Hughes on as a substitute with the simple instruction  "Get stuck intae 'em" ringing in his ears.  That was all the tactics he needed.

Perhaps I'm just getting old and looking back.... not through rose tinted glasses I hope, but with my eyes wide open.  I knew the game for what it was and I think something important has been lost.  Football used to have a beating heart of red meat.  It's now becoming a fairy cake.  Football Lite.  

Yeah........ Football Lite.   Sums it up for me.