A round up of articles and blog postings from the last week.
This piece should have been last week’s post but somehow it was missed. Tom Williams looks at how French teams have embraced 4-2-3-1.
On piece on pioneer Arthur Wharton by John Edwards in the Daily Mail in the week that Ghana played at Wembley for the first time.
Paul Gardner is not impressed with Bob Bradley…no news of how Bob feels about the man who must consider the tag curmudgeon as a compliment.
Could it be that Dick Advocaat might a big mistake in leaving Belgium to take over Russia?
A David Rocastle tribute on Arsenal.com on the 10th anniversary on his death.
An article in the Globe and Mail business section that discusses BMO‘s support of soccer in Canada.
Gareth Wheeler writes in the Toronto Sun on the Dwayne De Rosario trade – did he or didn’t he?
This four part interview and feature on Thierry Henry by Sky Sports was spotted by Bryan.
Quotes“No one is fooling themselves, pretending that MLS is more than that. The fans who are currently overjoyed in Vancouver, and rather unhappy in Toronto, know exactly what they are getting, because they know the sport.”
Stephen Brunt in the Globe and Mail writes on the perpetual debate about where soccer sits in the hierarchy of sports in North America.Sepp Blatter said last week that soccer needs to “fight corruption, and all cheating and discrimination.”
Another Pinocchio moment from Sepp.“Similarly you get people whose argument consists of saying “I’ve been to every game since 1986; therefore I must know better than you.” Well, yes, you do have a better bank of specific knowledge about the club in question, just as a player who argues that he knows better because he’s “played the game” has greater experience of the inside of football than a journalist. But having the resource is not enough; you then have to use it to construct an argument. An army may have more guns than its enemy, but it still has to fire them.”
At what point did the comment that the referee was “technically correct” become a way to insinuate that the official’s decision was wrong? On Saturday during the TFC game against Chivas, Toronto had a goal from Maicon Santos disallowed for offside.
The replay showed that the referee’s assistant was correct in flagging for offside.
TSN colour commentator Jason de Vos and commentator Luke Wileman then attempted to convince us that it was a close call (which it definitely was) and that according to meetings held between the teams and officials that if there was an element of doubt then the doubt should go to the attacker.
Their leap in logic then landed on this one – there was doubt (in their minds) therefore it should be a goal. Gentlemen – just because a call is close and you had doubt it does not mean that there was doubt in the official’s mind.
The official got the call right and should have been praised for making the right decision.
There was then a comment tossed in that although “technically correct” we had similar decisions before and a goal had been allowed.
We have most definitely have but we have also seen them being disallowed. It makes no difference to this decision as the last time I checked precedence was something used in a court of law not on a soccer field.
You can also find other Soccer Report Extra.com contributors on Twitter by following this link.
Please refrain from posting comments that;
The House reserves the right to delete any such comments and to block further participation on the site.