By Adam Appleton
Liverpool’s Champion’s League hopes were dealt a severe blow today as they were defeated by Manchester United.
The Red’s lost 2-1 at Old Trafford in a highly-charged encounter that saw Wayne Rooney score a brace before Luis Suarez struck a consolation goal.
The Uruguayan striker was facing Patrice Evra for the first time since the Frenchman accused him of racist behaviour when the two sides met at Anfield in October.
Having served his subsequent 8-match ban, Suarez then refused to shake Evra’s hand, much to the annoyance of the wing-back. Suarez was then, in-turn, refused handshakes by Ferdinand, Valencia and Welbeck, United’s black players.
There was much surprise when Craig Bellamy and Charlie Adam were only on the bench.
Instead, Liverpool picked the far more defensively-minded options of Downing and Kuyt on the wings, whilst Jay Spearing and Jordan Henderson were both preferred over Scotland international, Adam.
They managed to keep the score-line to 0-0 for half-time despite playing averagely, but in the second half Liverpool really were a disappointment.
Dalglish later admitted that the Red Devil’s were the better team, before angrily defending Suarez, saying: “I think to suggest that (Suarez caused a tense environment) is bang out of order!”
Sir Alex Ferguson countered, branding Suarez a ‘disgrace’ and telling Liverpool to get rid of him.
It was Spearing that was to blame for the second United goal, attempting a risky pass against Valencia, who then broke free and squared to Rooney.
Such mistakes did little to justify Dalglish’s decision to leave out Adam and Bellamy.
It is hard to say that Arsenal, Chelsea, Newcastle or Manchester City would leave out Robin Van Persie, Daniel Sturridge, Demba Ba or Sergio Aguero in any equally big game as Liverpool did with Bellamy.
Only Glen Johnson and Jose Enrique had a good showing, and only when the former was pressing forward.
Steven Gerrard was poor, constantly misplacing passes, Luis Suarez, in spite of his goal, was never going to have his best game, whilst Stewart Downing and Dirk Kuyt were, at times, non-existent down the flanks.
Not only did Liverpool lose, but worse, they deserved to lose because in games with prestige like these you must always pick your strongest side.
But Everton-youth Wayne Rooney saw to this, and you know it’s been a strange day when he comes out with the most philosophical comment: “They are both professionals and that (the handshake incident) is between those two individuals.”
Monday 13 February 2012
Tuesday 7 February 2012
Is Klitschko fight Vitali important for Haye?
By Adam Appleton
It has emerged that David Haye is in talks with Vitali Klitschko in spite of the 31 year-old’s October retirement.
The Bermondsey man has allegedly weighed up his options and is negotiating a meeting with the 40 year old Klitschko.
In his final fight before ‘retirement’, Haye lost weakly to WBO, IBO, IBF and now WBA champion Wladimir Klitschko in a unanimous points decision, giving the Klitschko brother’s all the alphabet heavyweight belts.
As a consequence, Vitali is not likely to be so generous with Haye financially as his brother was for their July bout.
The story of David Haye and the Klitschko brother’s dates back to April 2009 with the brash Londoner ruffling feathers with his trash talk, a fight was arranged but Haye withdrew with a back injury.
Haye also wore the now famous “severed heads” t-shirt to cause further animousity.
The Briton then beat Russian giant Nicolai Valuev on points, claiming the WBA title before defeating John Ruiz and later Audley Harrison in one of the division’s most farcical fights.
With these defences won, Haye appeared the only real threat to the Klitschko’s domination. But this hope was shattered by the tentative performance that came in Hamburg.
Now it seems that Haye has vengeful schemes on fighting Vitali Klitschko.
Reports from both camps say that the contract talks are on hold until after Vitali faces Dereck Chisora on 18th February in Munich, but rumours say a fight could happen in November.
Klitschko’s manager Bernd Boente said: “Vitali wants to finish what his brother didn’t do, meaning knock out David Haye.”
If this is indeed true, the man from Bermondsey has much to fear.
Not only is he challenging the man with the record knockout percentage in heavyweight history, not only the same man who arguably chased Lennox Lewis into retirement, but Vitali can also claim to have never been conclusively beaten.
In the last big heavyweight clash before Haye versus Klitschko, Klitschko was controversially stopped in 6 rounds by Lennox Lewis in Los Angeles in 2003. A deep cut above the left eye caused the stoppage and plans for a rematch were dashed by Lewis’ retirement.
His only other loss occurred when a torn rotator cuff forced his withdrawal against Chris Byrd in 2000. In both these defeats, the German-based Ukrainian was unanimously ahead on the judges scorecards.
In spite of this nine year unbeaten streak, Hall of Fame trainer Emanuel Steward believes Haye’s style could work more effectively against Vitali.
“Vitali is bigger and hits hard but he comes straight in and doesn’t have the same balance and elusive movement as Wladimir, so David might give him a little more trouble.”
Indeed it is a style that got Haye a near-flawless record. Until meeting Klitschko, his only previous loss came against Carl Thompson in 2004 when an over-active Haye threw in the towel by the end of the 5th round.
Should Haye decide to dwell on tales from the past, he might be advised to think better of targeting the arguably superior Klitschko.
Sugar Ray Leonard and Muhammad Ali succumbed to breaking retirements and both paid for it. Ali was beaten up by Larry Holmes before losing to Trevor Berbick. Leonard did beat Marvin Hagler, Tommy Hearns and Roberto Duran, but eventually lost to Terry Norris and Hector Camacho.
However Floyd Mayweather made it work, coming back from retirement to beat the likes of Juan Manuel Marquez and Shane Mosley.
Haye has much to consider before stepping back into the ring. Fitness and age are no issue to him as they were to Leonard and Ali, at 31 he has been training lightly in case of such an offer from Vitali. The issue is his legacy, if there is to be one.
He must consider the risk:reward; If he beats Dr Ironfist, great, that will add to or maybe even give him legacy.
If he loses, he will be remembered as the man who could not back up his infamous trash-talk, and as the man whose only big heavyweight scalp was Nicolai Valuev, hardly a Hall of Famer.
Although his reputation as one of the finest Cruiserweights remains untarnished, his performances in boxing’s headline division will live long in the memory of many fans.
To me, Haye the heavyweight still has much to prove. So go on David, show us what you are made of and take on Vitali, you owe your fans a better lasting memory than excusing your performance on a broken toe and ultimately failing on the biggest night of your career.
ENDS
It has emerged that David Haye is in talks with Vitali Klitschko in spite of the 31 year-old’s October retirement.
The Bermondsey man has allegedly weighed up his options and is negotiating a meeting with the 40 year old Klitschko.
In his final fight before ‘retirement’, Haye lost weakly to WBO, IBO, IBF and now WBA champion Wladimir Klitschko in a unanimous points decision, giving the Klitschko brother’s all the alphabet heavyweight belts.
As a consequence, Vitali is not likely to be so generous with Haye financially as his brother was for their July bout.
The story of David Haye and the Klitschko brother’s dates back to April 2009 with the brash Londoner ruffling feathers with his trash talk, a fight was arranged but Haye withdrew with a back injury.
Haye also wore the now famous “severed heads” t-shirt to cause further animousity.
The Briton then beat Russian giant Nicolai Valuev on points, claiming the WBA title before defeating John Ruiz and later Audley Harrison in one of the division’s most farcical fights.
With these defences won, Haye appeared the only real threat to the Klitschko’s domination. But this hope was shattered by the tentative performance that came in Hamburg.
Now it seems that Haye has vengeful schemes on fighting Vitali Klitschko.
Reports from both camps say that the contract talks are on hold until after Vitali faces Dereck Chisora on 18th February in Munich, but rumours say a fight could happen in November.
Klitschko’s manager Bernd Boente said: “Vitali wants to finish what his brother didn’t do, meaning knock out David Haye.”
If this is indeed true, the man from Bermondsey has much to fear.
Not only is he challenging the man with the record knockout percentage in heavyweight history, not only the same man who arguably chased Lennox Lewis into retirement, but Vitali can also claim to have never been conclusively beaten.
In the last big heavyweight clash before Haye versus Klitschko, Klitschko was controversially stopped in 6 rounds by Lennox Lewis in Los Angeles in 2003. A deep cut above the left eye caused the stoppage and plans for a rematch were dashed by Lewis’ retirement.
His only other loss occurred when a torn rotator cuff forced his withdrawal against Chris Byrd in 2000. In both these defeats, the German-based Ukrainian was unanimously ahead on the judges scorecards.
In spite of this nine year unbeaten streak, Hall of Fame trainer Emanuel Steward believes Haye’s style could work more effectively against Vitali.
“Vitali is bigger and hits hard but he comes straight in and doesn’t have the same balance and elusive movement as Wladimir, so David might give him a little more trouble.”
Indeed it is a style that got Haye a near-flawless record. Until meeting Klitschko, his only previous loss came against Carl Thompson in 2004 when an over-active Haye threw in the towel by the end of the 5th round.
Should Haye decide to dwell on tales from the past, he might be advised to think better of targeting the arguably superior Klitschko.
Sugar Ray Leonard and Muhammad Ali succumbed to breaking retirements and both paid for it. Ali was beaten up by Larry Holmes before losing to Trevor Berbick. Leonard did beat Marvin Hagler, Tommy Hearns and Roberto Duran, but eventually lost to Terry Norris and Hector Camacho.
However Floyd Mayweather made it work, coming back from retirement to beat the likes of Juan Manuel Marquez and Shane Mosley.
Haye has much to consider before stepping back into the ring. Fitness and age are no issue to him as they were to Leonard and Ali, at 31 he has been training lightly in case of such an offer from Vitali. The issue is his legacy, if there is to be one.
He must consider the risk:reward; If he beats Dr Ironfist, great, that will add to or maybe even give him legacy.
If he loses, he will be remembered as the man who could not back up his infamous trash-talk, and as the man whose only big heavyweight scalp was Nicolai Valuev, hardly a Hall of Famer.
Although his reputation as one of the finest Cruiserweights remains untarnished, his performances in boxing’s headline division will live long in the memory of many fans.
To me, Haye the heavyweight still has much to prove. So go on David, show us what you are made of and take on Vitali, you owe your fans a better lasting memory than excusing your performance on a broken toe and ultimately failing on the biggest night of your career.
ENDS
The F1 Number One
By Adam Appleton
On 1st May, it will be 18 years since the passing of world-famous driver Ayrton Senna after a fatal crash at Imola.
But many still look back on his era and ask: ‘Was he the greatest driver ever?’
Many answers spring to mind; Ascari, Villeneuve, Clark, Mansell, Piquet, Stewart, Fangio, Brabham and Lauda, and maybe Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton may, someday, join that illustrious pack.
However, three names always seem to emerge as the most legitimate contenders; Alain Prost, Michael Schumacher and Senna himself.
Between 1985 and 2004, they claimed 14 driver’s titles, Schumacher seven, Prost four and Senna three.
For me, Senna and Schumacher emerge over Prost.
Prost won his titles in the best cars, and was nearly always the preferred driver of those teams.
His methodical approach did not draw many supporters either, he did not take gambles and was a poor wet-weather driver.
He also had FISA President Jean-Marie Balestre, a Frenchman, providing several decisions in his favour and against Senna.
But Prost’s lack of grounding in less competitive cars stops him gaining this status, because Senna and Schumacher both made their way up from unfashionable manufacturers.
They also both excelled early in their careers.
Senna scored points in his second and third races in the uncompetitive Toleman car, and then finished second in a rain-filled Monaco Grand Prix, 1984.
Schumacher issued early warnings of his precocious talent, qualifying 7th on debut at Spa, also the setting for his maiden victory in 1992.
The German would drive for Benetton, Ferrari and Mercedes GP, and Senna for Lotus, McLaren and finally Williams.
Both were controversial figures, due to their aggressive styles and exaggerated will to win.
Most of Senna’s incidents involved Prost, the synonymous duo had a rivalry more public than Formula One had ever seen.
They first clashed at the 1989 title-decider at Suzuka. They collided as Senna tried to overtake Prost, Senna managed a push-start and won the race.
However, he was left fuming after being disqualified by Balestre for cutting the chicane to rejoin the race, leaving Prost to take the title.
Further controversy followed at Suzuka the following year.
Senna took pole position ahead of Prost, but believed he was on the “dirty” side of the grid.
Prost looked to have the lead into the first corner, only for Senna to plough into him to win the title.
The incident drew reaction from both drivers, Prost saying: “Ayrton has a problem in that he does not think he can die.”
Senna however, was unrepentant: “If you no longer go for a gap, you are no longer a racing driver… I am not designed to finish 3rd or 4th or 5th.”
Schumacher also had title-related controversies early in his career.
In Adelaide, 1994, Schumacher led Damon Hill by a point.
On lap 36, Schumacher, leading, ran wide critically damaging his car on the wall.
Hill, sensing an opportunity tried to overtake but Schumacher shut the door on him, sending both out of the race, conveniently handing Schumacher the title.
Many believe that Schumacher caused the crash to ensure him and Benetton the championship.
In a near-identical incident at Jerez in 1997, Schumacher – now at Ferrari – turned in on Jacques Villeneuve but could only tap his side-pod, meaning Villeneuve took the title. It also did not stop Schumacher getting an awful press reaction.
When it finally boils down to answering this question, it is not the controversies that separate them, but instead the quality of the era they raced in.
Schumacher’s biggest rivals were Damon Hill, Mika Hakkinen and Fernando Alonso.
These names are incomparable to the men Senna shined against; Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell and Nelson Piquet, all great in their own respect.
This divides the two because whilst Schumacher holds the biggest records; most pole positions (68), most victories (91) and most World Championship (7), a purist like me will always say that Senna was the greatest in the greastest era.
This is perhaps best shown in terms of pole positions, Schumacher’s F1 career has been six seasons and counting longer than Senna’s, but he has only managed three more pole positions.
He was likely the most naturally talented pilot in history and it is difficult pinpoint particular races in Senna’s career because he was incredible in so many.
So whilst the numbers point to the German, the Brazilian had an almost unquantifiable asset to his driving. It may not have been metronomic but, to quote Murray Walker, it was “absolutely sensational!”
ENDS
On 1st May, it will be 18 years since the passing of world-famous driver Ayrton Senna after a fatal crash at Imola.
But many still look back on his era and ask: ‘Was he the greatest driver ever?’
Many answers spring to mind; Ascari, Villeneuve, Clark, Mansell, Piquet, Stewart, Fangio, Brabham and Lauda, and maybe Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton may, someday, join that illustrious pack.
However, three names always seem to emerge as the most legitimate contenders; Alain Prost, Michael Schumacher and Senna himself.
Between 1985 and 2004, they claimed 14 driver’s titles, Schumacher seven, Prost four and Senna three.
For me, Senna and Schumacher emerge over Prost.
Prost won his titles in the best cars, and was nearly always the preferred driver of those teams.
His methodical approach did not draw many supporters either, he did not take gambles and was a poor wet-weather driver.
He also had FISA President Jean-Marie Balestre, a Frenchman, providing several decisions in his favour and against Senna.
But Prost’s lack of grounding in less competitive cars stops him gaining this status, because Senna and Schumacher both made their way up from unfashionable manufacturers.
They also both excelled early in their careers.
Senna scored points in his second and third races in the uncompetitive Toleman car, and then finished second in a rain-filled Monaco Grand Prix, 1984.
Schumacher issued early warnings of his precocious talent, qualifying 7th on debut at Spa, also the setting for his maiden victory in 1992.
The German would drive for Benetton, Ferrari and Mercedes GP, and Senna for Lotus, McLaren and finally Williams.
Both were controversial figures, due to their aggressive styles and exaggerated will to win.
Most of Senna’s incidents involved Prost, the synonymous duo had a rivalry more public than Formula One had ever seen.
They first clashed at the 1989 title-decider at Suzuka. They collided as Senna tried to overtake Prost, Senna managed a push-start and won the race.
However, he was left fuming after being disqualified by Balestre for cutting the chicane to rejoin the race, leaving Prost to take the title.
Further controversy followed at Suzuka the following year.
Senna took pole position ahead of Prost, but believed he was on the “dirty” side of the grid.
Prost looked to have the lead into the first corner, only for Senna to plough into him to win the title.
The incident drew reaction from both drivers, Prost saying: “Ayrton has a problem in that he does not think he can die.”
Senna however, was unrepentant: “If you no longer go for a gap, you are no longer a racing driver… I am not designed to finish 3rd or 4th or 5th.”
Schumacher also had title-related controversies early in his career.
In Adelaide, 1994, Schumacher led Damon Hill by a point.
On lap 36, Schumacher, leading, ran wide critically damaging his car on the wall.
Hill, sensing an opportunity tried to overtake but Schumacher shut the door on him, sending both out of the race, conveniently handing Schumacher the title.
Many believe that Schumacher caused the crash to ensure him and Benetton the championship.
In a near-identical incident at Jerez in 1997, Schumacher – now at Ferrari – turned in on Jacques Villeneuve but could only tap his side-pod, meaning Villeneuve took the title. It also did not stop Schumacher getting an awful press reaction.
When it finally boils down to answering this question, it is not the controversies that separate them, but instead the quality of the era they raced in.
Schumacher’s biggest rivals were Damon Hill, Mika Hakkinen and Fernando Alonso.
These names are incomparable to the men Senna shined against; Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell and Nelson Piquet, all great in their own respect.
This divides the two because whilst Schumacher holds the biggest records; most pole positions (68), most victories (91) and most World Championship (7), a purist like me will always say that Senna was the greatest in the greastest era.
This is perhaps best shown in terms of pole positions, Schumacher’s F1 career has been six seasons and counting longer than Senna’s, but he has only managed three more pole positions.
He was likely the most naturally talented pilot in history and it is difficult pinpoint particular races in Senna’s career because he was incredible in so many.
So whilst the numbers point to the German, the Brazilian had an almost unquantifiable asset to his driving. It may not have been metronomic but, to quote Murray Walker, it was “absolutely sensational!”
ENDS
Time to Pieter out?
By Adam Appleton
Many of England’s batsmen find themselves under serious pressure after poor performances against Pakistan, none more so than Kevin Pietersen.
The three-match series – which has been taking place in the United Arab Emirates due to the current security concerns in Pakistan – has seen Pakistan go 2-0 ahead and take a commanding position in the third match.
Such a result has seen blame fly around, much of which has been squarely aimed at England’s batsmen.
Their numbers so far do not make for good reading, they have managing only 352 and 399 runs overall in the respective matches.
Kevin Pietersen is taking a good brunt of this, not only due to his lack of runs but because of his dismissals on this tour.
In the First Test he incredibly decided to hook Umar Gul whilst still on nought, giving away his wicket as he was caught at deep square leg.
Then in both of his last two innings’, the old fallacy of slow left-arm round-the-wicket bowling has haunted him with Rehman trapping him in front on both occasions.
What worries England fans is that he has not learnt from his mistakes. This weakness has been spoken about for at least two years now, yet he has either not done enough to counter it, or is simply unable to.
Obviously only having mustered 49 runs from 5 innings’ at an average of 9.8 and a top-score of 32 does not stand in his favour.
In fact, there is a favourable chance that these technical failures might be forgiven had he managed 300 runs in the series.
What does stand in his favour is that he is not the only horribly under-performing batsman in the team.
He is also the most senior, therefore the most embedded run-maker that is struggling, meaning he will likely get more chances.
Eoin Morgan and Ian Bell also find themselves under scrutiny, particularly the former as he is the most junior batsman and looks like he is finding the adaptation to Test match cricket difficult.
Indeed Morgan will likely be the first to get dropped even if there are several strugglers simply because he is the most junior.
This may well save Pietersen from further scrutiny as the selectors will not want to get rid of him likely having been the cornerstone of the batting line-up since he burst onto the scene against Australia in the 2005 Ashes.
However, it could also add to the pressure.
As he is this senior figure, many will say that he should start acting and more importantly batting as such.
He does not seem to consider employing a Plan B batting style if he fails to come in and dominate the bowling straight away as has happened too many times recently and will continue to happen if his confidence is low, which it surely will be.
England need more frequent scores from him as he is filling this senior role. If he is scoring runs, the pressure will be off players like Eoin Morgan, enabling them to play a little more freely, the same way Trescothick and Vaughan did for Pietersen in his early days.
This is not the first time that Pietersen has come under the cosh.
Going into the 2010/11 Ashes in Australia, both Pietersen and Cook were under dire pressure to re-prove their worth to the team after both had lean patches in the run-up.
766 runs and an Ashes victory later Cook had shoved the critics words back down their throats.
Pietersen’s own contribution was comparatively quiet, but in a normal series 360 runs at an average of 60 would be a clear warning of form.
But he out-did this with a superb home series against India as England took a 4-0 whitewash and the Number 1 Test Team ranking.
Scoring 533 runs in 6 innings with 2 centuries, Pietersen was leading run-scorer, edging out Ian Bell and Rahul Dravid.
This shows that Pietersen has had form in the past year and perhaps, like the rest of the English batsmen, he has simply struggled to make runs on the wickets in the UAE.
England selectors and fans alike will hope this is the case because it will be a sign of weakness if it comes to the point where Pietersen has to be sacrificed.
Not only is this because there is no like-for-like replacement for him, but because he is such a gifted individual once he is in flow.
He is arguably the most talented batsmen of his generation along with AB De Villiers and Michael Clarke and England need him firing out runs to maintain their Number 1 Test status.
ENDS
Many of England’s batsmen find themselves under serious pressure after poor performances against Pakistan, none more so than Kevin Pietersen.
The three-match series – which has been taking place in the United Arab Emirates due to the current security concerns in Pakistan – has seen Pakistan go 2-0 ahead and take a commanding position in the third match.
Such a result has seen blame fly around, much of which has been squarely aimed at England’s batsmen.
Their numbers so far do not make for good reading, they have managing only 352 and 399 runs overall in the respective matches.
Kevin Pietersen is taking a good brunt of this, not only due to his lack of runs but because of his dismissals on this tour.
In the First Test he incredibly decided to hook Umar Gul whilst still on nought, giving away his wicket as he was caught at deep square leg.
Then in both of his last two innings’, the old fallacy of slow left-arm round-the-wicket bowling has haunted him with Rehman trapping him in front on both occasions.
What worries England fans is that he has not learnt from his mistakes. This weakness has been spoken about for at least two years now, yet he has either not done enough to counter it, or is simply unable to.
Obviously only having mustered 49 runs from 5 innings’ at an average of 9.8 and a top-score of 32 does not stand in his favour.
In fact, there is a favourable chance that these technical failures might be forgiven had he managed 300 runs in the series.
What does stand in his favour is that he is not the only horribly under-performing batsman in the team.
He is also the most senior, therefore the most embedded run-maker that is struggling, meaning he will likely get more chances.
Eoin Morgan and Ian Bell also find themselves under scrutiny, particularly the former as he is the most junior batsman and looks like he is finding the adaptation to Test match cricket difficult.
Indeed Morgan will likely be the first to get dropped even if there are several strugglers simply because he is the most junior.
This may well save Pietersen from further scrutiny as the selectors will not want to get rid of him likely having been the cornerstone of the batting line-up since he burst onto the scene against Australia in the 2005 Ashes.
However, it could also add to the pressure.
As he is this senior figure, many will say that he should start acting and more importantly batting as such.
He does not seem to consider employing a Plan B batting style if he fails to come in and dominate the bowling straight away as has happened too many times recently and will continue to happen if his confidence is low, which it surely will be.
England need more frequent scores from him as he is filling this senior role. If he is scoring runs, the pressure will be off players like Eoin Morgan, enabling them to play a little more freely, the same way Trescothick and Vaughan did for Pietersen in his early days.
This is not the first time that Pietersen has come under the cosh.
Going into the 2010/11 Ashes in Australia, both Pietersen and Cook were under dire pressure to re-prove their worth to the team after both had lean patches in the run-up.
766 runs and an Ashes victory later Cook had shoved the critics words back down their throats.
Pietersen’s own contribution was comparatively quiet, but in a normal series 360 runs at an average of 60 would be a clear warning of form.
But he out-did this with a superb home series against India as England took a 4-0 whitewash and the Number 1 Test Team ranking.
Scoring 533 runs in 6 innings with 2 centuries, Pietersen was leading run-scorer, edging out Ian Bell and Rahul Dravid.
This shows that Pietersen has had form in the past year and perhaps, like the rest of the English batsmen, he has simply struggled to make runs on the wickets in the UAE.
England selectors and fans alike will hope this is the case because it will be a sign of weakness if it comes to the point where Pietersen has to be sacrificed.
Not only is this because there is no like-for-like replacement for him, but because he is such a gifted individual once he is in flow.
He is arguably the most talented batsmen of his generation along with AB De Villiers and Michael Clarke and England need him firing out runs to maintain their Number 1 Test status.
ENDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)