Why England’s in the Gutter

If one were to read my book, they could easily translate the problems with American soccer over to the English side. After all, Americans have been following the British approach with much aplomb for generations, getting us nowhere, with the exception of copying the trend of wallowing over a beer in a pub following a loss. We’re new to that; Americans are just realizing – with much vigor – that pubs exist to watch soccer, drink, and wallow. Sad to say that Americans follow up each World Cup failure by saying, “We keep improving every Cup,” however, we keep reaching the same result – which is failure. How is this an improvement? Is this not the sign of a lunatic speaking? Are we not in the hands of a madman here? It sounds a bit like the British response to repeated Cup failures, “We’ve got the talent, we just need to bring it together. Cheers.” Yeah right, full-steam ahead, keep doing what we’re doing and it will correct itself. “I will work harder and the system is always right,” says Boxer. There was a moment, in the 2010 World Cup, when Lampard scored the tying goal against Germany that eerily would have led to a comeback and victory for the English. This I was certain of. That one moment was a response to their first goal, and there was a robustness in the play which was lacking up to that point – a culmination that would’ve brought the team together, playing the type of soccer they were capable of playing, possibly (emphasis on possibly) taking over the tournament. 
   The goal was taken back, and the players regressed to stiff robotic stick figures again, no one gelling, no one acting with any “guile” as Steve McManaman might say, and things vanquished into the depths of boring, stiff, unimaginative, reluctant British soccer. In other words, they looked more like the descendants of their empire – the Americans – than representatives of one of the most competitive leagues in the world. Not a good place to be, England. Good luck with that. Oh yeah, have you thought about allowing your outside backs to dribble more, and attack towards the goal as opposed to crossing it like a wind-up toy? Have you considered the fact that you ruined Aaron Lennon’s potential as a dribbling and scoring threat, rather, criticizing his crossing capabilities as though that has anything to do with your lack of success in recent Cups? In fact it’s one of the core reasons you keep losing. The Lennon’s of the world should be dribbling and trying to create chances around the box with “guile” and one-twos, creating danger in small spaces, with improvisation, with chemistry among other players – in a word, everything that is the antithesis of crossing the ball. Also, who are your boring central defenders? I already forgot their names. I’m sure they were impressive in locker room chats. Possibly call Vinnie Jones out of retirement? At least if you keep losing leave a couple shin guards on the field for some dignity. Maybe ask Stephen Merchant to fill in; he’s tall enough; a little banter out there can’t hurt. “What pub are going to after the match,” he’d ask a Russian opponent. “You there, excuse me, what pub are visiting, following the match?” “Pub? We go hotel, review match, train, drink, wake up, train, take bribe, review match.” Or, just a suggestion, take one of your central midfield types – like a Gerrard – who’s over six feet tall, and implement them into the central defense. And maybe give them a hall pass to venture forward, alah Beckenbauer, to seek scoring chances like the Queen – a term your vaguely familiar with – on the chess board. We could go on and on, but your problems reside in the core of what makes soccer – football – pleasurable: creative play, which equates to encouraging dribbling, in which case one-and-two touch play – which you’re known for – can still operate under the veneer of common sense, added with one simple instruction: fans, coaches, and players alike must stop the innate proclivity of crossing the ball for practically all scoring chances. The English way has turned into the embarrassing way, leaving no results, with much contemplation as to why things never improve. Just one bit of advice: don’t say things are improving.

 

   Of all the quarterbacks to watch, Tom Brady's right there. Brady, Manning, Rogers, Warner, Elway and so on. Combine Belichick with Brady, as a player-coach tandem, and you've got something else great to watch. They're somehow going to come out on top. There's no denying their talent. Each week I want to watch them perform, just as so many others do. The problem with Deflate Gate is multi-faceted. First of all, "experts" need to stop saying the Colts game was out of reach (for the Colts), and that the deflated balls didn't matter. It matters 100%. Tampering with the equipment makes that defeat lopsided. "They would've won that game anyway." Not necessarily. If they tamper, and win, you can't say that win was legitimate. You just can't. "But the Patriots were going to win."  No. You don't know that. They destroyed them, because they allegedly cheated. That's what deflating a ball does. It gives you an advantage over your opponent. Stop saying the game was out of reach. If you're saying that (with all due respect), you're a buffoon. 
   Despite the Super Bowl being a great game, there was a spark missing. The announcers - maybe they're getting older - seemed to call the game in a lethargic manner, referring to Deflate Gate numerous times, as though they were a little disappointed that, potentially (the jury is still out), a "cheating team" was tarnishing the tradition of the spectacle, league and game. Everybody didn't just feel Deflate Gate lingering above, they were talking about it non-stop for days on end. It was at the point that everyone was embarrassed that the Patriots - albeit a great team - were flaunting around, as cheaters, yet again. Everyone was weary from accusations, poor responses, and a court trial that hasn't even occurred yet. The investigation is ongoing. And, with all honesty, as portrayed in the eyes of many members of the media, the idea that a guilty team - an illegitimate team - was playing for the championship, was bothersome to all involved. It felt wrong. We all had to ignore the fact that cheating got a team into the finals, America's biggest game, and try our hardest to focus on the game at hand, because, after all, that is what the Patriots were telling everyone to do. The media, the former players, felt a little - if not a lot - bossed around by the Patriot's heads of state. 
   It's a controversy too outrageous not to ignore. 
  After all, if you went to a foreign country, let's say, Honduras, and the best golfer there, the Tiger Woods of Honduras, had cheated half way through the final round, in the biggest tournament in their country, replacing the legal golf balls with his "flubber" golf balls (magical things that soar farther, and have a magnetic eye for the hole), and won, and was celebrated by the media, peers, fans and invited to their "White House" to wine and dine with their President, heralded as the best golfer around...wouldn't you look at them with contempt and disrespect? You would have to think: How could you honor this contemptuous cheater?
   Imagine this: In boxing, each team is allowed to wrap the gloves of their fighter, with no referee around, or another eye-witness from the opposing team. First of all, that doesn't make sense. That's exactly what boxing realized a long time ago. So, let's say, hypothetically, there is a half time break for boxing. Both sides have already laid witness to the hand wrapping before the match. But, at half time, with no supervision, there is room for a boxer to line his wrap with a thin strip of metal, which causes him to win the fight. He was already ahead on the score sheet four rounds to one, but the cheating gave him a knock out, and he moved onto the championship title bout. He wins the title bout. Days later, it is discovered that he had cheated in the semi-final, lacing his fists with metal. Some of the commentators say it doesn't matter, "That fight was already won." Others say, "He cheated in the semi-final, and he is an illegitimate winner. He should have his championship belt revoked." 
   In track and field, they revoke medals all the time. They literally take them back for using steroids, getting an edge. Reggie Bush had is college Heisman taken back not for cheating on the field, but for taking money off the field. Why is it so hard for people to accept that the Patriots - who don't need to cheat - used the deflated balls to their advantage, as a team effort. It was 17-7 at halftime. That's a close score. Then, the second half got out of hand. It's not just the quarterback gripping the ball - it's also the receivers catching it more comfortably. 

   The NFL is at fault for allowing two separate teams to choose their separate balls to use. This is insane. The two quarterbacks should have to meet together, with the referees, pick the balls that will be used by both teams - kickers included - and the balls will be watched over in a special area of the field, during the games and at halftime, by appointed referees. You don't hand the balls to people in the stands at halftime and say, "Hang on to this, would yah?" 
   With the rules in place, of course a team is going to take advantage of the opportunity to affect the balls, to their liking. If you give them the option, they'll be tempted to cheat. 

   If it is discovered that the Patriots ordered the balls to be tampered with, should they lose their title? If so, would the Seahawks be the champions?