David Welch's Blog
A legitimate target....
Monday 11th May 2009
There is still no disputing it. Even after days of reflection. TV pictures clearly show that four outstanding goal-scoring opportunities were missed because of one man's lamentable display. A sorry, costly draw was the result, rather than a comfortable victory.
And, sad though it is to admit, fans and players alike were entitled to voice their disgust and to swear into the cameras. Police escorts would rightly be on stand-by in the event of death-threats; you might even forgive anyone's misplaced talk of corruption given how this experienced professional had so desperately under-performed on such an important occasion.
Yet....none of this actually happened. Why? Because, this time we were not witnessing the annihilation of a referee asked to shoulder the blame for a team's failure, but the performance of Sunderland's hapless striker, Kieran Richardson. In the crucial relegation battle against Bolton on Saturday he demonstrated laughable levels of accuracy in his finishing on at least four occasions in the 'highlights' programme alone. No protests. No outcry. No lynchings.
When over-protected, pampered footballers paid fortunes to perfect (or, at least, improve) their skills actually achieve a consistency of performance that stops costing their teams matches, they might be entitled to respond in Drogba-like fashion when they feel so let down by the officials. Until then, they should take the money and think themselves lucky that the hype surrounding the game generally results in their being subjected to the same levels of objective scrutiny as an MP's expense form.
» About David Welch | » View all David Welch's posts | » Sporting Blog Index | ^Top
Lost in the Post....
Monday 6th April, 2009
Is it really any surprise that bankers, council chiefs, entertainers, Premiership footballers and MPs have secured for themselves vastly inflated financial packages, ever more divorcing them from reality, and the expectations and living standards of the normal working man and woman?
Does anyone, any more, ever question anything financial in advance, or supply a meaningful interpretation before the apologists are allowed to distort the real picture?
We have just witnessed a 100-1 winner of the Grand National in Mon Mome and, with incredulous spin (even in these head-spinning times), the victory is recorded today by the country's only racing newspaper as an: "Amazing windfall for racing".
Not, you might note - following the runaway, unquestioned success of an unfancied horse beaten 57 lengths when tailed off on his previous run at Uttoxeter three weeks earlier - as a "Devastating blow for punters".
The Racing Post goes on to add that: "Upbeat bookmakers also anticipated a beneficial spin-off next year, with more once-a-year punters attracted by the chance of backing a 100-1 winner"
Let's be grateful for that opportunity. And let's raise a glass to Sir Fred Goodwin, Jonathan Ross, Alistair Darling and Ashley Cole while we are at it. It's all very positive stuff. Those dependant on racing for a living (according to the Post) should be on a high today (along with the bookmakers, of course) and we are invited to celebrate with them.
But wait...by its own published figures, a tax 'windfall' of 20 million pounds for racing means bookmakers are estimated to have won at least 180 million pounds on the race.
Unlikely perhaps...but should the Post be comfortable implying this is 'good' news when any such profit inevitably means that punters - whom they purport to represent - will have LOST 180 million? The same punters, incidentally, on whom the Post depend for their sales, and whom they did their best to advise where they should place their money on the race. None of the Post columnists mentioned Mon Mome.
'Never mind' they might be saying - perhaps in an attempt to avoid any costly backlash on the paper or the gaming industry - 'our advice could have played a small part in your having lost over 180 million pounds in one day, but it was a heart-warming story, and your money has gone to a good cause'.
Now where has this tactic of presenting a significant, sensitive, financial issue in such an up-beat, self-serving fashion been employed before?
» About David Welch | » View all David Welch's posts | » Sporting Blog Index | ^Top
Faint recollections....
Wednesday 25th March, 2009
So just who were the 'faint-hearts' desperately in need of 'persuasion' when it came to ensuring that the Government backed London's proposed bid for the Olympics back in 2003?
With a self-satisfied smile, Tessa Jowell informed us last week on Question Time that we didn't realise how hard she had had to work to take others along with her in the days when Tony Blair (and, more particularly, Gordon Brown) was far from certain to support the BOA-inspired enterprise.
Perhaps she had in mind the then Minister for Culture, Media and Sport whose performance in the crucial Commons debate on the subject was so beautifully described by Giles Smith in the Telegraph on January 16, 2003...
"The Culture Secretary's ambition seemed to be to make the afternoon as forgettable as possible, in the hope perhaps, that everyone who ever thought about pitching London as an Olympic host would simply wake up the next day and not remember anything about it.
"Each time someone interjected on a note of anxiety....the Culture Secretary tried not to look too eager about conceding that they had a point, before concluding: ' Every pound spent on an Olympics is a pound that won't be spent on schools, hospitals and grass roots sporting developments throughout the country'
"It was our choice for 2012, the Culture Secrtary seemed to be saying: world-class pole vault facilities in Bow, or somewhere to go to die".
With that degree of 'faint-heartedness' right at the centre of Government, it is a wonder the Prime Minister gave the proposal a second thought. And it is, therefore, no shock that bid supporters had to 'work hard' to win over the doubters.
And just who was the Culture Secretary at the time? Oh, that was current Olympics Minister, Tessa Jowell.
» About David Welch | » View all David Welch's posts | » Sporting Blog Index | ^Top
What not to wear...
Friday 3rd October, 2008
Hull fans are barely able to contain themselves. Newcastle supporters continue to believe their side should be title contenders. Both (...sorry, Laura) face impossible tasks.
Some will assume this is because of lack of investment, the influx of foreign owners and players, or failing facilities.
The real reason is much closer to home. Much more basic - and much cheaper to remedy: they are wearing the wrong shirts. Any decent sports psychologist would be able to make a convincing case against the sporting of stripes.
Somehow, in this country, this look manages to convey a second-rate, brawn-based, unsophisticated and uncultured image which has long been outdated. Just ask yourself when a team wearing stripes last won top league honours.
Unsuccessful in 16 years of Premiership football, we must go back to before the Second World War to find (believe it, or not) Sunderland lifting the trophy. That's more than 70 years ago.
This season? Hull (6th) lead the way from Wigan (10th), WBA (12th), Sunderland (13th), Stoke (18th) and Newcastle (19th). Meanwhile, the sleek, smooth, streamlined superstars of the country's leading clubs who wouldn't be seen dead in such old-fashioned kit, continue to set the pace.
The throw-backs might win the odd Cup or two along the way, but if its Premiership glory they are after, Newcastle's potential new owners would do well to stop worrying about the likes of Keegan, Venables and 30 million pound signings. Just lose the stripes.
» About David Welch | » View all David Welch's posts | » Sporting Blog Index | ^Top
No time to waste...
Monday 25th August, 2008
It could be close deciding on the most deserving British casualty of an otherwise splendid Games in Beijing: the tourist chief apparently responsible for allowing Myra Hindley a cameo role in the London hand-over; Leona Lewis' dress designer; or the performance director of British athletics, Dave Collins.
The awarding of the Games was always going to prove a catalyst for improved sporting performance in this country. That it has not yet happened in athletics - while other sports have responded magnificently - is of serious concern.
Just as the Olympics provide a non-negotiable deadline for the delivery of facilities, financing and development, so they leave no room for continued talk of near-misses and excuses on the field of play.
With more than 140 medals available (if you don't drop the baton), the British athletics team failed to reach their unchallenging target of just five in Beijing. Would that meagre 3.5% return...or even six, seven or eight medals have justified the sport's management team escaping scrutiny?
Higher targets should be aspired to, and athletes will have to be convinced that domestic success and subsequent financial security is not what drives on the Jamaicans, Kenyans, Australians, Americans, Russians and Chinese.
Our other sports have already embraced this. There will never be a greater incentive than a home Olympics, and athletics has the best chance it will ever have of repairing the damage done by years of scandal, neglect and mal-administration. Change at the top is needed now.
» About David Welch | » View all David Welch's posts | » Sporting Blog Index | ^Top
Business advisor to journalists, columnists and broadcasters: sport and media consultant