Victory At Palace

Well Deserved Win Takes Us Out Of the Relegation Zone

Embed from Getty Images

It is only one win, so I am not going to get too carried away. But how refreshing it was to see a West Ham side start a game on the front foot. For the first half of the first half we totally ran the game playing with high intensity, slick passing, moving the ball quickly, players finding space to receive it, and attacking at greater pace than we have seen previously this season.

The goal when it came was well deserved, with great passing between the impressive Payet, and the equally impressive Cresswell. The way Lanzini opened his body out to place the ball into the corner of the net showed great technique. And then with seconds remaining of the first half we conceded a penalty (so West Ham!). It was probably a just decision but it would have been so unfair on the balance of play to have gone in at half time with the scores level. The fact that we didn’t was due to Bentecke, who continued what he started for Liverpool in the cup against us last season, by missing chances. It is criminal to miss the target when you are taking a penalty, but he was perhaps influenced by the way Lanzini had opened his body up to score our goal. It seemed that he tried to do the same, but blazed high and wide.

I suppose being a West Ham fan I am used to great penalty takers. In my time I remember watching John Bond, Johnny Byrne, Geoff Hurst, Ray Stewart, Julian Dicks, Paolo Di Canio and Mark Noble take most of the penalties I remember us being awarded, and despite the occasional miss (none of them had 100% records), usually as a result of an excellent save (e.g. Gordon Banks), I can rarely recall one of them missing the target.

In the second half, we controlled the game well, contained the pacy Palace attack, and were looking good value for a win when Cresswell was fouled by Cabaye in the penalty area. As I leapt from my seat expecting the award of a penalty, I was appalled to see Martin Atkinson book Cresswell for simulation. A shocking decision. Less than a minute later, Cresswell barely touched Zaha close to the touchline as they both ran for the ball, the linesman signalled a foul, and Atkinson sent Cresswell off. That minute was as inept a display of poor refereeing as you could ever wish to see. I don’t think he really understands the game.

I was angry. It was so wrong. For the second game running against Palace we had a player sent off. Remember Kouyate was dismissed in April, but that red card was rescinded. I took to Twitter to read some reactions believing that it just couldn’t be my interpretation surely! And sure enough 100% of the reactions thought that the referee had got it so wrong. Now the West Ham fans you could understand to an extent, but every unbiased ex-player reaction, and even Howard Webb, who nearly always backs up the officials, read it the same as me. I didn’t see one person who thought it was the correct decision.

But unlike Kouyate last season, because this was a sending off via two yellow cards, the rules of appeal do not apply, however unjust the decision. The nonsense of this is, although we hung on to three points by not conceding a goal, Cresswell is banned for the next match. The West Ham fans who tweeted that it would definitely be rescinded were unfortunately as ignorant of the appeals process, as the officials were of what constitutes a penalty, what constitutes a foul, and their understanding of the game of football and how to officiate it.

Bilic had decided on a changed formation for this game and it worked a treat. Full marks to Adrian for the marvellous reaction save in stoppage time. Kouyate, Ogbonna, and man-of-the-match Reid were the three at the back who stood firm, Cresswell and Antonio both had excellent games as wing-backs, Obiang was very impressive once again (he must be retained in this role), Payet and Lanzini looked much sharper than of late, Noble was OK, and Zaza put in a shift (to coin a phrase).

Let us hope that the confidence gained from this win enables us to continue to improve, and move up the table sooner rather than later.

I Wouldn’t Bet On It 12

Looking for a quick return on those devalued pounds?

Fancy A BetLast time we tried out the Betfred “Goals Galore” bonus coupon for the second time. It pays fixed odds based on both teams scoring at least one goal in a match. Depending upon the number of games you choose, fixed odds are paid at varying rates. On their Goals Galore Bonus coupon, which we tried, they pay 9/2 for 3 correct, 9/1 for 4 correct, and 16/1 for 5 correct, going right up to 5000/1 for 15 correct.

We tried two batches of four games, each at 9-1, and then all eight games at 100-1. So we needed both teams to score in the following games:

Group One:
West Ham v Middlesbrough, Leeds v Barnsley, Preston v Villa, Sheffield W v Brighton

Group Two:
Reading v Derby, Rotherham v Newcastle, Bury v Scunthorpe, Chesterfield v Bradford C

We staked one point stake on each group, and one point stake on all eight games. Total = 3 points. Just three teams let us down by not scoring; Villa, Rotherham and Chesterfield.

And to finish we staked five points on West Ham to end their poor run in the game against Middlesbrough, at 11/10 on a win, but despite Payet’s wonder goal we only drew.

So we lost 8 points on the day which brought our balance down to 103.1.

This week we’ll try a couple of accumulators, which have a guarantee that with just one incorrect result we get our stake returned.

Firstly, we’ll stake 1 point on the following 5 teams to win this weekend at accumulated odds of 9.69/1: Chelsea, Arsenal, Bournemouth, Manchester City, Stoke.

Secondly, we’ll try a more adventurous bet by staking 1 point on the following 10 teams to win this weekend at accumulated odds of 55.54/1: Brighton, Newcastle, Norwich, Bolton, Charlton, Carlisle, Doncaster, Aberdeen, Celtic, Hearts.

And finally a fun bet on the Palace v West Ham game. On so many occasions recently there have been 4 goals in the game when we’ve met Palace, so I’ll stake 1 point on a 2-2 draw at 11/1.

Total stake = 3 points. New balance = 100.1 points. Potential return = 76.23 points

What are the chances?

The Lawro Challenge – Week 8

Where we attempt to out-predict the BBC predictor.

Lawro Crystal BallAfter seven weeks Rich has extended his lead at the top to ten points. Both Rich and Geoff scored eight points in week 7, compared to Lawro’s six points. Rich managed 5 correct results plus one correct score, Geoff had 2 correct results plus two correct scores, and Lawro brought up the rear this week with 3 correct results and one correct score. In our competition we award one point for a correct result and three points for a correct score.

On the BBC website Lawro has now lost three of his seven weekly prediction encounters. Firstly he was beaten by WWE star and Hollywood actor, Dave Bautista, who hadn’t heard of some of the Premier League teams, then it was the turn of the world number one darts player, Michael van Gerwen to beat him, and finally in the last round of matches he lost to comedian and actor, Elis James.

 

Rich

Geoff

Lawro

Total after 6 weeks

52

37

44

Score in week 7

8

8

6

Total after 7 weeks

60

45

50

 

 

 

 

Predictions – Week 8

 

 

 

 

Rich

Geoff

Lawro

SATURDAY

 

 

 

Chelsea v Leicester

2-1

2-2 

2-0

Arsenal v Swansea

3-1

3-0

2-0

Bournemouth v Hull

2-1

1-0

2-0

Man City v Everton

2-1

3-1

1-1

Stoke v Sunderland

2-0

1-1

2-1

West Brom v Tottenham

0-2

1-3

0-2

Crystal Palace v West Ham

2-2

1-0

1-1

SUNDAY

 

 

 

Middlesbrough v Watford

2-1

1-1

1-1

Southampton v Burnley

2-0

3-0

2-0

MONDAY

 

 

 

Liverpool v Man Utd

2-1

2-2

2-0

Palace Preview: Another Four Goals?

Heading south of the river for the late Saturday kick-off!

Embed from Getty Images

After winning the away game at Palace last October (on exactly the same weekend as this season) by three goals to one, with goals from Jenkinson, Lanzini, and Payet, we looked well set to repeat the feat when we met them at Upton Park in the return fixture in April. In the home fixture, after conceding an early goal following a mistake from Adrian,  Lanzini scored our first, and then Payet scored with one of his sublime free-kicks, this one going to the same side where the Palace keeper was standing. The match changed when Kouyate was sent off in the second half, and then Palace equalised a few minutes later. The decision was harsh and was later rescinded on appeal. But it was too late then for us to win this game!

The referee in both of the games was Mark Clattenburg. At Selhurst Park he sent off a Palace player, so he evened it up by sending off one of our players in the return. In fact he has quite a record of dismissing players in games when he referees us, although he is not on a par with Jonathan Moss.

Last season was a season of two halves for Palace. At Christmas they sat in fifth place in the Premier League, but in the New Year they came down with the Christmas decorations (a feat we have managed once or twice, though not as often as some people believe). By the time we met them at the beginning of April they had plummeted to fifteenth and were on the verge of getting involved in the relegation dogfight. But they were OK in the end, and also reached the Cup Final where they (unluckily?) lost to a late goal against Manchester United, a game remembered for the Pardew dance when Palace scored.

We’ve only met the Eagles 22 times in league games in the top flight of English football, mainly because they have not often been in the top division until recent times. We have won nine of the games, drawn eight, and lost just five. Only two of those five defeats have been at Selhurst Park, in 1995 and 2013, on both occasions by the only goal in the game. This will be our sixth top flight game against them in the month of October and they have never beaten us in this month of the year; in fact they’ve only drawn once. So that’s a good omen. Or perhaps it is not?

I’ve been to Selhurst Park twice. The first time was in October 1970 when we drew 1-1 thanks to a goal from Bobby Howe. I was back there the following October when Rod Stewart topped the charts with Maggie May. We won the game comfortably 3-0, with goals from Ade Coker, Billy Bonds and Clyde Best. Back in those days the Palace colours were actually claret and blue, but shortly afterwards they changed to the red and blue you see today.

Do you know what the most popular score in West Ham league matches last season? Very unusually it was 2-2. We drew more matches 2-2 than any other team in the Premier League. It happened seven times. Manchester United didn’t manage a single 2-2 draw. In three seasons in the Premier League under Sam Allardyce we only had four 2-2 draws. In total in 2015-16 we drew 14 of our 38 games (37%), which was more than any other team in the Premier League.

Last season against Palace we won 3-1 away and drew 2-2 at home. The season before that we won 3-1 away and lost 3-1 at home to them. Where is all this leading to? Well for a start in recent times we seem to favour 2-2 draws. In addition, the last four games against Palace have all had four goals in them. This is leading me towards believing that we are destined to draw 2-2 at Selhurst Park this weekend. Based on the early games of this season for both sides, then this would seem to be a good result for us, and certainly one that is not anticipated by the pundits. Nevertheless getting my optimistic hat out once again I am hoping for even more. Perhaps there will be four goals in the game, and we will win 3-1?

Counting Sheep – 9 – The Letters P and Q

Another combined team in the alphabeti spaghetti tangle of Hammer’s dream teams.

Counting SheepI’ve really enjoyed putting my thinking cap on and trying to come up with West Ham all-time football teams where the players surnames all begin with the same letter. When I began I thought that I would be able to make teams out of most of the letters of the alphabet, but it has proved to be a little more difficult than I envisaged. The original aim was to help me drop off to sleep instead of the more traditional method of counting sheep, but now it has turned into a brain training exercise (always useful when you reach my age!).

So far I’ve picked eight teams, “B”, “C”, “D”, “F”, a combined “G” and “H”, a combined “J”, “K” and “L”, a combined “M” and “N”, and “Vowels”. P is next and I was able to think of enough names to form a team. But thinking ahead to Q, that was one letter where I knew I would fail. I realised that I would have few options there, so once again I decided on a combined team, this time the P’s and Q’s. So I’ll mind my Ps and Qs, combine my Ps and Qs, and hope you don’t mind!

My all-time West Ham “P” plus “Q” Team in a 4-4-2 formation are:

Parkes
Parris
Pearce (I)
Potts
Pearce (S)
Paddon
Parker
Peters
Payet
Pearson
Quinn

I think you’ll agree I have picked a very strong midfield. Players left out include Pantsil, Pike, Powell, Poyet, Parks, Piquionne, Pogatetz, Porfirio and Quashie.

Have I forgotten someone really good who is a must for the P/Q team? And I can only remember one P/Q manager; Alan Pardew.

Does Size Matter? Pitch and Goal Dimensions

Running the rule over the grounds to see who measures up!

Big and LittleIt is a misconception that all football pitches are the same size. They are not. Can you imagine this applying to some other sports? What if the distance between the stumps was different at Lords compared to the Oval? But the distance between the goals at the London Stadium is greater than it is at White Hart Lane.

The FA has followed the lead of UEFA and FIFA in recommending standard pitch dimensions. I wonder how many people know what the recommended size is? The Laws of the Game permit quite a big variation in the size of the pitch. The length of a pitch can be anywhere between 90 and 120 metres. The permitted width has an even greater range, and can be between 45 and 90 metres. These dimensions came into force in the 1897 draft of the Laws of the Game.

For “official matches” the length should be between 100 and 110 metres, whereas the width can vary between 64 and 75 metres. In an attempt to achieve consistency, the recommended dimensions are 105 metres x 68 metres. The Premier League wants all teams to have a pitch of this size, but does allow exceptions if it is impossible to comply due to the construction of the ground.

The pitch sizes at Arsenal, Hull, Manchester City, Manchester United, Southampton, Sunderland, Swansea, West Brom, Middlesbrough, Watford, and now West Ham, are all identical at the recommended size. Wembley is the same, as are all the major stadiums throughout Europe. But that is only eleven of the teams in the Premier League. The pitches at Burnley, Chelsea, Liverpool, Leicester, Crystal Palace, Everton, Bournemouth, Tottenham and Stoke are all smaller than the standard size. In fact depending on which teams are in the Premier League at any given time, there can be up to 9% difference between the areas of the largest and smallest pitches.

Stoke has the smallest pitch of the current Premier League teams at 100m x 66m, and I guess this relates back to the Tony Pulis days when they wanted the pitch to be as narrow as possible for the benefit of Rory Delap’s long throws. The Tottenham pitch is the same length as Stoke but just one metre wider. The Upton Park pitch measured 100.58m x 68m.

Now I have a problem with the size of pitches. Bearing in mind that they have remained unaltered for around 120 years, the size, speed and power of human beings has increased significantly in that time. If you consider the average height of men, the 100 and 1500 metre running times, and high jump and long jump distances, to take just five examples, then we have seen increases in size and performance between 7% and 20% in those five categories. The same is true for females. So in relative terms the pitch was much bigger in years gone by. With the size, speed and athleticism of modern man (and woman), the pitch is now relatively congested compared to the past.

To allow for this, pitches should probably be at least 10%-15% bigger than they are. In order to compensate for the increases in human performance then the length of pitches should be increased to around say 115-120 metres, and the width to 75-80 metres. Of course most stadiums could not cope with this (although ours could possibly get close!). The authorities could, perhaps, order clubs to increase the size of their pitches to the maximum possible that their ground would allow. They could, alternatively give clubs a period of time, say ten years, to construct new stadiums that the revised pitch sizes would fit into. With the billions of pounds of TV money around then this shouldn’t be a problem.

The alternative is to reduce the number of players on the pitch from 11 to 10 to achieve the same effect. 11 may have been appropriate some years ago, but 10 would now allow for the human performance increases. We’ve all seen games where two players have been sent off leaving 10v10 on the pitch. There is more room for everyone to express themselves, and less congestion. I urge the authorities to move to a 10-a-side game if they don’t proceed with an increased pitch size.

And while we are at it, the size of the goals has not changed in the period either. As a result I believe we should increase the height of the goal from 8 feet to 9 feet, and the width from 24 feet to 27 feet. Modern goalkeepers must find the goals relatively small to defend when compared to the custodians of years gone by, and these increases will mean that the number of goals scored will perhaps return to the levels of 100 years ago.

Like other aspects of life, football needs to adapt to the times. It has never recognised the increases in human size and athleticism throughout the history of the game, and these changes would undoubtedly be beneficial to the entertainment value.

Offside: Changes Needed? – Part Two

Time to interfere with the offside rule and introduce video technology?

OffsideFollowing on from my previous article where I discussed a radical change to the offside law and why it is necessary, I’ll add further to my reasoning today. The optical problems for the officials that I referred to is not the end of the story. Assistant referees have to remember that it is not an offence in itself for a player to be in an offside position. A player is in an offside position if any part of his head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half, and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent, but at the same time he has to disregard the hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers.

The linesman should only then penalise the player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate when he becomes involved in active play. This could mean interfering with play by playing the ball itself, or interfering with an opponent by preventing the opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by obstructing his line of vision, or challenging the opponent for the ball, or clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on his opponent, or making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of the opponent to play the ball.

Are you still with me because there is more to consider yet! This player in the offside position should also be penalised if he is gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has rebounded, or been deflected off the woodwork, or an opponent. Offside should also be penalised when the ball has been deliberately saved by an opponent. A save is when a player stops a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area). But, a player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

You probably think I am making all this up, but I am doing my best to interpret the rules and governance as provided in the IFAB Laws of the Game relating to offside for 2016-17. And I haven’t even finished yet! There are other considerations relating to both defending and attacking players leaving the field of play deliberately without permission. I won’t go into this in too much detail as I find it extremely hard to follow.

My proposal is simple, though. Firstly, I’d like to see the offside rule confined to the eighteen yards at each end of the pitch. I’m afraid I just cannot see the point of half of the pitch being involved. You cannot be considered to be goal hanging just inside your opponents’ half. I wonder if anybody anywhere has asked the question as to why we have persisted with offside in this great expanse for so many years?

Yes, they continue to tinker with the concept of interference, and active involvement, but it only serves to confuse the issue in a game that is generally very simple to understand. The introduction of this change would also have the benefit of stretching the game over a wider area rather than the players bunching up as they do as a result of the current offside law.

The assistant referees would still have to make the decisions that they do now, but surely it will be far simpler for them to do so if they only have the eighteen yard line to the goal line to worry about. But I then propose to take it further. To improve the accuracy of offside decisions at the higher levels of the game, then we must begin to use video technology.

Perhaps it needs to be introduced a little at a time, with extensive trials to ensure it is helping to improve the accuracy of key decision making in the game. So, for example, as a first step, when a goal is scored and there is a suspicion of offside the technology could be used to check the validity of the goal. Assistant referees must be encouraged not to raise their flag unless they are fairly certain of offside. The benefit of the doubt should always be given to the attacker. Video replays would only be necessary if a goal is subsequently scored.

It won’t be perfect but we will have greater accuracy and consistency than currently exists. Hazard was only slightly offside when he headed the ball in from Ramires cross in the Chelsea game at Upton Park in March 2015, but the replay showed within seconds that he was offside. In this example, at the moment the ball hit the net from Hazard’s header the referee would be asking the video referee “is there any reason to disallow the goal, for example for offside?” As we saw within seconds on Sky, the reply would be “yes he was offside, disallow the goal”. It wouldn’t hold up the game, the Chelsea players would still have been in the celebration process. Even if the referee had not asked the question, the video referee could have told him that the goal was offside.

If you haven’t read enough of my arguments and want to know more, then there are a number of frequently asked questions on the FA website to baffle you even further. But I’d like to think that the change suggested would improve the game. At the very least I’d like to see it tried out. It makes sense to me.  What are the arguments against trying it? But will it be tried? Of course not, because the change is too radical. But should it? Of course it should.

The complexity of the other supplementary situations that I describe in this article must also be addressed. I remember once that it used to be a straightforward question “is the player in an offside position interfering with play?” If you added this to the 18 yard offside rule change, then surely it would be simpler for us all to understand.

Offside: Changes Needed? – Part One

Raising the flag on problems and shortcomings of the current offside rule.

OffsideI recently wrote an article where I posed the question, “what is the point of the penalty area?” In this I suggested the removal of the penalty area as it stands to be replaced by a line, which would stretch right across the pitch. The line would have nothing to do with the issuing of penalty kicks, but would be an instrumental line for a change in the ridiculous offside law (as it stands), which I will outline further starting with this article.

I’ve got a lot of views about offside and I’ve been reading about the law, FIFA guidance, referee guidance etc. One problem I have is that it has been proven in scientific research that human beings (including linesmen!) physically cannot move their eyes fast enough to take in all the necessary action. To make a correct decision they have to assess the positions of the player passing the ball, the player receiving the ball, and the second from last defender at the exact moment a pass is made, bearing in mind that they could be some distance apart, and possibly moving at speed in opposite directions.

I believe we need to look back in history to ascertain why the offside law was introduced in the first place. If you study the development of football in the 1860s, the offside law was probably the biggest bone of contention between the clubs in existence at the time who all had their own version of it.

A compromise was eventually agreed and written into the Laws of the Game in 1866, and was eventually adopted throughout. It was similar to the rule that exists today with the difference being that at a player was offside if he was in the opponents’ half, and he was nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and at least three opponents when receiving a pass from his team-mate.

The rule changed in 1925 with three opponents becoming two opponents. In 1990 the law was amended so that a player was onside if he was level with the second to last opponent. This change was considered to be part of a movement by the authorities to make the rules more conducive to attacking football and help the game to flow more freely.

But why was it introduced in the very first place? In the very early games of football, players would stand close to the opponents goal, a term known as goal-hanging (as happened a lot in the playground games of football in my day), and the ball could be played to them, where they would be in a good position to score, and obstruct the goalkeeper too. Quite clearly as the game developed it was realised that this was an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

But why do we have the situation where you can be offside in half of the area of the pitch? Can you really be goal-hanging more than fifty yards from goal? Once we’ve dispensed with the nonsensical penalty area that I previously referred to, I believe we should draw a line across the pitch, say 18 yards from the goal line. It doesn’t have to be necessarily 18 yards; it could be 20. Some experimentation would be needed of course. We would then change the rule so that you can only be offside in this final 18 yards of the pitch. This would prevent the current condensing of play in the centre of the field and stretch it out further.

In my view it would also help the assistant referee, whose task with regard to offside can be difficult, as they need to keep up with the flow of the game, consider if players are in an offside position when the ball is played, and then decide if any players that are in an offside position become involved in active play.

As I mentioned before, officiating errors in respect of offside are inevitable from an optical viewpoint, with the eyes and brain of a human being unable to process all of the necessary action to accurately call an offside decision accurately. The risk of errors increases by the foreshortening effect, which can happen when the distances between the attacking player, the defending players, and the assistant referee vary significantly. This is exacerbated if the assistant referee is not directly in line with the defender, and with the speed of the game today, this is virtually impossible.

The assistant referee has to judge if a player is level with an opponent at the moment the ball is kicked. The ball may be kicked from a short distance away or 40 yards away, and the linesman has to be able to see all of this with one set of eyes. It becomes even more difficult if an attacker and a defender are running in opposite directions. Sometimes it is just not possible to keep all necessary players in the field of vision at once.

This article will be continued with further details of the complexity of the offside rule that most of us don’t know about, and ideas for solutions to simplify the law for players and spectators alike, together with a call for video replays that could easily be introduced without any hold up to the game.

The Penalty Area: What’s The Point?

Thinking outside the box. The existing rules on penalty awards put on the spot.

I’ll start with a question. Why do people refer to the penalty area as the penalty box? A box suggests to me a three-dimensional object, whereas the penalty area (or “18 yard box”) is just a set of lines which denote a rectangle measuring 18 yards by 44 yards or 792 square yards. This is about one-sixth of an acre which makes it sound bigger than it really is.

It’s a nonsensical area with an arbitrary size that has one main purpose. It is there so that any foul committed within it by the defending side, including intentional handball, results in the award of a penalty kick. My suggestion is that this is a ridiculous law and should be abolished immediately. I’m not petitioning for the abolition of the penalty kick itself, merely the reason for awarding it. The penalty area also has a supplementary purpose in that it exists, of course, as an arbitrary area in which the goalkeeper can handle the ball.

At the moment a foul could be committed inches inside the penalty area, and a penalty kick is awarded even if there is no way that the goal is threatened, or a goal scoring opportunity denied. The attacking player may be moving away from the goal, or the ball may be played by the defender’s hand without there being any real danger of a goal being scored. Nevertheless a penalty kick is awarded which effectively means an 85% chance of a goal being scored.  

If exactly the same offence occurs inches outside the penalty area then a free kick is awarded. This means that the defending side can build a wall, and effectively means a less than 2% chance of a goal (unless of course you’ve got Dimitri Payet in your team!). At the speed of football today, it is difficult, nigh on impossible, for the officials to be certain whether or not the offence is inside or outside the area, but the end result of their decision makes an enormous difference to the outcome.

Compare that to the situation where a player is clean through on goal, say thirty yards out, and is brought down by a defender, thereby denying a clear goal scoring opportunity. This latter situation should, to make it a more sensible rule, result in the award of a penalty kick in my opinion, even though under the current rules it would just be a free kick. 

So my proposal is that the penalty area is abolished, and a penalty kick is awarded whenever a clear goal scoring opportunity is denied, regardless of where it takes place on the pitch. We don’t need a penalty area for this and it would therefore become redundant.

And I’ll go a step further to discourage dissent from the side that have a penalty awarded against them. If anyone in the team shows dissent towards the officials, then not only does the penalty stand, but the penalty kick is taken without a goalkeeper in the goal, thus increasing the possibility of a goal to very close to 100%.

These changes will mean that penalties are only awarded for good reasons, and dissent will be eliminated at a stroke. It makes sense and must be introduced. But will it? Of course not, because the change is too radical. But should it? Of course it should.

But, I hear you say, what about knowing where keepers should be allowed to handle the ball? I would have a line all the way across the pitch 18 yards from goal, allowing the keeper to handle the ball anywhere within it. Those diehards amongst you can keep the penalty area where it is, if you must, for goalkeeper handling purposes. But it should no longer have anything to do with the award of penalty kicks.

My line, which would stretch right across the pitch, would also have nothing to do with the issuing of penalty kicks, but would be an instrumental line for a change in the ridiculous offside law (as it stands), which I will outline in a future article.

To be continued ……

Counting Sheep – 8 – The Letters M and N

Another combined team in the search for alphabetically themed West Ham teams.

Counting SheepThis all began with me selecting teams of West Ham players whose surnames all started with the same letter. The aim was to help me drop off to sleep instead of the more traditional method of counting sheep.

So far I’ve picked seven teams, “B”, “C”, “D”, “F”, a combined “G” and “H”, a combined “J”, “K” and “L”, and “Vowels”. M comes next and it was easy to write down enough names to form a decent team. But thinking ahead to N I realised that I would have few options there, so once again I decided on a combined team. There are at least four stand-out captains in this side, although the one and only Sir Bobby would be the choice for this role.

My all-time West Ham “M” plus “N” Team in a 4-4-2 formation are:

Miklosko
McDowell
Martin
Moore
McCartney
Malcolm
Moncur
Noble
Nolan
McAvennie
Morley

So who have I left out this time? McKnight, McAllister and Mackleworth are three keepers who would have received very few votes when being compared to my selected custodian, Miklosko. Outfield players (M) were Mascherano, Morrison, Musgrove (perhaps the unluckiest to be omitted), Mullins, Moses, McAnuff, Maynard, MacDougall, Maiga, Margas, McGiven, McCarthy, McQueen, Mellor and Minto. The Ns included Neighbour, Neill, Nene, Newell and Nordtveit. Some very good players have not been included plus some who didn’t pull up any trees in a West Ham shirt.

Have I forgotten someone really good who is a must for the M/N team? And I can only remember one M/N manager. I’ll bet you don’t think of him as one of our most successful managers; Lou Macari.