I haven't finished reading all of the July 2008 issue yet, but there are a couple of items in it I'd like to comment upon.

One is 'Head to head? Mindless!', by Keir Radnedge, on page 32, where he writes against UEFA's decision to make head-to-head results the first consideration is separating teams with the same number of points. While I see nothing wrong with his reasons for writing against it, it fails to deal with its advantages and it doesn't mention the disadvantages of using his preferred system, overall goal difference. This can turn the article into a bit of a one-sided rant, rather than being a well-balanced piece, which would have been preferable.

Everyone is so used to criticising football administrators and tournament organisers that sometimes it is forgotten why they do the things they do, and this is an example. Overall goal difference is a system that opens itself to suspicions of cheating and unfairness, and that's why UEFA doesn't use it. National football leagues such as Spain have scrapped it too.

Suppose for example that Switzerland had been able to qualify for the quarter-finals on the back of a big victory against a Portugal side who, already through, played a second-string team. That would be very unfair, because the other two teams in the group, Turkey and the Czech Republic, had to play Portugal at full strength.

This is just one example, but you can think of many others in which a team could influence the outcome of the group on the strength of their last-day goal count. A team already out could receive irregular 'boosts' from others in their group to try harder, or be bribed by the team playing them to lay low and let goals in. The same could happen to a team already through. Won't happen? Look at Argentina v Peru in 1978, where goal difference counted. In national leagues the possibilities multiply, with mid-of-the-table teams with nothing to play for at the end of seasons being a clear source of suspicion. Overall goal difference is just too risky, too tempting, and the suspicions just won't go away even if nothing irregular happens. So this is on its own a very good reason not to use this system.

Another one is that if two teams have the same points and we have beaten them in our match, why do they get to go through and not us? If it's about separating us two, we were better than them, as we demonstrated on the field, and that should count for more than who scored more against the bottom team in the group. It's just fairer.

Sure, UEFA's system tends to produce more 'dead' games, but I think it's preferable to have a game in which there's nothing to play for, if both teams have earned it (one being too good, the other too bad), than having suspicion and unfairness flying all over the place.

Still, I don't have a problem with the organiser using overall goal difference first, if that's what they decide. I just consider it a worse system. But my point is that a discussion of the topic, for example in the magazine, should include both views, and readers would have been better served by that.

Of course, it's somebody else's comment column, and I don't pretend to tell anyone what to write. Just some feedback.

---

The other item is 'Dripping with conflict', on page 90, Sid Lowe's article on the Real Madrid v Barcelona derby. While I see nothing wrong with it, I feel that it sells the topic short, stopping at the same place where many other such articles do: Franco and the centralist repression, 'the freedom fighters against rejection, repression and cheating referees'. To his credit, Mr Lowe continues: 'that, at least, is the theory. The reality is, of course, rather different'. But he doesn't finish the job of telling us how different it is nowadays.

Franco died in 1975. All current players in the Spanish league hadn't been born yet or were too young to remember, so they have lived their whole lives in democracy and full respect of their rights, including their local culture and language. The 'repression and rejection', if one wants to explore the subject from that point of view, is now firmly on the other boot, with many parents in Catalonia complaining that they can't find schools where their children can be taught their lessons in Spanish: Spanish is treated as a foreign language with only two hours a week, and the rest of the subjects are taught in Catalan. Any foreigners with kids, and maybe some knowledge of Spanish, settling in Catalonia would have the same problem. Newspapers have been running stories titled 'It's forbidden to speak Spanish in some parts of Spain'. This reversal is a very hot topic in Spanish politics now, and as such, it should be mentioned in the article if any political angle is touched upon, as Barça president Joan Laporta is an strong advocate of the Catalan language. The current situation should be explored, rather than only the dictatorship, which is OK to start off, but it would be like stopping at 1966 when discussing English football. No-one thinks Real Madrid are 'el equipo del gobierno' any more.

A thing I find fault with is the use of some quotes. Mr Lowe uses testimonies from Hristo Stoichkov, Bobby Robson and Johan Cruyff, all of which are foreigners, and the only local voice is that of extremist Oleguer Presas, a first-team reserve. The first three just run the clichés about leading imaginary armies and the impossibility of keeping the political side out. If this is so, Mr Stoichkov, why are Barcelona the second-best supported team all over Spain? There are hundreds of thousands of people all over the country staunchly opposed to any idea of independence for Catalonia and still supporters of FC Barcelona purely beacuse of the football. One of such is no less than Spain's president, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who comes from the cradle of the Spanish language, the heartlands of Castilla y León. Barça CAN be understood without politics, especially with the high number of foreign players any leading team now has.

About Oleguer, a man who has raised doubts whether he would accept a call to play for Spain, it's fine to give him a voice, but where are the voices of the real stars of the team? Could we read the views of Xavi Hernández or Carles Puyol? They're Catalans who have never had a problem playing for Spain, and so well in fact they are now European Champions wearing the red shirt. Could we know also whether Madrid-born Iker Casillas (he of the basque name) or Raúl González see themselves as centralists and imperialists? How do the players from other parts of Spain (Andrés Iniesta, Sergio Ramos) see the matter, if they think about it at all? What about the foreigners? What about the players who played for both teams, such as Bernd Schuster, Michael Laudrup or Luis Enrique Martínez? That would be an utterly fascinating, in-depth and necessary article, and it would be a tremendous project for Mr Lowe to pursue. Xavi deserves a full interview just on the strength of being best player of Euro 2008. Try that question on for size.

Cheers

Subscribe to World Soccer