The Return Of The King

Sol Campbell in his prime was without doubt a world class performer. He was a rock, a model of consistency by which all should measure up to. He had the perfect combination of height, power, pace, and reading of the game which all centre-backs desire. Unlike some other top quality players, such as Rio Ferdinand, John Terry, I never recall Campbell making any high profile gaffs which cost his team dearly (well at least not on the field).

Equally as vital as anyone in the invincible’s line up that dominated English football like no other. As great as the likes of Vieira, Henry were in that team it could easily be justified that Sol Campbell actually had the hardest job of the lot. Yes Vieira bossed the middle of the park like I have seen no other; yes Henry at times single handily destroyed teams and won games. But the quality of support these players had was very different to that of Sol Campbell. Henry always had the likes of Pires, and most notably Bergkamp feeding him with the chances to win games in the style in which he did. Vieira always had the likes of Gilberto holding behind him, and the ever industrious Ljungberg working the right flank. Campbell’s role was difference. That back like consisted of Ashley Cole, Kolo Toure, Sol Campbell, and Lauren. Ashley Cole without doubt a top draw left back (cringe), but at the time a young one and one who’s attacking instincts at times left the defence exposed. Kolo Toure, who’s deficiencies have become all too clear since Campbell left the club, and Lauren although a solid performer, is generally considered just about an above average full back. The question I would phase would be, without Henry, without Vieira, and without difference personal would we have won the league? Probably not. Without Sol Campbell, would we have? Definitely not.

The problem many of these true sporting greats have is when to bail out, when to retire and the best way, and often the hardest way to do so is to go out at the top. Go out as a champion. The likes of Tony Adams, Martin Keown, Patrick Vieira are all players who strike out as going out as champions. If they stayed on possibly a season longer, the decline in their performance would have been clear to see and criticism would have been widespread. Other sportsmen simply go on to long, whether out of love for the game, or love of the money that comes with it. An Example being Roy Keane who’s presence in midfield declined to the point he was often being asked to play at centre back late on in his career which in the past would have been unthinkable. We are currently seeing this from Gary Neville, Paul Scholes who I personally believe should have retired last summer. Why carry on when you have nothing to prove is the question often asked of sportsmen that do carry on that little bit to long. This is often a bad decision for legends, whose image is slightly degraded by performances that show signs of decline and fail to show the ability and consistency that we all have become accustomed too.

Sol Campbell is different, he was a great. However this great still has a point to prove, he did not go out at the top. He went out having lost a Champions League final, having previously gone AWOL on a very young struggling Arsenal team against West Ham at Highbury in a game Arsenal lost 3-2 (the last loss at Highbury). This is not the act of an experienced head, a key component for club and country. However this was the act of a man clearly fighting some personal demons. Yes he went on to win an FA for Portsmouth (more than he ever won at Tottenham I would like to add smugly), but a man with Sol Campbells ability and stature in the game was never set to go out of the game having played for an average Premiership club, and definitely not playing for a team as far down as League 2. This decision to join Notts County was one of the most bizarre in history, a player whom I am sure many a Premiership club would have desired, joining a team in the same division as Barnet. This decision puzzles me still, the answer at the time given simply as a financial one. If this was the case however, why would he the walk out on this lucrative deal if it wasn’t for footballing reasons and his own personal aspirations.

This is a man who has a serious point to prove. If he retired now, or went out playing for Notts County in the lower divisions of English football there would always be questions of his temperament, having gone AWOL on Arsenal, questions of his loyalty having left Tottenham on a free to join bitter North London rivalries and walking out on Notts County after one appearance after signing a 5 year contract.

His ability would never, and has never been in question, but these nagging doubts have always and will always be unless this second stint at Arsenal is a fruitful one. Arsenal, a team lacking depth at the back, lacking a leader, an old head have signed a legend with a point to prove. This isn’t a decision made by a desperate Wenger, he simply doesn’t make these decisions. He would have watched Campbell’s performances very closely over the 3 months at training with Arsenal, picking through every aspect of Sol Campbell as a footballer, and as a man with a toothpick. Wenger does not make rash decisions, he is a highly thoughtful man (sometimes to thoughtful for his own good) and I am sure see’s no reason why Campbell cannot contribute to this Arsenal team just like the likes of Steve Bould, Tony Adams, Martin Keown, Lee Dixon, and Winterburn did in the twilight of their careers. It wouldn’t even surprise me in the slightest if Campbell got another one year contract at the end of the season.It all points to a great move by Arsene, who's team and in some ways himself has the same point to prove as that of Sol Campbell. Let’s all hope his influence is a positive one and can help Arsenal on the way to a trophy winning season in the first in the second decade of the 21st century.

“Heeey, hey Tottenham, Oooh Ahhh. I wanna kno-oooow, where your captains gone”

The Flawed Offside Rule

'In preparation for the World Cup, the "offside rule" explained for women:
You're in a shoe shop, second in the queue for the till. Behind the shop assistant on the till is a pair of shoes which you have seen and which you must have.
The female shopper in front of you has seen them also and is eyeing them with desire. Both of you have forgotten your purses.
It would be rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to pay for the shoes.
The shop assistant remains at the till waiting.
Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and sees your dilemma.
She prepares to throw her purse to you.
If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper and buy the shoes!
At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and "whilst it is in flight" you could nip around the other shopper, catch the purse and buy the shoes!
BUT, you must always remember that until the purse has "actually been thrown", it would be plain wrong for you to be in front of the other shopper and you would be OFFSIDE!'


It has long been held a joke that women do not understand the offside rule. But now I would ask, who actually does?

With all the changes in recent years, such as an attacker who is level with the defender now being onside, then daylight having to be between the attacker and defender, then a part of the body that can legally play the ball of the attacker being ahead of the defender, and now players having to be deemed to be 'interfering with play.'

Who actually knows the rule today? The problem is, it is all down to individual interpretation, and this was portrayed perfectly with Man United's goal against Birmingham in the 1-1 on the 09/01/10. Manchester United's full-back Patrice Evra crossed the ball in and the Birmingham centre-half Scott Dann slid in to block the cross and deflected the ball into his own not. Wayne Rooney was offside (although admittidley marginal), the linesman had his flag up and after some consultation with the referee, decided to allow the goal as it was an own goal. The commentators agreed this was a correct decision, and Alex Ferguson even mocked the referee after the game for the linesman having his flag up when it was an own-goal.

However in my opinion, this goal should have been scratched off and deemed off-side. But how? You may well ask, it was an own goal? Well in my opinion although Rooney did not touch the ball and interfere with play directly, his positioning nonetheless had an impact on the defenders decision to slide in the stop the cross. Would he have done that knowing that there was no Manchester United players behind him? No he wouldn't have, so by that reckoning Rooney was interfering with play thus was offside. (Make your own mind up http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/4419263/)

You may well believe that my take on the goal is wrong, but my point is that there is no rule in football to prove me wrong and make the linesmans job a hell of a lot easier. One mans offside, is another man's onside. I think its about time we got back to basics, and cut the referees and linesman who have the hardest job in football, some slack!

That includes you Fergie...