Mumbai attacks mean cricket is immaterial

Wednesday’s attacks on the Indian city of Mumbai have left over a hundred people dead and at least three hundred injured. The attackers targeted several sites across the city, notably the Taj Mahal Palace hotel, where a large number of Westerners were staying. The location is significant for the fact that the current touring England cricket team were due to stay there in the coming weeks, as were the Middlesex team, participating in the inaugaral Champions League.


Cricket is used to being on the back pages and although it is hardly the centre focus in this story, there is only one option that can be taken - send them home. As much as sport is a healing power in this world, where eastern and western cultures can combine to play a competitive game, there comes a time when safety is premium.


The second a touring party feels there is any danger to their personnel then it is time to send them home. Yes, the contest would be ruined and the sporting attraction would be over but when it comes to human life, there can be no excuses. This event is particularly close to home in that the team were due to stay at the very hotel that was attacked. Have we reached the stage where we send our sportsmen overseas like we send our soldiers to war, praying for their safe return?

This incident is not the first one of cricketing safety. The recent Champions Trophy was postponed as the security climate in the host country Pakistan was deemed unfit by nearly all countries. Australia and West Indies recently declined to tour Pakistan because of the same reason. It seems most countries will see sense and pull out of touring should there be any kind of risk to players.


The England situation is different in that the team is halfway through playing a series. However, there is no sense in risking their lives for a game. Leicestershire wicket keeper Paul Nixon, who is currently in India playing in the ICL, says England should pack up and head home immediately and it is hard to disagree with him. The financial and commercial costs may indeed suffer but safety comes first.

It is not often sport and terrorism are mixed. And that is exactly how it should be. If England extend their stay in India to encompass the scheduled Tests then there is something dramatically wrong with the organisers in the England camp. Do them and their families a favour - bring them home. They’re sportsmen, not soldiers.

Tottenham Hotspur 1-0 Blackburn Rovers - Match Report

Tottenham and Blackburn began the afternoon in the bottom three but it was Spurs who came storming out of it by full time as they edged out their opponents on a chilly afternoon at White Hart Lane. Phase one of Harry Redknapp’s plan, to get out of the bottom three, appears completed and the Messiah’s fantastic start as boss continued.

Former Spurs keeper Paul Robinson returned to White Hart Lane for the first time since his departure as the teams took the field with no real surprises in the selection. Ledley King returned to captain the Tottenham side and Darren Bent and Roman Pavlyuchenko started a game together for the first time, after former boss Juande Ramos had deemed the pair unfit to play together.

It was Spurs who had the first scare however as the ever worrying Heurelho Gomes contrived to spill a Morten Gamst Pedersen corner, causing mayhem. Tottenham however survived the scare in the best way possible as Aaron Lennon robbed Aaron Mokoena and skipped down the pitch into the Blackburn area to pull back for Pavlyuchenko, who calmly fired into the back of the net. Pavlyuchenko was unlucky not to have a second soon after as his header from David Bentley’s free kick hit the post.

Blackburn responded quite well and could have been level when Brett Emerton looped the ball over the advancing Gomes, only for a desperate headed clearance from Jonathan Woodgate. Minutes later, Benni McCarthy contrived to put a good chance over the bar from six yards out after getting on the end of a Martin Olsson cross.

Spurs continued to look lively, none more so than Lennon who went on several darting runs through the Blackburn half, one of which resulted in a left footed strike which just went past the post. He caused Blackburn more damage when again he sprinted away from Martin Olsson, only to be cynically brought down by Olsson who received his second yellow card and was forced to take an early bath. From the resulting free kick, the ball came to Lennon on the outside of area who’s powerful strike was blocked on the line.

Just before the half time interval came a moment of controversy as Bentley went down on the edge of the box. Tottenham fans and players alike all anticipated an attacking free kick only for referee Howard Webb to give a free kick the other way and show Bentley a yellow card for diving. He may have gone down a touch theatrically but to say he was diving was harsh and the challenge definitely merited a free kick. Nevertheless, Spurs were good value for their half time lead.

Blackburn looked dangerous in the opening exchanges after the break but Spurs continued to create chances, with Tom Huddlestone having a vicious drive deflected over the bar and then another, even better shot from the resulting corner, which curled a touch wide of the post. Spurs continued to press, yet couldn’t find the elusive second goal as Jermaine Jenas and Bentley played an intricate short corner which dropped invitingly for Woodgate, who couldn’t get a clean strike on it.

Tottenham were dominating possession and Blackburn introduced Matt Derbyshire to give a more attacking edge. Spurs brought on Frazier Campbell, who has impressed in recent weeks, for Pavlyuchenko as they looked to close out the game with another goal that their pressure and performance had deserved. The anxiety was growing all around the ground, however, as Blackburn slowly began to get more of the ball, although they hadn’t really threatened Gomes’ goal.

With ten minutes remaining Campbell broke down the left, evading a few tackles and fired the ball across the face of goal only to see Darren Bent’s outstretched foot just fail to make contact. Minutes later, Lennon darted into the box, made room and had a powerful shot saved by Robinson. Then, the best chance of the second half fell to Campbell. Bentley and Lennon worked a short corner, Bentley whipped in an excellent cross and found Campbell in a bit of space, who header was off target.

Spurs replaced Bentley soon after with Jamie O’Hara, a move surely to shore up the midfield and protect the lead. An ugly fracas broke out in the closing minutes between Jenas and Keith Andrews when the Spurs man lashed out after being fouled and then held onto by his opponent. Although the players swarmed the scene, referee Webb had the situation in control and showed yellow cards to both players.

The final whistle came as a massive relief to Tottenham, although in truth Blackburn hardly threatened during the whole game. The man of the match performance from Aaron Lennon will be the most pleasing aspect to Spurs fans, as the winger tormented the Blackburn defence for pretty much the whole game, looking like the player he was when he first burst onto the scene three years ago. The win takes Spurs to the lofty heights of 14th place and with the close proximity of all teams from around 7th place downwards, Tottenham will be hoping to kick on from here and not fall back into the worrying depths of the bottom three.

(fansonline.net/tottenhamhotspur, 2008)

A note of caution

Hyperbole is a often overused thing in sport and it appears as if the media are falling into the trap again. With the apparent decline of the Australian cricket side, many observers have been touting an England win in next summer’s Ashes series. Cricketing luminaries have been weighing in with their assorted two cents - Sir Ian Botham has gone so far as to publicly predict an easy win for England. Such enthusiasm for the contest is to be welcomed, but there’s comes a point where the noises and opinions become plain daft. This is one of those times.

How anyone can confidently predict a comfortable England series win is utterly foolish. Australia’s current ‘demise’ saw them lose their first test series since the fabled ‘05 Ashes as they went down, albeit fighting, 2-0 in India. Bearing in mind the fact that India is probably one of the hardest places to tour in the world, those who say that the Aussie defeat bodes well for England are getting confused. It is England themselves who play a test series in India next month and one can hardly assume they will fare any better than Australia did.

Admittedly, Australia have been feeling the effects of losing three of their greatest players ever in Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Adam Gilchrist. Behind the stumps, Brad Haddin has failed to convince. His performance in India both with the gloves and with the bat left much to be desired. Warne’s absence was always going to be felt the strongest and Brett Lee, Stuart Clark and Mitchell Johnson have struggled to replicate the accuracy and consistency of McGrath, although they have impressed.

A possible sign of how much in decline Australia are is their batting performance in the current home test series with New Zealand. The Indian defeat came with legitimate excuses but to crumble twice on a home ground against a mediocre New Zealand attack is a possible indication of how things are on the wane. However, to assume that this slump is permanent is a mistake. Australia are the masters of proving people wrong and one could easily see them coming back between now and next summer and becoming something like the team they were.

One must also take into account England at the moment. Their test form is currently inconsistent, notably the batting. Shackled by the likes of New Zealand and South Africa recently, one has to assume they will struggle against Australia’s pacers. Kevin Pietersen aside, England’s batsman seem to be going through a transitional period and it is hard to feel confident of a good score from them. Talented they may be but if they can’t beat South Africa at home, then why is everyone assuming they will beat Australia?

The other factor to bear in mind is the fact that it is the Ashes. These contests are rarely walkovers (ignore events last time out, please) and especially not in England’s favour. Even in 2005, when England thoroughly outplayed the Australians, the score was only 2-1 and not a single England fan or player had many nails left by the end of August. Bottom line - England may possibly be good and Australia may possibly be bad but ignore the spectacle of the Ashes at your peril.

Australia have plenty of time to improve. And for that matter, so do England. What is evident is that both teams have a lot to prove, both to the cricketing world and to themselves. Australia seem torn between clinging on to the past and wiping the slate clean with their new team. England appear to be… just torn. But one things for sure, England will unlikely be thinking that they will walk this series and fans and pundits shouldn’t be either.

It’s not just about current form, people. There’s a whole year to wait.

Benitez fashions Gerrard's England sick note

Another England game, another club versus country debate. But whilst the Rafael Benitez’s and Alex Ferguson’s of this world may sit in their offices with their Fabio Capello voodoo dolls at the ready, many fans are simply disappointed to see England have to put out a skeleton side in a game against one of the world’s best. And did anyone take the time to ask Mr Gerrard how he feels about being not playing? One suspects not.

The issue of club managers becoming possessive of their players has reared its ugly head before and will continue to do so unless an England boss or F.A executive has the cojones to stop it. This latest example is another act of sheer single mindedness from a Premier League team and, notably, a top four team. Steven Gerrard, the sometime cog of the England midfield, the man who played a scoring role in a league game against Bolton at the weekend, had previously been prevented from joining the England squad after suffering "a tear in the adductor magnus muscle in his right leg", as the Liverpool website so helpfully put it.

The announcement smacked of a conspiracy. Benitez was clearly not going to have his best player representing his country where a nasty thing like an injury could happen. Not by a long shot. The fact that Gerrard had played ninety minutes at the weekend was clearly immaterial - Steven was injured, end of story. Capello then showed some of the fight necessary to beat the greedy club managers. He called Gerrard in for an England medical check up. They would be the ones to judge if he was available or not.

As it turns out, Gerrard was ruled out. It has to be said, along with others - Wayne Rooney, Rio Ferdinand, Frank Lampard, Joe Cole, Ashley Cole, Wes Brown, Emile Heskey, Joe Hart and now, wonderfully, Theo Walcott are all closer to the injury table than they are to the pitch. Admittedly, the majority of those are genuine injuries or injury concerns that have legitimately ruled the player out. But the Gerrard saga shouldn’t sit right with England fans. England players have a responsibility to represent their country. It is, or should be, the pinnacle of a player’s career.

It is hard to blame Gerrard in this. One gets the feeling that he would want to play and that he is being advised, or rather held back, by the Scouse powers that be. But Benitez has no right to do it. Yes, the game is a friendly but it’s Germany away in Berlin. Try telling me that any member of the squad, either initially named or called as backup, would not want to play in this game? Capello and, indeed, the England fans deserve more respect from managers like Benitez and others who have played the ‘sudden injury’ game before. That’s you, Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger.

A similar situation occurred in the dying embers of Steve McClaren’s reign. Michael Owen, coming back from injury, was called up into the England squad to play Estonia and Russia at Wembley. Then Newcastle boss Sam Allardyce protested furiously at this, saying that England were rushing his precious asset back. The truth is England and McClaren needed and wanted him. Why shouldn’t they have him if he wanted to play? Owen duly played both games, scored three goals and played a blinder against Russia. He returned to St James Park happy and in good form. Can’t players going away with their countries be a good thing?

One can understand the concern of managers that they do not want their star players being injured in meaningless friendly games. But a different perspective and attitude must be taken. Good players will play for their country - it’s a fact. They may pick up an occasional knock but that is just bad luck. Sometimes, there will be a positive effect and players can come back better and happier. It is their international manager’s choice, not their club boss.

Heaven knows, it is not up to Rafael Benitez to pick the England squad.

Critically assess to what extent mass communications has been central to the establishment of American power in the global context

Americanisation is a term derived to describe the influence of the United States on the rest of the world. It refers to the process in which the American culture is spreading around the world having an effect on other cultures and influencing them. There are many possible vehicles of Americanization - the process of mass communication is certainly one of these methods.

Mass communication takes on many forms. The spread of American media such as TV, films, radio and news around the world is a heavy influence on the spread of Americanization. American news is broadcast all around the world with stations such as Fox News, CNN and CNBC being found in many parts of the globe. The establishment of American power around the world is intrinsically linked with mass communications - how powerful would the US be if their media wasn’t thrust upon the rest of world?

Certainly, the technological revolution has greatly benefited the idea of American power spreading through the world. The fateful events of September 11th were covered in great detail in the media with American newscasters being seen all around the world. Several US newscasters were shown in different countries around the world covering their perspective of the event - generally an American perspective of the event.

Most of the world was shown the horrific events through the eyes of the American media and the American people. The generally sympathetic and concerned nature of the news coverage was spread across the world, leading many to feel the same. Whilst it can be said that people should have been feeling this anyway, there is an argument that the spread of media around the world has contributed to the global opinion of the 9/11 attacks.

There is a feeling that the 9/11 incident contributed to the Middle East/West divide and that that divide has been reinforced by media coverage of both 9/11 and the subsequent Iraq war. US news broadcasters were criticised for their overly patriotic nature of news coverage. Respected journalist Dan Rather told the BBC in 2001 that American journalist were scared of asking the real questions and risking showing the US in a bad light. The divide in opinion between the West and the Middle East has possibly been perpetuated by the media and their coverage, which has undoubtedly shaped the opinions of not only the American people but others in the Western world as well.

A website article claims that Western journalists should feel a burden of guilt for much that has happened in the Middle East as they are, in part, responsible for selling a ‘fictitious version of events’. Of course, Of course, if there was one and only one news broadcaster for the whole world, providing a neutral and impartial version of accounts, then a lot of the worlds conflict or divides wouldn’t be as bad.

The idea of ‘new media’ encompasses the development of burgeoning media technologies. It goes without saying that as new media continues to grow, the flow of news around the globe is made easier and better. Therefore, new media has helped to shape and influence the process of globalization - the world getting smaller and more in touch with itself.

Has the greater flow of media and technology perpetuated the growth of American hegemony? Arguably yes, as American media is everywhere - American news channels are seen all over the world, American websites are frequently among the most visited on the Internet and American TV shows are broadcast all around the globe.

It is not just news channels that spread the American view. American TV shows are shown all around the world and it is possible that they could be spreading American values and power. English channel E4 is a hotbed for US dramas and comedies with many shows such as Lost, Scrubs and One Tree Hill all being shown at peak times for English viewers. American values are core to these programmes and the spreading of these shows around the world can only be beneficial to the flow of American power around the world.

However, an from the New York Times in 2003 would suggest that the power of American TV is on the decline. The article suggests that American shows that would be shown in primetime viewing slots are now being shunted into late night times as the demand for them in foreign countries has lessened. The assumption is that as the actions taken by America around the time of the second Gulf war led to many people taking a negative view of the country. Thereby, the force of American culture on television declined as people no longer held the superpower in that much esteem.

Is globalization simply another form of Americanization? Globalization can be described as the process of the people in the world unifying into a single society or culture. As the spread of Americanization continues then surely this ‘single society’ is just the remnants of an American one? The notion of the world becoming a giant America is a slightly disconcerting one but one needs to ascertain just how accurate it is. Indeed, talk of the six billion people around the world all becoming one is unrealistic. New media has projected a more unified culture around the world and it is no coincidence that much of this new media, such as the Internet, has a large American backing. It is not just the internet. American exports and products are strong in the world market - one needs only look at the term ‘cocacolanization’.

However, if you look at globalization on a larger scale then there is a strong argument that it is not just America that is spreading itself around the world. You may see McDonalds restaurants in countries all around the world but you will also see food from around the world dominating the US cuisine landscape. China are the biggest users of the internet in the world, beating the likes of the US and the UK. It is not just America that is projecting itself onto the world, other countries are trying it out as well.

There is a problem with Americanization being linked with globalization. It has caused people from around the world to have negative views of America and to stereotype them. Americanization has not only created hatred towards America but has allowed people who carry this hatred to use it - through new technologies. The man behind the first World Trade Centre bombing kept all his plans for the attack on his laptop computer. Osama bin Laden ran, for a time, at least, a multinational online Jihad. Technology has allowed people to give an action to their hatred.

There is an idea that Americanization threatens the cultures and beliefs of other nations - thus leading to this dislike of the US. There are those who claim that Americanization must be stopped or dramatically lowered in order to bring a halt to the burgeoning dislike that grows with every new Starbucks built around the world.

The way the American media portrayed their involvement in the first Gulf War was a key moment in the development of American power around the world. This war was the first to be covered in such high detail. From reporters travelling with soldiers to live pictures of Baghdad being bombed, this was the first instance in the history of global conflict of a war being so graphically detailed.

This war saw a period of US journalism in which many reporters abandoned their neutrality for a sense of patriotism. Reporters were criticised for their lack of professionalism and how they were more in favour of raising public morale for the war effort. The sight of CBS’s Dan Rather shaking hands with a general after a interview at the end of the war and saying the words ‘Congratulations on a job wonderfully done!’ symbolised the cheerleading style of the American media throughout this time.

What most people had come to expect from the US press was an impartiality and a sense of not being on either side. The press were there to report what was happening in the war honestly and with no obvious sense of patriotism. Many were let down by what they felt was a disappointing viewpoint taken by their reporters. It was as if the government were spoon feeding their media outlets with what to say to the American people to keep the war going well for both the soldiers out there and the people back home, worrying.

If people around the world were to follow American news, as many did, then they too would be forced to accept what they were being told and to accept the sort of cheerleading, pro-American way of reporting. It seems that the process of Americanization lead the world into believing what America were saying. While they weren’t lying about what was happening, it was not the neutral news casting that one would hope for if there was a global audience.

Perhaps this has perpetuated the negative American view that some people across the world now hold? The legacy of the way that war was reported still lives on today. The way that subsequent conflicts are reported is tainted by the way that the media coverage of the first Gulf War was plagued with censorship and unwarranted ’flag waving’. Certainly, the second Gulf War was portrayed just as patriotically.

If people around the world with little or no information on the way a war is going, then they are likely to believe what they are told. The spread of American news broadcasters means that this is possible. America is a superpower in the world order and their economic, military and business power is of the highest order. It is only logical that their media will follow suit and try to establish itself amongst the worlds elite.

The media certainly helps this process. The growth of the internet and other new technologies can only have helped spread the American culture. American newspapers, websites, TV stations and radio channels are influential in spreading the American opinion around the globe and there can be no doubting that the growth of mass communication heavily helps the growth of American power on a global scale.

The key issue remains; what is it separates Globalization and Americanization?

There is a key difference between Globalization and Americanization. Whereas Americanization focuses more on the way that one country’s values and culture is becoming spread around,
Globalization revolves more around the world’s values all becoming homogenised into a more singular values. The idea that the cultures and ideas of the different societies in the world are slowly becoming merged together, not so much that they disappear but more so that they become more aligned with each other. Globalization is the spread of all ideas through out the world and Americanization is the effort of one country to spread its ideas, whether they be good or bad.

Longing for the days of nervous Robbo

Our columnist Mark Tilley on why error prone Gomes makes him miss Paul Robinson

When Tottenham shelled out around £7 million for Brazilian keeper Heurelho Gomes, it appeared to be an, albeit calculated, gamble. Gomes, 27, had played magnificently in helping his former team PSV Eindhoven defeat Tottenham in the UEFA Cup last year, saving two penalties into the bargain. Tall, agile and brave, fans hoped Gomes would be the keeper they had craved ever since Paul Robinson's nerves got the better of him.

How things changed. Gomes has become almost a replica version of Robinson. Yes, he makes excellent saves. Yes, you can't fault his commitment. But his propensity to make calamitous errors? It is obvious to all. Tottenham appear to have replaced an error strewn goalkeeper with a - more expensive, error strewn goalkeeper.

It all looked rosy at the start. Gomes delivered a fine performance in the 1-1 draw at Chelsea, excellently tipping over a Frank Lampard chip and claiming every high ball that went near him. From there, it went wrong. Gomes allowed a tame shot to squeeze past him against Aston Villa, a goal that pretty much gave Villa the game. Against Udinese in the UEFA Cup, Gomes suffered a rush of blood to the head and failed to clear a back pass, resulting in a yellow card, a penalty and a 1-0 deficit.

In Harry Redknapp's first game as boss, Gomes made a series of awful attempts to punch the ball clear, often colliding with his own players instead. Spurs escaped that game with a 2-0 win but the Brazilian was back at it at the Emirates as he let in four goals, missed a clearance for their first goal and generally gave his defenders a heart attack every time to ball approached him. Then on Saturday night, Gomes went from the sublime to the ridiculous, maginificently tipping Steven Gerrard's deflected shot on to a post and then a few minutes later playing a hospital pass to Ledley King which resulted in Gerrard lofting the ball on to the crossbar.

Robinson was much the same in his final season at Tottenham. He had been an outstanding keeper in his time at White Hart Lane, pulling off amazing stops, becoming a fans favourite and getting the England number one spot. However, a few minor errors got to him, mentally. The unfortunate 'back pass' incident in Croatia led to howls of derision in the press. The media and opposition fans unfairly got on his back and he never recovered. His performances were afflicted with nerves.

Gone was the confident, reliable shot stopper we had come to love. Robinson was a wreck and cost many a goal in his final season. As much as the fans loved him, it really was time for him to move on. At Blackburn, his new club, he hasn't made a noticeable error.

Gomes is now suffering from the same problem. A combination of nerves and the fear of making another error. He is without question a very capable goal keeper and the problem must be a mental one. Every goalkeeper makes errors occasionally, but the good ones make sure they don't make a habit of it.

What hope can Gomes have under Harry and for the rest of season? Redknapp has been surprisingly complimentary of his Brazilian number one, describing him as 'brave' and saying that himself and Pat Jennings, the goalkeeping coach, feel that he can be 'a big goalkeeper in this league'. One cannot avoid the rumour pages, however, and reports of a loan move for Manchester United's Ben Foster are rampant. Foster is young and talented and his possible arrival would surely force Gomes out the door.

Speculation is, however, speculation. It is likely that Redknapp will give Gomes more time to prove himself, not just to the coach and the fans, but to himself. To be a successful keeper, you cannot have the self-doubt and the nerves that Robbo had. If Gomes believes he's an excellent keeper then he can be.

However, Harry's patience cannot be everlasting and a permanent decision must be made by the New Year. Do Tottenham stick or do they twist?

(tottenhamhotspur-mad.co.uk, 2008)