Ah yes, it's that time of year again—time for feasting, fun and reflection.In that spirit, here are the three best things and three worst things that happened in the football world in 2007...
Best thing No. 3: Scotland becomes a competitive footballing nation again
As an Englishman, this is a hard thing for me to admit, but it's the truth.
Scotland's qualifying group for Euro 2008 must have made them groan when the draw was done—they had the current world champions and winners of Euro 2000 to contend with.
But they weren't deterred.
The Scots started their campaign with a flyer—and even when Walter Smith left to join Rangers, Alex McLeish kept the momentum going. Home and away wins over France were the highlights, and the team have right to hold their heads high.
Best thing No. 2: Wembley Stadium opens
Today's Must Reads
After seven years of work, people were beginning to wonder if Wembley was ever going be finished. But finished it is—and what a magnificent venue it turned out to be.
I was glad to see football return to the home of football.
Best thing No. 1: Manchester United win the league
I was heartbroken to see the EPL crown ripped away from Chelsea, but United deserved it.
Winning is the be-all and end-all—and Alex Ferguson's boys won this one is style. The Premier League needed another classy champion, and nobody deserves it more than the oft-criticised but still-talented Ferguson.
Worst thing No. 3: The Carlos Tevez West Ham saga
The problems started when Javier Mascherano moved from West Ham to Liverpool, and some irregularities were discovered in the original move to West Ham.
Critics will say that West Ham should've lost points, but I didn't like the way the drama got dragged out for months, and even threatened to spill into the courtrooms .
This wasn't good for the Premier League.
Worst thing No. 2: England fails to qualify for the Euro 2008 finals
Enough said. At least Steve McClaren is gone.
Oh—don't forget the FA Cup Final's not being worthy of the new Wembley. Watching that game was like having my fingernails pulled.
Worst thing No. 1: AC Milan wins the Champions League
I have no problem with AC Milan as a club, but the fact is that they shouldn't have been in the Champions League at all because of the part they played in the Italian match-fixing scandal.
Supporters will argue that on appeal, Milan got their points back and earned their eligibility—but I say their being banned from the tournament would have made for a strong deterrent to future offenders.
The UEFA were powerless to give Milan the boot, as it's up to the Italian FA to decide who represents Italy in that tournament. UEFA officials have since changed the rules to give themselves the final say.
There you go—my best and worst of 2007. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all.
comments (5) write a comment »
write a new comment
8 months ago
I've have to go anticlockwise with u regarding ur worst no 3 and best no 2. U cud have put the bung allegations or the latest corruptions in EPL as the worst 3, and the best 2 wud have been United thrashing classy Roma 7-1.
I have one more best thing for u..Chelsea won two cups last year..i think u shud take that as a positive.
8 months ago
Best thing No. 2: Wembley Stadium opens - I disagree, this stadium which costs 10 times the millennium stadium is garbage. I should have been cited more centrally in the country and it should have adopted safe standing areas. It would have been built at a fraction of the cost and would be full every game with atmosphere. The transport networks to the ground from any part of the country are terrible. As it is there is a ridiculous price to pay for a ticket and its a lifeless soulless ground
from 8 months ago
London is the capital therefore england play in london! plus southern teams have better av attendance so it makes sense to put it down south. yeah it cost way over the odds and tickets, travel cost an arm and a leg but once your in there watching a game in front of a full house the word garbage certainly doesnt spring to mind. old trafford-now that is lifeless no-atmosphere ground
8 months ago
I find your critique of the Tevez saga poor. It was bad for the EPL but not for the reasons outlined.
Six months before the Tevez contract came to light, Bury had played a match in the carling cup, won, and got through to the next round. However they discovered that one of their substitutes was ineligable: he was on loan to them, and they duly reported this to the FA the same day, after realising the mistake - bear in mind that Bury did not have to report this, and it would probably have gone unnoticed.
Three days later, the FA had a tribunal, and decided to fine Bury - and kick them out of the Carling Cup. I applauded their honesty at the time, and I stand by my verdict that the punishment was harsh.
West Ham knew from the begining that Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano were ineligiable to play, as not only were they signed outside the transfer window (after the deadline), but by the FA's own rules (rule 35, paragraph ii, under "transfers"), no player can play for a football club under contract from a third party. This rule was broken as was the deadline rule.
West Ham were found out, but the FA procrastinated. They put the hearing and tribunal back to almost the end of the season - and here is where it gets really ridiculous - by their own rules, Carlos Tevez was ineligiable, and, like Bury, West Ham should have been trialed within the first week of it coming to light. There were not, and that suited the club, West Ham, fine.
The argument for kicking Bury out of the cup was that the player had made a distinct difference on the pitch, and had helped Bury to the win, obviously. Playing him was classed as cheating. In the first half of the season, Tevez made 13 appearances out of 20, half of which was as a subsitute - by being on the pitch, like the Bury player, he had helped West Ham to whatever points they had at that point in time, and, therefore, the same situation had occured.
What angered many football fans at the time, was the attitude of the FA in relation to West Ham and hapless Bury. The argument was that no precedent had been set in the EPL by many: so therefore, when they were trialed, West Ham recieved a monetary fine, rather than points deduction (which could have only ever been a maximum of 3 points, as per the league rules. This would have been enough to keep sheffield united up). The different ways in which the FA handled, essentially in theme and structure, the same offence was what made the Tevez saga a blot on EPL History.
As a Charlton fan last season, we didn't play well enough, didn't get enough points, and got relegated. Our own fault, by our own admission. However Sheffield United supporters can feel rightly agrieved that West Ham were not dealt the full punishment that befits the crime - playing one or two players illegally. Bury supporters have every right to feel furious at how their club, lower in profile, and funds (for they were fined too), was dealt a more serious blow to their prospects than West Ham, who commited, in my eyes, the more criminal offence. Bury owned up - reported the matter straight away, and were kicked out of the cup and fined. West Ham played half a season before admitting guilt, and were only fined.
Therefore I would say that the Tevez saga was the worst part of the EPL in 2007 - as it led football supporters to question the motives behind the FAs decisions, and what influence they could have had in relation to their decisions.
8 months ago
Yeah the tevez/masherano thing was disgraceful, i wanted west ham to go down anyway being a spurs fan but the fact they stayed up because of avoiding the point reduction was sickening. Good point about the incident at bury, maybe if bury had a multi-millionaire chairman they would've stayed in the cup..... Wasnt it only when mascherano went to liverpool that it was uncovered?
write a new comment