Bleacher Report - Articles by Tom J

Mark Cavendish Becomes Britain's Greatest Sprinter in Tour De France

Tom J — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:52:25 -0400

Yes, there is immense dismay amongst certain British people when anyone British wins anything! Especially if the winner does not know his station in life and does not grovel to the media with his gratitude and modesty.

Allow me to offer an ironical comment on some of my British fellow countrymen: "Who is this working class lad from the Isle of Man with a bit of a Liverpool accent? How dare he win four stages in the Tour de France at the age of 23 in 2008? An another five at 24 in 2009?

"Good gracious, he actually has the temerity to speak to the media and have an opinion, too. He's not modest! Damn the man. Reminds me of that Daley Thomson character who showed no respect to the Queen when winning two decathlon Olympic gold medals."

I am sure if Mark Cavendish was Italian, French, or from the United states, there would be wall-to-wall roadshow promotions telling us he is the best sprinter of his generation and so on.

But we British so like to lose well. Perhaps we think there is more achievement in shaking hands as the "good losers" than celebrating being the best in the world? Is there a deep malaise in the British character, a split that is based on the old class divisions which never really accepted that the working classes should be able to beat their "superior" public school cousins?

Then all those foreigners started playing those games that we invented and started beating us!

Deep down, does this flow from a yearning for the days when "The sun never set on the (British) Empire"? When we British were so supremely confident of our rule over a third of the planet that we could afford to pretend that we were still jousting like Knights under King Arthur, and a good loser was as good as a winner?

Mark Cavendish is the best sprinter in the Tour de France. He is unbeatable in most circumstances and showed two days ago that he is breaking new boundaries by starting his sprint from 200 metres out and holding off all comers.

I think it is wonderful to have a winner from road cycling from Britain to celebrate about. From all the hype and the millions of words in the Press you'd think that Lance Armstrong had won something this year.

Cavendish seems to me to be a very likeable sort of bloke, he wears his heart on his sleeve. No stiff upper lip from him. Some British people are uncomfortable with that. So it's easy for the media to lay traps for him, to quote him out of context.

I know it's hard for the media to give up their addiction to Lance Armstrong's PR operation. (I think that a lot of the commentators fall for the Armstrong road show because they are past it, too, and identify with the idea of going back to the past and re-living past glories.)

I also wonder if some of the posters on the cycling sporting discussion boards know anything about the Tour de France? Especially when they state that Cavendish would be nothing without his Columbia team, as if this makes his achievement any the less!

The unpleasant personal attacks on Mark Cavendish that flow from some of their keyboards suggest serious jealousy. Maybe they are old(er) men (whose powers are waning) and who resent the triumph of youth?

The headstrong nature of youth is part of the chemistry of Cavendish. Sprint cycling can be seen a celebration of the fountain of energy that youth and life has bestowed on certain individuals. Take away Cavendish's enthusiasm and joi de vivre and you take away an ingredient of his character.

I don't want to hear, "Oh, he gave a really well crafted interview, isn't he well spoken? And he did so well to come third, too." Forgive my sarcasm. Give me a winner from Great Britain who makes an odd infelicitious remark any day, rather than someone who the PR spin doctors have neutralised. Cavendish is an original.

The "Nay sayers" may have to feel bit more discomfort this afternoon as Le Tour finishes on the Champs Elyssees, as Cavendish has a fair chance of winning the last stage. But if he does not, in the years to come there will be many more Cavendish wins.

Mark Cavendish is a phenomenon in British road sprinting, probably the greatest ever. For their own enjoyment, I advise people to reconcile themselves to the brilliance of Cavendish and to forget their quibbles about his celebratory routines, such as polishing his green sunspecs!

I remember when Steve Ovett and Sebastian Coe and later Steve Cram were breaking middle distance world records every other month, a commentator (I think it was Ron Pickering) said that we should all realise that this was a very special situation, that we would probably never see it again in our lifetimes. How right he was.

So I urge those who have taken against Cavendish for whatever reasons, to try to find a historical perspective and to realise that what they are seeing today will be the stuff of legends in the future. Don't waste the opportunity.

"Grandad, what did you do when Sir Mark raced on the Champs Elysees after five stage wins in the Tour de France in 2009?"

(Grandad tries to forget that he wrote mean and carping contributions to the message boards.)

"Oh, er, nothing, lad, I was walking the dog".

Cavendish has already written his name into the annals of British cycling history and will probably inspire thousands of kids, some of whom will become future champions, whether in the maillot vert or some other colour.

Finally, I judge that Cavendish has behaved very well in giving credit to his team mates after every stage win. There is an example for some allegedly greater competitors to emulate, for one would think that certain winners did it all on their own.

Mario Cippolini "Super Mario", often cited as a past great, always abandoned prior to the first mountain stage or very soon into the Tour. Cavendish is a better champion cyclist already than that.

Allez!, Allez Cav!. Bon courage! Champion de Cinq Etapes 2009. Chapeau Monsieur! Incroyable!

Why Manchester City Should Not Let Daniel Sturridge Hold Them To Ransom

Tom J — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:35:07 -0500

The case of Daniel Sturridge at Manchester City is an interesting one. He is a product of City's coaching system and has not yet established himself as a consistent talent or scored many goals. However, it is being reported that he or his advisers are asking Manchester City for £60,000 a week (or more in some reports), to retain his services.

Last year, Micah Richards managed to secure a handsome annual pay packet, reputedly £40,000 a week, to stay at Man City. When he secured that, he was playing at a peak and was being seen as a key England player. However, he's experienced injuries and an indifferent year.

Sturridge is not in the category of Micah Richards yet. He is talented, but unproven. Man City need to build a team as far as it is possible to do so, not a set of individuals who serve themselves first and foremost, and then the club.

If Daniel Sturridge or his advisers cannot see what the future holds for Manchester City, then they are mistaken and are thinking in the short term. Sturridge could leave the club and make the biggest mistake of his life. My view is that he would be ill-advised to overplay his hand at this time.

If he is sure of his talent, then what is the need for haste? Playing at the very top means playing as a member of a squad and being happy to do so. Fine to have ambition, but he needs to recognise that he must prove himself.

If Sturridge's advisers had any sense, they would accept a much lower figure and if he proves himself, then he or they can ask for more.

What Daniel Sturridge has achieved so far is of course through his own talent, but also through Manchester City's coaching and the support of the club system.

Could it just be possible that a young player might actually learn what loyalty to a club means? As a lifelong Blue, I have to say that some Manchester United players lead the way here, such as Giggs and Scholes.

We need more young players coming through with loyalty like warriors from the past: Mick Doyle, Joe Corrigan and Tommy Booth. I am sure that loyalty and common sense in young players is not dead and if Sturridge shows that he doesn't have it, then we should not let him destabilise the club.

I'd be very disappointed if he went to another club, but if Manchester City caves in to his inflated demands, then they are making a rod for their own backs, as the other established players will want more and so will other young players. Where will it end?

It is a key moment for Manchester City, as the allegedly unlimited funds that are now available to the club could become a sheet anchor that drags them back from achieving the kind of team spirit that any top club must have.

It could create a climate where players are thinking only of getting their "advisers" to ask for even more money as they consider themselves better than someone else.

On a wider front, isn't it about time we called time on the wage demands of the Premier League players and put a cap on them? The players at the top seem to have no sense of reality and this no doubt has influenced Sturridge and his advisers.

The Fall and Imminent Rise of Manchester City: It's Nothing New!

Tom J — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:52:40 -0400

This article was a response to one by Anthony Sanchez "The Fall and Imminent Rise of Manchester City Football Club". He generously suggested that I should post this as a separate article. It is a little adapted from the original, which you can find as a comment on Anthony Sanchez's.

My grandfather was one of the original shareholders in Manchester City. He bought a single share of the 2000 original shares. He lived in Hulton Street in Moss Side.

I went to school in Moss Side in the 1950s. In the years after the Second World War, it was City that were the rich club. They spent vast sums in those days on "star" players. I remember Alex Harley holding a goal scoring record... I believe they spent more than any other First Division club in those years.

Before the war, too, City were the big club with luminous stars. But this money was not well spent by managers, and did not buy much success. My recollection of those days was of Bert Trautmann saving the club from relegation year after year, and the manager Les McDowell being showered with halfpennies as he left the ground with chants of "Sack Mac!" following him to his car.

City's reputation for unpredictability was undiminished. Out of the blue, I recollect them defeating Spurs 6-2 at White Hart lane. "Fantastic City!" the "Football Green" headline screamed in 2 inch high headlines. Some people would not buy the "Football Pink"....

(Many forget that City bought Denis Law for a then UK record fee of £55,000 before he went to Italy and later came back to play for United.)

The sums of money have got bigger. More and more is spent on advertising through football, through the media, and more and more is spent by the fans on merchandise and tickets. Someone mentioned a Premiership level playing field last week, suggesting that Man City's new owners had made it unfair. This did make me laugh. There has NEVER been a level playing field. Maybe it was a bit more level in the past, but it's been far from level for decades now.

The top four are the top four largely because of money.

In one sense, football has been taken away from the true supporters who are referred to in Anthony Sanchez's article. But it was always owned by directors who often treated the players with contempt and the supporters, too, if the truth be known. Men with big egos who wanted to be seen to matter.

The fundamentals are much the same, but the form has changed beyond recognition.

But so has our society. And in many ways we should not want to go back to the past, as there was more abject poverty. Before the Second World War, football matches were a brief diversion from the interminable grind of physical labour.

We look back with rose-tinted spectacles—although mine are blue-tinted.

However, we must keep a sense of proportion and remember that it is a game. Being taken over by a succession of unlikely billionaires is entirely consistent with the unpredictable strand which has always run through Manchester City.

But in another sense, the game itself can never be taken away from the supporters and fans, if they can afford to see it (the fact that many can't afford to watch it live at the ground is the sad thing). Every spectator can identify with the brilliance of play, can have their favourites, can have their own opinion.

We are chief pundits for at least 90 minutes, or at least at half time. And for the rest of the week.

There lies the true ownership and democracy of the game. All the other aspects of rivalry into which many of us were born are ancillary to that. And the soap opera of what happens in between games and all the socialising that makes up supporters' lives can never be seized by oligarchs or millionaires.

I used to watch City reserves every other week, along with about 1000 other fans. It's true, I am sure, as Anthony Sanchez writes, that many of the friendships and social groupings of fans on match days were destroyed when the club moved to Eastlands. But it had to happen.

When they bulldozed Moss Side and relocated the community all over the place, they destroyed the same thing. It was far more important than football and wrecked people's lives. I remember a man whose mother had had her house bought under a compulsory purchase order by the Council for £50. It was her pride and joy, well maintained, and she was devastated.

Maine Road was a depressing ground in many ways, rooted in the uninspiring environment of Moss Side. The school I went to in Moss Side is still there and physically, it must be one of the the most impoverished schools, visually speaking, in the whole of Manchester. It's on Princess Road.

It was the games and the play that lifted the faithful supporters, not the bricks of Maine Road. It's the genius of individuals which is always unpredictable—that genius which inspires young children to dream, to aspire, and to achieve. There were great days in the late 60s, with Joe Mercer and Malcolm Allison and an unremitting attacking style of play.

So do not mourn the move from Maine Road. It's what happened there that is memorable and untouchable for those who witnessed it. Remember, if you can, too, that this is football. It's always been a plaything of those with power and money. Now it's more so. But they can't own your dreams.

If the very best players in the world are going to be brought to Manchester City, then celebrate it. If new supporters of the club emerge from all over the place, does it matter?

I will still know that I was at Maine Road when there was the lowest attendance ever in the 1960s. And other fans will have their own memories they treasure and re-tell to their friends and family. But it is just a game, just a form of entertainment.

We have struck lucky for now, it would be perverse and curmudgeonly not to enjoy it. No investor in their right mind would invest in football. Chelsea FC is effectively an insolvent business, it's just that they get a massive cash injection to balance their losses, from the man who got his hands on all the wealth created by the power industry workers in the old Soviet Union.

None of club ownership is fair, little of it may be honourable.

Fans invent reasons for their allegiance. Much of it is not rational, but it is all human. The dream of Maine Road, Platt Lane the Kippax will live on as long as there are those who remember them. Who would have thought in the dismal and dark days when City dropped out of the old "Second Division", that the club would one day play in a massive new stadium?

Who would have thought that greatest players in the world might put on the sky blue shirts (not quite sky blue, I know)? And the club badge isn't worth going to the stake for. Three stars are OK, and I would not mind too much if there was a camel hump in it sometime in the future. We could always put a fibreglass camel in Alexandra Park or in Eastlands for the kids to play on. And it can always come out.

It's not selling out, it's facing the fact that if you want "real honest football", then best go to the semi-professional leagues, or even the local park—it has gone from the modern professional game. But don't let them take away your dreams, for they should run true under the madness of the modern game.

It seems to me, from a very prejudiced point of view, that at least in respect of Manchester United, the playing field has become a little more level at last. And if it tips a little in the blue direction, isn't it about time?

As my parents lie serenely in Southern Cemetery, I think they will be quietly smiling at last.

Actually, no—my mum will be roaring with laughter.