Crunch Time ....

THE Premier Soccer League leadership are currently "in a state of confusion" as they don't know where to take the PSL Trophy for presentation on Sunday.

This Sunday sees the local Premiership in a unique or rather interesting situation in which two teams, Motor Action and Dynamos, are poised to win the league title.


The two are tied on 63 points with one round of matches to go and they are both facing two sides -- Lengthens and Black Mambas -- who are also eager to escape the dreaded chop on the last day of the season.

Motor Action, who are leading Dynamos at the top of the Premiership table by virtue of a superior goal difference, entertain Lengthens at home at Motor Action Sports Club on Sunday.

The same afternoon will see Dynamos taking on Black Mambas away at either Rufaro or Morris Depot.

And the PSL are scratching their heads, trying to figure out where to take the championship Trophy for presentation to the eventual winners.

Twine Phiri, the Premiership boss, said yesterday he is aware of the tricky situation they are in.

"It will be ideal to send the trophy to a particular venue for presentation, but it's exciting in that we do not know which team will win it.

"If we had money, we could have hired a helicopter that would be hovering with the trophy between the two venues.

"However, we will just keep the trophy at a neutral venue like the PSL offices and then go with it for presentation to the winners after the end of the games on Sunday," said Phiri.

Phiri said the PSL cannot afford to have the trophy at Motor Action Sports Club without attracting the ire of Dynamos.

Equally, it will be hard for the PSL to have the trophy at Morris Depot or Rufaro without Motor Action raising some questions if they lose the championship in this photofinish race.

The PSL called for fair play from all the teams as they want to jealously guard the sponsorship they have landed for next season.


Phiri yesterday revealed that the league has indeed secu-red a sponsor for next year and that the domestic game will finally be branded.

The CAPS United boss, however, chose to keep a very tight lid on the identity of the sponsors.

"We have secured a sponsor for next season but first of all we have to meet with the board of governors to brief them.

"Definitely we are going to have a sponsor for next year and we will unveil them when the right time comes," said Phiri.

The confirmation by Phiri that the league will have a sponsor next year comes as sweet music into the ears of local Premiership clubs, which have toiled for the past two years without a brand.

But while PSL are keeping a tight lid on the identity of their sponsors as they are still working on the finer details of the contract, it is understood that Econet Wireless, NetOne and Delta Beverages are the potential bankrollers of the league for next year.

But it's all calm in the Dynamos and Motor Action camps ahead of Sunday's crucial title deciders against Lengthens and Black Mambas and indicators are pointing to a bruising finish to the season for the teams involved in the fight for the championship and those fighting to survive relegation.

The Mighty Bulls will host unpredictable Lengthens at Motor Action Sports Club while Dynamos engage Black Mambas at Morris Depot on Sunday, although the match could be shifted to Rufaro.

There is everything to play for for the four clubs involved and with the script now heading towards the climax, no stone will be left unturned in their preparations for the D-Day matches.


But there was little to suggest that the two title contenders will relent on the final day and let slip their chances of landing the title while the two sides in the bottom half of the table will have to throw everything into the matches to survive relegation.

Dynamos goalkeeper Washington Arubi, who has been in good form this season, said the Glamour Boys are determined to win the title after bagging the other titles that were on offer this season.

DeMbare, however, face a drawback from the goal difference, which could take centre stage if both teams win or lose on Sunday, as they have plus 29 while their rivals enjoy a slight advantage with plus 32.

This means they need to win by many goals -- that is, they have to achieve a victory margin of four goals better than Motor Action, whatever the results of both matches.

"That is very possible but we only should not succumb to pressure. In football we should expect anything, but we shall try our best to get the goals and win," said Arubi.

Dynamos go into this match buoyed by the 10 goals they scored in their last three matches and will be hoping to continue with their fine form.

They beat CAPS United 3-2 in their last match to win the BancABC Sup8r Cup and were 4-0 victors over Douglas Warriors in the last league outing.

"Right now we are not putting ourselves under a lot of pressure so that we don't lose focus.

"Instead, we are concentrating on the match against Mambas and our supporters should back us in this because they are the 12th man on the field," he said.


The Mighty Bulls, who are chasing a historic league silverware, revealed yesterday that they were going about their business as they have been doing the whole season, as they prepare for their date with destiny after a brilliant showing in 2010.

Team captain Bekhimpilo Ncube said the Mighty Bulls are not ruffled and are enjoying calmness ahead of the crucial match.

"This is going to be a very important match for us because we want the title. But at the same time Lengthens want to survive relegation, which makes it competitive.

"But we are not putting ourselves under pressure because we are taking this match just like any other game that we have played in the Premiership this season.

"We have taken every game seriously this season and each outing was like a cup final for us and that's the same approach we have now," said Ncube.

The Warriors trialist has been inspirational in the Mighty Bulls' colours this season with his commendable industry in the midfield department.

He said the club owes much of their success this season to coach Joey Antipas and his assistants David George and Prince Matore.

Motor Action were fighting for survival at this stage last season and only one point helped them escape the dreaded relegation-promotion playoffs.

"We had a problem of continuity last season because we changed many coaches but the coming of Mafero (Antipas) and George changed our fortunes.

"These guys mean business. They helped us survive relegation and they have motivated us to continue with the same spirit into the new season.

"There has been stiff competition in the Premiership this season but at Motor Action we had set our motto this year which says we should work very hard all season.

"It makes me proud as captain of this team because Motor Action had never reached this stage in history. We are just hoping that we win the last game and lift the title," he said.

The Battle of the Buffet

Arsenal visit Old Trafford to take on a Manchester United side that are still unbeaten in the Premier League this season. Due to their unconvincing form, Sir Alex Ferguson's side have been dubbed 'The Crap Invincibles' in ironic homage to the Arsenal side that went the season unbeaten in 2003-04. However, six years ago, it was at Old Trafford that Arsenal's 49-game unbeaten run eventually came to an end in a poisonous game that became known as 'The Battle of the Buffet'.

Arsenal and Manchester United did not always settle their differences via the medium of food. In 1990, a more unforgiving era, boots and fists were the weapons of choice in a 21-man brawl - dubbed 'The Battle of Old Trafford' - that resulted in both clubs being deducted points by the Football Association. In the context of such a history of violence between two old foes, a mere abuse of catering facilities might seem trivial, farcical even.

But this was much more than just a storm in a soup bowl, or a pizza box. A 2-0 defeat on October 24, 2004, saw the Arsenal Invincibles surrender their proud record at the home of their great adversaries, and as melted cheese dripped from the face of Sir Alex Ferguson following a post-match food fight, Arsenal's veneer of impermeability also slipped away. This was the end of the brief reign of a truly great side that burned so, so brightly.

Surveying the depth of talent and strength of spirit within his squad during the 2002-03 season, Arsene Wenger first ventured the opinion that his side were capable of going an entire league season unbeaten - a feat that only Preston, in 1889, had achieved before. Doing so invited ridicule from the national press, but in the very next season, Arsenal did achieve immortality when winning 26 and drawing 12 of their 38 league games. It was a unique achievement in the modern era.

Arsenal also accomplished this feat in considerable style. With the deadly Thierry Henry at the peak of his powers, and ably supported by the refined, cerebral talents of Robert Pires and Dennis Bergkamp, the Gunners glided their way into the history books, and went on to surpass Nottingham Forest's 42-game unbeaten league record the following season when winning 4-1 away at Norwich on August 28, 2004. The great Brian Clough recognised the scale of the achievement, declaring, in his inimitable style that it was "nothing short of incredible". He added: "I'm loath to confess they could be as good as us. They are brilliant. It sticks in the craw a little bit because nobody likes Arsenal! Of course there's a Frenchman in charge, Wenger, and not many English people like Frenchmen."

Arsenal's next milestone was to bring up the unbeaten half-century, an honour usually reserved for practitioners of cricket, and fate decreed game 50 would come against a team that certainly subscribed to Clough's view of Arsenal's dubious popularity - Sir Alex Ferguson's Manchester United. This would not be a celebratory occasion.

Though the passage of time - coupled with the rise of Chelsea and Arsenal's subsequent decline - has since withered the rivalry between Ferguson and Wenger, to the extent that they now exist in a state of tenuous mutual appreciation, it should not be forgotten that at this juncture of Premier League history, theirs was a rivalry infused by intense dislike.

From Ferguson welcoming Wenger's arrival in the Premier League by declaring that "he's a novice - he should keep his opinions to Japanese football" to Wenger's infamous dig that "everyone thinks they have the prettiest wife at home" after winning the title in 2002, this was a grudge borne of intense competition. Ferguson and Wenger were the dominant figures in Premier League football, and their combative teams needed little encouragement to foster the feud on the pitch.

Indeed, just 12 months prior to their meeting in October 2004, the two clubs were involved in one of the most shameful incidents seen in the Premier League, with Arsenal the guilty party. In game eight of Arsenal's run of 49, a failed penalty from Ruud van Nistelrooy in the dying minutes of a 0-0 draw attracted a petulant reaction from the Arsenal team. Martin Keown, eyes wide in manic delight, leapt on the United striker, who was also assailed by Lauren.

The Arsenal squad had been angered by Van Nistelrooy's role in Patrick Vieira's previous dismissal, and the Football Association hammered the club for their distasteful act of vengeance. Arsenal were fined £175,00 for failing to control their players, while Lauren was banned for four games, Keown three, and one each for Ray Parlour and Vieira. This was the toxic context in which the events of 2004 took place, and the issue was given prominent billing in the build-up to the game in October.

Questioned about Arsenal's behaviour the previous year, Ferguson insisted prior to the game: "They got away with murder. What the Arsenal players did was the worst I have witnessed in sport." Wenger rose to the bait, replying: "Maybe it would be better if you have put us up against a wall and shot us all. I hope that he will calm down."

Any hopes for peace in our time on the day of the game were seriously misguided. In a tense and venomous atmosphere, the game exploded on 73 minutes when Wayne Rooney, on his 19th birthday, spotted an extended leg from Sol Campbell and fell to the ground. Arsenal were incensed - replays showed there was little to no contact - but Van Nistelrooy was handed a chance at redemption, and he warmly accepted when slotting the ball past Jens Lehmann. In the dying seconds, Rooney - who famously launched himself into the public consciousness with a stunning goal for Everton against the Gunners in 2002 - confirmed his status as Arsenal's bête noire with the goal that finally killed off the club's unbeaten record.

Having been brought to their knees at the home of their great rivals, their unbeaten run reduced to rubble, Arsenal were not ready to go quietly. What followed next is the stuff of legend, and no little mystery. After the two sides trooped off the pitch, with a bitter Campbell refusing to shake Rooney's hand, trouble erupted in the tunnel. In scenes befitting a fractious childrens' party, a food fight erupted, and Ferguson was cast in the role of an exhausted parent, his club suit becoming collateral damage in a war waged by petulant pre-teens.

Eager reporters, revelling in the farcical nature of the confrontation, debated the nature of the food that soiled Ferguson's suit, the Daily Telegraph opting for tomato soup and theDaily Mirror placing itself firmly in the pea camp. Of even more intrigue was the identity of the player who, with unerring aim, hurled a slice of pizza that smacked Ferguson square in the face. His identity still remains secret, though fingers have been pointed at Cesc Fabregas - a 17-year-old non-playing substitute on the day, who would display a similarly precocious appreciation of space and trajectory when he began to assume control of the Arsenal midfield over the coming months and seasons.

Though Fabregas has never been formally identified, Ashley Cole artfully reduced the number of possible subjects in his spectacularly misguided autobiography, My Defence. In 2006, Cole wrote: "This slice of pizza came flying over my head and hit Fergie straight in the mush. The slap echoed down the tunnel and everything stopped - the fighting, the yelling, everything. All eyes turned and all mouths gawped to see this pizza slip off that famous puce face and roll down his nice black suit. All I can say is that the culprit wasn't English or French, so that should narrow it down."

Though Wenger, typically, claimed "I haven't seen it" at the time, details of the fracas were also divulged by Ferguson in February 2005, as he embarked on a typically forthright dissection of his great rival. "In the tunnel Wenger was criticising my players, calling them cheats, so I told him to leave them alone and behave himself," Ferguson said. "He ran at me with hands raised saying, 'What do you want to do about it?' To not apologise for the behaviour of the players to another manager is unthinkable. It's a disgrace, but I don't expect Wenger to ever apologise - he's that type of person."

As well as turning his ire towards Ferguson in a wholly untypical way (and presumably with all the menace of a librarian reprimanding a noisy patron), Wenger had also levelled accusations at Van Nistelrooy that called into question the Dutch striker's professional attitude: "We know how Van Nistelrooy behaves. He can only cheat people - we know him very well." The match official would not escape his wrath either, as Wenger added: "[Mike] Riley decided the game, like we know he can do at Old Trafford. We were robbed. There was no contact at all for the penalty, even Rooney said so."

Wenger's outburst resulted in a verdict of improper conduct, while Van Nistelrooy pleaded guilty to "serious foul play" after video evidence emerged of a nasty foul on Ashley Cole. Punishment and blame was apportioned on both sides, and the fallout could have been more severe had the FA not ruled that a "dossier" of evidence submitted by United was inadmissible as it fell outside the governing body's 48-hour limit for reviewing incidents. It was believed United had detailed tackles from Thierry Henry and Dennis Bergkamp that they felt were worthy of further scrutiny.

The intense rivalry was now simmering menacingly, and with a Carling Cup tie between the two clubs on the horizon on December 1, the FA sought to hold summit talks between both parties in order to end the feud. League Managers Association chief executive John Barnwell described the cup game as "a great opportunity to heal the wounds. If you don't face up to these issues then they can be allowed to fester". After David Dein sat down with his United counterpart David Gill at the end of October, the Arsenal vice-chairman insisted: "The clubs have spoken [again] at the highest level and agree the matter is now closed."

Arsenal lost 1-0 at Old Trafford in a battle of two reserve sides in the Carling Cup, but in the next proper meeting of the two teams, a league tie at Highbury on February 1, 2005, Dein's declaration that "the matter is now closed" was proved to be demonstrably false. Before the game had even kicked off, and in the tunnel again no less, Roy Keane went for Patrick Vieira after his long-time rival had attempted to intimidate Gary Neville, jabbing his finger menacingly at the Frenchman and declaring "I'll see you out there". In the fractious relationship between Vieira and Keane, Wenger and Ferguson, and Arsenal and Manchester United at that time, normal service had been resumed.

What happened next? Arsenal won the battle that season, defeating United in the FA Cup final, but lost the war. A great team died at Old Trafford, amid a hail of soup and pizza, as the psychological blow of surrendering their record to United lay heavy on an Arsenal side that would shed key performers in successive summers. While United claimed the league title in 2007, 2008 and 2009, Arsenal have not won a solitary trophy since that FA Cup, Vieira's last game for the club.

Soccer Stars 2010: a fiasco to forget - Newsday: Everyday News for Everyday People

Soccer Stars 2010: a fiasco to forget - Newsday: Everyday News for Everyday People

You Cant Criticise the World Cup and Still Expect to Host It

Richard Northedge


Yes, the media was partly responsible for England failing to host the 2018 World Cup. Not because of the BBC and Sunday Times accusations about Fifa, however, but because the media carping would continue. Why ask an unfriendly nation to host the football tournament when so many other countries would welcome it?



There was much wrong with Fifa’s decision-making but much wrong with the English bid too. Any company that has pitched for a major project would have to be much more businesslike to win. Export orders or domestic sales are not secured by arrogantly expecting to be chosen: they have to be worked for.


England’s case might have been good – but so was the opposition’s. Yet we acted like a job applicant who tells the interviewer when he can start rather than why he should.


The FA’s bid team complains it was misled by Fifa delegates who had pledged their votes, but that suggests the team knows little about selling and less about Fifa’s voting system. Any salesman pitching for orders soon learns not to celebrate when buyers congratulate them on having a good product – that is the sort of polite line buyers say to all the companies that pitch, but only one of the good products gets the order.


However, Fifa’s voting system genuinely allows delegates to vote for three teams. They keep on voting until one country has a majority of the votes, eliminating the weakest each time, but this is not the sort of single-transferable-vote system that elected Ed Miliband as UK Labour Party leader or on which the UK will hold a referendum on in 2011. Delegates hold a fresh vote in each round.


That’s why the Belgian/Dutch vote fell between first and second rounds.


So it was not just the two votes for England in the first round that were re-allocated to their second-choices in the next round, all 22 delegates voted afresh. That means a delegate could promise to vote for Belgium/Netherlands in the first round, England in the second and Russia if there was a third round. But because England went out immediately, countries pledging it their votes did not get a chance to honour their promise.


England also needs to rethink what constitutes bribery, corruption and inducements before it complains at other countries. Not only England’s handbags for wives are questionable: promising a friendly match in Thailand if the Thai delegate gave his vote – or top Olympic hotels in London for Fifa delegates – fail the test too.


But the British media must also be part of the reason for England’s rejection. Nevermind the specific allegations before the Fifa vote, look how the UK press keeps criticising the London Olympics, doubting the budget (correctly), questioning the popularity, carping about the economic benefits and complaining a bout the disruption. If the home press cannot back a bid, what chance support from the international media? If this is what a Sunday paper and television do before the Fifa vote, what would happen over the next eight years?


Why choose a country whose own media are so negative when there are other more compliant nations? Big sports events frequently go to developing countries because their governments pledge huge sums to raise their international profiles. That’s why Russia and Qatar bid so successfully. If those countries happen to have a positive media rather than one that knocks its own tournament, wouldn’t any rational Fifa delegate chose such a nation as host?

The World Cup Host Decision: 22 Men Deciding For Billions

Who should host the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup Tourney?


Its very difficult to predict who the FIFA Select Committee will eventually settle on, but I am a fan of the underdogs. If it was up to me, I would pick Russia for 2018 and Qatar for 2022. Why? Simply because they have never hosted before. Furthermore, although it is reported England scored higher marks when FIFA assessed the bids, I feel there is more government commitment from Russia, and besides, FIFA has always trumpeted this tune of taking the game to new territories, and Russia, like the USA, is very virgin territory in as far s the game is concerned.

We could say the same about the Qatar, but being from the third world myself, I am more attracted by the technology they are talking about, and how it can benefit me and my kith and kin down this side. Think of World Cup stadiums being folded after use and shipped to the third world? Thats what you do when you got oil money. Of course the Japanese are also talking about giant screens in more than 400 stadiums across the world that would literally bring the World Cup into my beloved National Sports Stadium but then again, its less than ten years ago when we were watching from Japan, so I would ask them to pass.

But now here is the sad part, no matter what I think and my claim that I could probably rank as one of the top 100 most football passionate people in the world, this will not matter when Sepp Blatter eventually announces the decision tomorrow around 5PM Zim time. I am probably more passionate about the game than half of the 22 men that are going to make this multi-billion dollar decision, bringing into question the FIFA ways of handling football matters. There is just too much politics involved to expect the decision to be about the good of the game.

The first question is why should the World Cup decision be made by a handful of old men, some of whom if media reports and their past decisions are anything to go by, are so prone to corruption they could sell their birthright? Surely, the electorate should be much larger and more diverse. Pedro Pinto of CNN says, about our beloved voters, "They have built such intertwined personal relationships that in many ways they are as familiar as a family. But does this mean they have lost the ability to to be objective when it comes to dealing with the many people they know well-connected to the countries that are bidding to host the tournament?"

I say yes, they are contaminated!

Right now you have got, from England, David Beckham, Prime Minister David Cameroon and Royalty in the form of Prince William in Zurich mixing and mingling with these voters of ours. Bill Clinton is part of the American bid team, and all sorts of mega millionaire television and football starts are abound, campaigning for their favorite countries. Its all good and I may not know with certainty what goes on there, but surely thats a recipe for disaster. What are the chances that the voters are being subjected to some "charismatic" pressure and getting all sorts of promises if they ensured the vote goes a certain way?

What about the allegations of corruption that have marred the run up to the decision. The England bidding team has accused national broadcaster the BBC for being unpatriotic simply because they decided to let out certain allegations of corruption about some of the voters days before the voting. Why are they panicking? Because that story affects a few of the voters, and is capable of contaminating all of them, hence they fear a backlash through the ballot. On the other hand, it could a clever British ploy to way lay the world, especially if you listen to the recent statements about the voters, coming from the likes of Beckham.

But would these same concerns be there if all FIFA members had a representative voting, and accusations were leveled against 3 out of a multitude of voters? Not many would care, hey? It would have been a different scenario. Right now, the group of voters will likely act collectively. They have a very strong network, which they would want to protect, and will "punish" those who want to ruffle their feathers. On the flip side, they may want to be seen to be "clean", and vote against those countries that have been smeared for offering bribes or colluding, even though they could have voted for them on merit. It has just been so jumbled up, I have lost confidence.

Pinto goes on to suggest changes to the voting system, which I agree will make FIFA a bit more democratic:

The hosts should be decided in the following manner:

- Every one of FIFA's 208 member associations should have a representative to take part in the voting.

- The reps should vote in only one World Cup host ballot (and please do away with deciding the venue for 2 World Cups at one go. 4 years is a long time, and so much can change).

- All members must vote at the same place, same time.

This will help open up the process, and give the decision power to more people than just the Charlie Dempseys (remember the guy who didn't vote for SA) of this world. This spreads the voting powers among many and makes it more difficult for the potential hosts to bribe, seek collusion or put pressure of the voters.

You and I are the staunchest followers of this game, and it will be daydreaming to think that we could participate in such decisions (but with technology, lets start pursuing opportunities for worldwide electronic vote, after all we are already voting for the African Footballer of the Year through BBC aren't we?), but we need assurance that the hosts of the World Cup are chosen on merit, and not because someone got paid. The hosting decision is a major decision. The World Cup is a big issue. Billions of tax payer's money are going into preparing the bids and building stadiums to get countries prepared, and it will be treasonous to have the host being decided on any other reason other than FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME.