Suzuki / Tiger Cups

Football in Southeast Asia is a funny thing. Asia, as we all know, are the minnows of football in the world. And Southeast Asia are the minnows of Asia. We aren’t as good as Northeast Asia, where Japan and South Korea always take their places in the World Cup. We aren’t as good as the teams in the Middle East. We probably aren’t even as good as the ones in Central Asian countries , you know, the –stans.

But people in this region are football crazy. The standards are crap, the referees are probably corrupt, the players are probably corrupt. But everybody loves it. There’s probably nowhere else in the world that you can have 55,000 people turn up every week for extremely mediocre football.

People still remember the good old days of the Malaysia Cup. The win in 1994 was bittersweet. Singapore lost the finals in 1990 to Kedah, and in 1993, again, to Kedah. (I hate Kedah!!!). So in 1994, it was the first win in 14 years. Before it got booted out of the competition. (Now I don’t know what the hell is going on with the Malaysia Cup because apparently teams like Brunei and Kelantan have won the prize).

Now, the S-league has patently failed to live up to expectations. It was too much for every small town in Singapore to have its own club. Big cities, London aside, tend to have 2 or 3. It didn’t make sense to have a league where all the teams were in the same city. The atmosphere was gone.

But the Tiger Cup brought back some of the atmosphere. One thing about this tournament – it’s probably not very important, but routinely a lot of interesting things take place.

I first got interested in the Tiger / Suzuki Cup in 1998. I was in college, but I heard that Singapore, most improbably won the second Tiger Cup. Singapore were supposed to be a team in decline. Even in the days of the Malaysia Cup, Singapore was always second to Selangor, which was a state team. Furthermore, the coach at that time, Barry Whitbread was routinely criticised for being ultra-defensive, as opposed to the attractive, free flowing football we all enjoyed under Douglas Moore for that one unforgettable 1994 season.

That tournament was held in Vietnam. Singapore and Vietnam had qualified from their group, and Singapore had topped the group. Thailand and Malaysia were both trying to avoid winning the match and meeting Vietnam. Both had already qualified, and were playing their last match against each other! So we had this spectacle where both teams tried to lose that match. In the end, that match was decided by an own goal.

In any case, for Malaysia and Thailand, it didn’t matter who played which semi-final, because they both got knocked out.

Singapore were the underdogs to win the final, because they were the away team. And I think they were on the back foot a lot of the time, but they scored a fluke goal – a corner kick hit the back of R Sasikumar and it went in.

The tournament in 2002 was entirely forgettable for Singapore. Singapore were hosting the tournament, and they had a coach who was on the staff of the Denmark team which won the Euros in 1992. Unfortunately he was a shit coach. Singapore got stuffed 4-0 by the Malaysians in Kallang stadium. It was the most shameful experiences in living memory. (Although Lim Tong Hai’s 2 own goals against Myanmar in 1993 takes some beating).

We didn’t have a lot of expectations for 2004. But that was a tournament that changed everything. I only sat up and took notice when Singapore qualified for the semis. We knew that anything could happen after that, because you just had to play 2 teams.

The first leg against Myanmar was actually held in Kuala Lumpur because I think they didn’t have a place in Myanmar to host the match. It went 4-3 Singapore’s way. As if that wasn’t exciting enough, the return match was extremely dramatic.

Kallang’s pitch was waterlogged, but the match went on anyhow. In the mudbath, Myanmar went 2-0 up, 1 goal ahead on aggregate. Noh Alam Shah had a legitimate goal disallowed. Then 1 Myanmar player got sent off. Then another Myanmar player scored an own goal, levelling the aggregate score.

Then with minutes to spare, Singapore got a penalty. The Myanmar player conceding a penalty got sent off for a second yellow. There was a melee, during which Singaporeans and Myanmese had to be pulled apart from each other. Then a Myanmese kicked some mud in the referee’s direction. He got sent off for his troubles. To top it all off, Indra Sadan Daud missed the penalty! But it’s OK, Singapore started the extra time with a THREE MAN advantage, and scored 2 goals to get to the finals. Not surprisingly, afterwards there were some skirmishes between fans of both sides.

I found a commemorative VCD of this tournament at a cheap sale. I have kept it ever since. I’m recalling this match from watching that VCD but I also watched it live at that time and it made a big impression on me.

There was a squaring off between Raddy Avramovich and the Indonesian coach, Peter Withe. They had played each other before in the English league: Withe for Aston Villa and Avramovich for Norwich.

The first leg of the finals was to be held at Indonesia’s Senayan stadium. It was described as a cauldron. 70,000 fans screaming right out at you. However Indonesia played with 4 strikers, probably intending to score a lot of early goals, but they ended up conceding early and fortunately for Singapore, lousy tactics cost Indonesia the cup. Fortunately because it was quite a strong Indonesian side.

But there was a taint of doping involved in our wins. Agu Casmir was a foreigner playing in the S-league, and he was given a Singaporean citizenship (something I paid for with 2.5 years of national service). There was also Itimi Dickson. And these guys weren’t the first Singaporean foreigners to play for the Lions – there was also Engmar Gonclaves who unfortunately wasn’t able to reproduce his S-league form for the national side. Well 2 was not so bad for the 2004 side. In 2007, we added Shi Jiayi, Mustafic Fahrudin and Precious Emuejeraye.

You could say that all these additions were significant because Singapore relied on being more physical and being better organised than the opponents, who were often faster and more skilful. Still, it didn’t hurt our pride that the stars of the 2004 and 2007 wins were real Singaporeans: Daniel Bennett, Noh Alam Shah and Lionel Lewis.

In 2007, the final was tainted by Singapore being awarded a penalty kick that Thailand disputed. I was watching that match, thinking at that time that it was the last major football match to be hosted in the Kallang stadium. (I was wrong). And right before my eyes, Thailand staged a walk-off protest. According to the wiki article, Singapore also had a goal unfairly chalked offside.

In 2008, I watched the Singapore-Vietnam semi-final at the Kallang Stadium. This time, it really was the last match that was played there. Singapore attacked, and attacked and attacked, and the ball refused to go in. Then Vietnam had 1 counter-attack and they scored. After the match, there was a fight between Singaporeans and the Vietnamese, and a few people were injured. Even during the match, the Singaporeans and the Vietnamese were throwing stuff at each other.

In this edition of the Suzuki cup, Singapore exited the tournament, capping a miserable year for Singapore football. Singapore failed to qualify for the Asian Football Championship, losing a crucial match to Jordan. Then there was that infamous free for all between Beijing Guoan and the Young Lions, which was basically 2 youth teams. Then there was that exodus of our national players to the Indonesian league, which paid much better than our S-league. Then there was FC Etoile winning the S-league, the first time that a foreign team won the S-league.

Singapore were supposed to qualify. It was supposed to be an easy group to qualify from. But they only drew the game with the Philippines. Granted, this was an unusually strong Philippines team which qualified for the semi-finals. Then there was the ignominy of having to win the Burmese team from behind. And after that, losing by the odd goal to our bogey team, Vietnam.

So it may have been weird for Philippines to win the defending champions Vietnam to qualify, but a lot of people were rooting for them. And after Malaysia was trashed 5-1 by Indonesia most didn’t expect them to qualify, let alone reach the final and stand on the brink of the cup after winning 3-0 in Kuala Lumpur.

I suppose if that were to happen, the final score would be Singapore and Thailand 3 each, Vietnam and Malaysia 1 each. I think that this prize was destined to be shared between these 5 countries (Indonesia will get their turn one day). But I also hope that Singapore will win it again soon.

As usual, there was another talking point because there was trouble at the first leg final match . Apparently some fans were caught pointing lasers at the Indonesians. Seems like it is very difficult to hold a Suzuki cup where nothing ever happens.

Orient: Club for a Fiver

I learnt about this documentary while watching the sports pages. It was mentioned a few times. This documentary deals with Leyton Orient Football Club during a season in which they got plunged into a financial crisis. The chairman famously sold the club for 5 pounds, hence the title.

There are a few scenes that depict half time talks by a football manager after an abject performance. These scenes are the highlight of the documentary and have elevated the manager, John Sitton to legendary status. That he was a newbie who didn't know what he was doing is somewhat besides the point. It goes without saying that a lot of strong language is used in these scenes.


Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:



Part 4:



Part 5:



Part 6:

World Cup 2

There’s not much I have to talk about the world cup. I stopped at the quarters, and there’s only that much you can say about the last 3 matches (or 4, if you count the most useless game of the tournament).

But I was happy for the last 4. This is one tournament where I would normally have rooted for the last 4. Uruguay, because they are underdogs. They took the semi-final spot that was contended by South Korea, USA and Ghana. Obviously one of these would have reached the semis, and if any one of these reached the semis instead of Uruguay, they would have had the label of “surprise semi-finalist” all the same. But in a sense they are even more of a surprise semi-finallist than Ghana because people were thinking that the host continent

There’s not much I can tell from how Uruguay actually played. They had 2 obvious stars, in Forlan and Suarez, but the rest of the team played solidly. But it was great to see a team that had won 2 world cups and then disappeared from view – appear in the semis for the first time since 1970.

Germany were there because they clearly deserved it. Granted, they may have been flattered by matches where they scored 4 goals. Those matches, though, were against opposition where they were able to play to their strengths as a fast counter-attacking team. An Australia who didn’t know how to play, an England that didn’t know how to run, and an Argentina who left yawning spaces in the middle of the park. The 4-0 scoreline against Argentina looked great, but it flattered Germany: if you watched the match, as I did, it was much closer than that.

In comparison, the 1-0 defeat against Spain was a bit of a thrashing.

The famed tiki-taka football style of the Spaniards was heavily influenced by the "total football" of Ajax and Holland. The Spanish has a very strong Dutch influence. Johan Cryuff played at Barcelona during some of his peak years, and later became the legendary coach who led the club to 4 consecutive titles. His replacement, Louis Van Gaal built a youth system that emphasised the "Barcelona style" of playing, and that system produced many of the players in the current Spanish team. It was based on the possession football that was drilled into them since they were kids: pass, move, call. If executed properly, this would create an intricate pattern of passing where it would be almost impossible for the other team to win the ball back.

I think this was what happened in the matches that Spain had played in. You always kept the ball, and sooner or later that, goal would come, and then you kept the ball. Somebody called it "a beautiful form of attrition". The scoreline was only 1-0, but Spain had such a stranglehold on controlling and shaping the match that it couldn't have been anything other than 1-0. It was 1-0 against Paraguay, Portugal and Germany.

The final was between Spain and Holland. I was concerned about Holland, since I knew what terrors Robben and Sneijder were. With all due respect to Germany, Spain had never played another team which had such a potent attacking force. Muller was out for the Spain match, maybe Miroslav Klose was crocked? I don't know.

The Dutch were nicknamed "Clockwork Oranje" during the 70s, when they moved the ball around like clockwork. I think this moniker was appropriate for the way the Dutch played during the final because of the "ultraviolence". The Dutch were given 9 yellow card, and the last one was a second yellow for one of their defenders. Thereafter, Spain scored in extra time, and they became champions. It was an ugly match, but at least the good guys won.

Yes, I rooted for the Dutch because of the way they played before the final. They said the Germans played like the Dutch and the Dutch played like the Germans - fine, but the awesome attack of Sneijder and Robben were great to watch. They scored 2 goals against Brazil, 3 against Uruguay.

But against Spain, I think you had to use spoiling tactics. Germany didn't do that, and so they lost.

Spain 2010 was probably one of the most admired World Cup champions, since Brazil 1970. Holland 1974, Brazil 1982, France 1986, Romania 1994 and Brazil 1998 were other much-admired teams, and a few of these were more admired than Spain 2010, but all failed to win the cup.

I befriended a nice girl while watching the World Cup matches, and she was a staunch Spain supporter. I'm happy for her.

One of the things I noticed was that very few Premiership players made it past the quarter- finals. It could be true that playing in the EPL takes a lot out of you. But it was also that the French and England teams both screwed up badly. Essien didn't play. Ballack didn't play. Drogba got kicked out in the group of death. Cristiano Ronaldo was not in a great Portugese team. Torres was injured. Fabregas was down the pecking order from Xavi and Iniesta.

Possibly Carlos Tevez had an OK tournament. Possibly Kevin-Prince Boateng too - although he got relegated with Portsmouth. That leaves Dirk Kuyt, but he's hardly the star of Holland.

I actually welcome this. Maybe I'm sick and tired of the EPL. It's a shitty little narcissistic scene where people who are greedy for money end up. Yes, they dominated the Champion's League for the few years before and after the 2006 World Cup, but I think that had to do with the concentration of talent in there, due to all that money. I think we need some perspective that I should have had after Spain won Euro 2008: that English football is boring. It's just aggressive and fast.

I think that EPL players are in worse shape after the season. People get injured more. They're tired because of the playing style. A winter break wouldn't do much good because they'll still play the same way with or without the winter break.

Boring boring EPL. There was so much excitement last year when, for the first time since Everton gate-crashed the top 4, there was somebody new there (Tottenham). I think I should do the right thing and give it a miss.

I think, at the end of the day, the EPL will never supplant the World Cup as the greatest soccer tournament. People play in the World Cup for glory, whereas in the EPL, it's all about money. All the genuine-ness has gone out of it. People are too concerned about stability. Don't get relegated. Don't lose your top 4 place. Don't say anything interesting that will get you into trouble with your boss or fellow teammates. Play the same way week in week out.

I noticed that bald people played more than their fair share of influencing the outcome of World Cup final matches.

1998: Baldie Ronaldo got a panic attack during the World Cup, and played badly. Another baldie, Zidane, headed in 2 goals to thrash Brazil and win the World Cup.
2002: Baldie Ronaldo scored the 2 goals which won the World Cup for Brazil.
2006: Baldie Zidane got sent off, and France lost the penalty shootout. Zidane scored a penalty earlier.
2010: Baldie Andres Iniesta scored the winning goal.

Erreneous notions about Football

1. I’ll admit this: at the end of one of the seasons of football, perhaps this was the same season that Portsmouth won the FA cup, I thought to myself, Portsmouth are a lucky team. They are comfortably mid table, they don’t have to worry about getting into Europe, they don’t have to worry about who wins the EPL, and they don’t have to worry about relegation. They have a few points buffer either way. They get the results they want at a canter. Maybe if they win the FA cup they’ll get into Europe. Portsmouth must be one of the most stress-free clubs in the premiership.

I was probably misled by the “middle class” status of Portsmouth. They didn’t seem to be over-spending (but we now know that’s not true).

2. There were 2 recent decisions by Capello that seemed to not make any sense at all. First, he allowed the “wife and girlfriends” to visit the England camp at the World Cup. This is an obvious echo of the Ericsson era where he did the same thing and then got severely criticized, because the media circus which resulted distracted England from their performances – so the conventional wisdom goes.

Then he mooted this idea where players could be rated on a scale of 1 to 10 and their ratings be made public.

At the time these 2 decisions were announced simultaneously, and they invited a lot of derision from the press. But I just realized – could it be that his hand was forced over the WAG issue? Could it be that it was the power of the players that forced Capello to compromise over his Spartan conditions? And could it be that Capello decided to have his scores of the players’ performances made public, as a condition for allowing them access to their WAGs? I don’t think this possibility was discussed, and instead Capello got a lot of blame for those 2 bizarre decisions.

Not long after that, Capello refused to confirm that he would be staying with England after 2010. That could be a sign that he got fed up that he was not able to control his players as tightly as he wanted to. Eriksson stayed a little too long, even though there was nothing particularly good or bad about his performance. What brought him down was his perceived greed and lechery. There was the feeling that he was there to collect a large salary, and make money on the side by collecting appearance fees and celebrity endorsements. (Could explain his extraordinary loyalty to Beckham, either he felt he was a kindred celebrity wannabe, or he wanted to associate the England team with the really glamorous brand Beckham).

At least we know that Capello’s a little less happy with this arrangement. But it is true that Capello never stays in the same place for very long. Football coaches – the successful ones, know that one of the main ingredients for sustained success is constant renewal, and constant change. So one possibility is that the coach wears out the players by leading them through a period of overachievement that is unsustainable in the long run, and then the coach leaves. (Capello model). Or the other possibility is that the coach stays in the club for a long time, but he is rather ruthless in getting rid of players that are no longer at the top level (Alex Ferguson model).

Capello briefly considered leaving England, until he was persuaded to stay on until 2012. Well good luck to Capello.

3. I saw a latest issue of FourFourTwo magazine and was amused to see these 5 players on the cover: Theo Walcott, Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney, John Terry and Frank Lampard. We now know that Theo Walcott is not going to play for England, and that Rio Ferdinand is ruled out of the World Cup for his injury.

World Cup Year

This is world cup year again. I had earlier blogged about how interesting things happen to me every 7 years. That’s true, every 7 years, I go through a big change on the inside. (Well, not big anymore, because old people don’t go through big changes the way that young people do, but nevertheless – significant ones.) But what is true is that every 4 years, I go through big changes on the outside. Well, so far, until 2002. According to this schedule, I should have gone through a big change in 2006. I didn’t, or if I had, I must have been unaware of it. Or maybe nothing happens when the 7 year schedule and 4 year schedules clash.

I’ve entered or left schools in 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998 and 2002. I’ve had to adjust to new circumstances in all these years. I don’t know if things are going to change this year. I don’t have anything lined up. I don’t foresee anything happening. Next year, though, could be very different.

I've also noticed an interesting pattern: how happy I was during those 4 years seems to be somewhat correlated to how few times the current holder won the World Cup. Thus, 1998-2002 were good years for me, when France, first time winners were holding the world cup. 1994-1998 not so good, Brazil had won it for the 4th time. 1986-1990, pretty good years, Argentina won it for the 2nd time. 2002-2006, Brazil had won it for the 5th time - go figure.

Therefore, even though I think that Brazil plays wonderful football, and always have a lot of talented players, I hope they don't win. I'll be rooting for teams that have not won it before (Spain, Holland, Ivory Coast, Portugal), or at least, only once (England. France? You're having a laugh.). At the worst, I'll root for Argentina (3rd time). No Brazils, Italies or Germanies. Please.

In 2002, when I started work, they gave my block of apartments a fresh coat of paint. I saw it as meaning that my life was about to be changed. Now, they’re painting the thing again. It’s a sign, I tell you, it’s a sign.

But these 2 omens of change are fraught with complications: first, there was the big squabble over world cup rights, and for a long time it seemed as though the World Cup would not be broadcast in Singapore. Also, there was a huge squabble over the painting of my block of flats because the colour was ugly. In fact there was no colour because everything was going to be white, like some bloody Mediterranean village, or a certain elite school in Singapore. Now they softened it with grey, it looks a little more palatable, even though I liked the old colour scheme better.

Tiger Woods

Well, here it is, the infamous and extremely controversial Tiger advertisement.

When was the first I had heard of all this? There was a news item where Elin Nordegren used a golf club to “help” Tiger Woods out of a car. I thought, “that’s so cute. This is what marital bliss is like”. Well I was wrong.

Let’s not talk about that long list of porn stars / waitresses / neighbours’ daughters who claim to have had sex with / been semi-raped by Tiger Woods. This is the one man who can make Bill Clinton look like a virgin.

He had shot into the limelight in 1997 when he was one of the youngest to win a Master’s. Then, he was the talented kid. And after that, some people make that transition from tomorrow’s great hope into a great champion, even though we know many didn’t. There was a lot of pride among the Thais, when we found out that he was half Thai and half black. He was probably one of the first famous black golfers, playing a sport that had been mostly associated with white people, the way that Jimi Hendrix was one of the few famous rock guitarists among a mostly white population. For a brief, shining moment, it seemed as though anything was possible, that if he could reach the top, anybody could.

I suppose we can always admire a person who’s a champion. But what really makes a champion a champion? Granted, he has great mental strength. But is that an inborn talent, or something acquired through effort? It’s hard to say. There are millions of golfers out there, but only one Tiger Woods. His focus and his mental strength are legendary. There are times when some people will be ahead of him in the middle of the tournament, and he will come from behind and catch up, hitting incredibly low scores in the last 18 holes. Then there was the period when he had to fade out for 1 or 2 years – he had to learn a new stroke, because the stroke he started off with placed a very high strain on his back. This was a risky move because it could have ended his career – it didn’t. After allowing Vijay Singh to be the top earner in prize money for 1 (or 2?) years, he came back again.

We don’t see a golfer like Tiger Woods much – I don’t think that anybody dominates any sport so completely as he dominates golf. And golf is unlike most competitive sports, where you have around 10-20 years, and then you go downhill just because of old age. People who are good at golf can go on for a long long time.

But even before the sex scandals hit, we knew that he had a dark side. He was brooding and quiet. We saw that nasty scowl when things didn’t go his way. But we could always put it down to – nobody is as tough on himself as Tiger Woods is. He was focused on winning to the point of being selfish.

And when he won, he always kept himself locked up in a bubble. He didn’t talk to many people, or get involved in many community projects. He didn’t give his money away. I think the Thais got sick of him after a while. They saw him earning a lot of money through a company (Nike) who exploited 3rd world labour. In this respect, he was similar to Michael Jordan. Even though black people saw him as a shining beacon of what it was possible for a black person to achieve, he didn’t really have much in common with the common black brother. He was asked to comment on 9/11 and he basically talked about what he did on that day, rather than give a heartfelt speech about the terrorist tragedy. I think in a way, all these people steered clear of controversy so that they could continue making bland, impersonal product endorsements.

Time was when you could have sports champions with big personalities. You used to have big mouths like Muhammad Ali or Maradona or John McEnroe, who were every bit as entertaining opening their big mouths as they were playing their sport.

But these days, for some reason the great majority of athletes are told to shut their mouths, if they wanted to continue their lucrative sponsorship deals. You had to have the right image if you wanted to sell products to people. Thus, 3 of the biggest product endorsers in sports – David Beckham, Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods ended up spouting platitudes, saying nothing other than the most obvious things. They had to be handsome, well groomed, and seen to be family men.

Well the irony was that David Beckham and Michael Jordan were shown to be adulterers. David Beckham is back with Victoria, and he managed to save his marriage. Probably the fact that his brand name was so closely associated with his wife’s made it rather difficult for a divorce to take place. Michael Jordan didn’t manage to save his marriage. And this brings us back to Tiger Woods.

We knew that he wasn’t a saint. And a lot of people could forgive him for being grumpy. But being a serial sex maniac was probably something that shocked a lot of people, and his star has fallen. It’s okay to be a grouch if your own morals are impeccable but he’s starting to look like a big asshole. We think of certain people who were great sportsmen but unsavoury characters – Ty Cobb, the great baseball player comes to mind.

Tiger Woods could be said to be out of touch with reality. From a young age, he had had a cocooned existence, surrounded by minders, who answered to his every whim. As the scandal unfolded you had to admire the work of this army of people who was able to keep the public in the dark about so many mistresses. But you also got reminded that Tiger Woods had iron discipline.

You somehow saw all this as a product of his lifestyle. The incredible wealth, the endless touring and training, and time spent away from his family. All this, as well as the loneliness of always being surrounded by people but not necessarily his friends. I got reminded of something else I read about Michael Jordon – other than his intense competitiveness, he was an inveterate gambler, and sometimes used to go to bars, where he would pick up ladies and have his way with them. He was also fond of playing games with many of his friends, and not allow them to end until he finally won. A bit of a decadent lifestyle.

So Tiger Woods had to make a choice – what did he want, did he want his old life back, or did he want his wife? He apologised to his wife, who pointedly did not attend the press conference where he read out his apology statement. I think she realised that he was going to have to choose between her and everything else. There was some tentativeness to the whole issue – they weren’t totally comfortable with the divorce, because of the kids. But she was demanding that he gave up golf – at least, give it up for long enough for her to be happy.

Then, in the end, came that infamous advertisement, which will probably be one of the most controversial advertisements of all time.

Some people felt that it was a "brilliant" advertisement. In a way, yes. How do you capitalise on one of your star assets being disgraced in so public a manner? Just tell the truth. One of the big stories in the Tiger brand is the stern but loving father who raised one of the great champions. The ghostly voice is Earl Woods' own. It may have been taken out of context, but the essential truth is there: that is exactly how he would have counseled Tiger Woods. Great advertisements arise out of truth, and this was the truth. Or was it?

Except: first, it's in rather bad taste to trolley out a dead person to do some talking for you, especially if he's talking for a person whose reputation has been disgraces.

Second, the messages are mixed. I don't think that David Beckham or Michael Jordan has ever had to confront marital infidelity in this way. I don't think they had to do that in the form of an advertisement. They would have hidden away and let the storm tide over.

Tiger is different. Nobody really thinks of him as a lothario. He's black but he's not the stereotypical badass. His work ethic is more Asian. You normally think of him as the stereotypical Capricorn: always working, always striving, always winning, and in some senses, a family man. But this is one of the most stunning and swiftest collapses in reputation we've seen of late. Most people going from hero to zero are much more well known as a zero (Madoff) or as a hero (Muhammad Ali). Tiger is well known as both. No doubt, the fall is part of the story.

But what is the meaning of parading the shamefulness of it all? How is it shame when you're putting it up on every TV, every youtube account?

And when you see that advertisement, all the old questions come up. Is this a man ashamed of himself? Is this a man who is apologising to the public? Or is this a chronicle of a man coming to terms with his path towards redemption? More importantly, when Earl Woods asks "Did you learn anything?" Is he berating his son for hurting those close to him, or his he berating him for being stupid?

The last and most important reason why this advertisement is probably offensive: what are the ulterior motives? Nike desperately trying to find a way to flog more mileage from their fallen star before deciding whether or not to renew his contract? Tiger desperately trying to shore up himself as a marketable image?

No wonder Elin Nordegren was so offended. Like it was all about Tiger Woods. That the first thing he wanted to rescue from the wreckage was not his wife and family. The first thing was the sponsorship deal. Then after that, his golf career (disregarding her wishes for him to spend time away from golf). And his family as an afterthought.

Well - you can't really blame a guy for wanting to have his life back.

Barcelona vs Inter Milan

I took leave to watch the Lyon vs Bayern Munich match last week. Ostensibly. Then in the end I didn't, because I couldn't wake up. Later that evening, though, I ended up watching a SIFF film with Nat and another colleague.

If I had woken up last week, I would have found out something that I found out today. I missed the first alarm on my clock. But I thought, "I can make it till half time". I drove to 1 24 hour coffee shop which I knew screened live matches, even in unearthly hours. They weren't showing Barca vs Inter Milan. Then I drove to another coffee shop. No dice either. See, that's what happens when English teams don't get into Champion's league. They don't show them at coffee shops.

So I have to see what the soccernet report says. Harry Redknapp had asked me what I wanted to bet. The only thing I was willing to wager was that Barcelona would win the match outright and I wasn't sure about that. In any case, I was right. Well stupid me. But I could have been wrong. Inter could have gone for an early goal, which would kill off Barcelona because they they would need 3 goals to get through.

Last week when I was looking at the odds, I thought about buying Liverpool eat ball vs Atletico Madrid. I would have won that one too. Dammit...

Inter Milan had a 3-1 advantage from the first match. That is a good lead, except that the next match is Barcelona at the Nou Camp. Barcelona had a ray of hope when an Inter Milan defender got sent off in the 30+ minute. After that, Barcelona had 85% possession, and had 15 attempts on goal (compared to 1 or 2 for Inter). They weren't there to play football at all. If it were anybody else, it would be outrageous. Since this is Jose Mourinho, you'd expect it of him, he's that cynical. I remember the lyrics of a spoof somebody made about him when he was at Chelsea, "Jose and the Amazing Technicolour Overcoat":

"A corner kick is just enough,
A header on from Damien Duff,
The ball flies right into the net and we are one nil up"

Sums up his counter-attacking philosophy perfectly.

In the end, though, Barcelona "won" this match 1-0. Inter went through. It was the closest of margins, because if Inter Milan conceded 1 more goal, they would have been dumped out, and Barcelona would have completed one of the great comebacks at this stage of the competition.

A piece of trivia: Some journalist mentioned that he wanted to know what the Barcelona dressing room of the 97-98 season was like. That was when Louis Van Gaal (now manager of Bayern Munich, UCL finalist) was manager, Jose Mourinho (manager of Inter Milan, other UCL finalist) was a trainer, and Pep Guardiola (manager of Barcelona) was captain. Another piece of trivia: the UEFA Champion's league finals will be at the Bernabeu stadium, home of Real Madrid. Samuel Eto'o (stupidly sold by Real Madrid to Mallorca, now at Inter), Wesley Sneijder (stupidly sold by Real Madrid to Inter Milan) and Arjen Robben (stupidly sold by Real Madrid to Bayern Munich) are going to play there. Frank Ribery (stupidly not bought by Real Madrid, but suspended for Bayern Munich) will be on the bench.

If I had caught the match, I would have left right after the final whistle. And then I would have missed this:



Similarly, last year, I was watching Barcelona "beat" Chelsea. I also left after the final whistle. I missed this (background: Chelsea were denied 4 plausible penalties by the referee):



So good, they even did a remix of it:



But who cares when you have youtube?

The Europa league semis are tomorrow. I hope that the Europa League final will be between Liverpool and Hamburg, because these are the two cities most closely associated with the Beatles.

Football Betting Season 2 Week 13

On Saturday I didn’t see anything worth punting on. On Sunday I considered punting on 2 matches – Blackburn vs Man U, and Tottenham vs Portsmouth. Blackburn vs Man U - I thought that Man U had to win this match if they wanted to continue to be in the hunt for the Premier League. But then I remembered how Blackburn had sabotaged me by drawing with Chelsea a few weeks ago. So I decided not to punt. Good for me, the match was a goalless draw, with Man U showing how badly they missed Wayne Rooney, and how inadequate a replacement Berbatov is.

The other decision I made, to punt on Tottenham vs Portsmouth is something I had cause to regret. On paper, it seemed like a sure win situation. Tottenham was chasing 4th place. Portsmouth were already relegated. They were in administration, the first team to enter administration while still in the Premier League. But I should have taken a few other factors into consideration.

First, Portsmouth have a lot of players on pay as you play. That means that a lot of their best players were not available for the Premier League (which is why they did so badly in EPL). But the club evidently decided that the players could take a shot at the FA cup, which is why they did so well in the FA cup. This also means that a lot of their best players are still fresh, as opposed to other players in Tottenham who had to give their all week in week out.

Second, since Portsmouth are down, a lot of their players are looking to leave the club. They obviously can up their game in this match, since a lot of people will be watching. I don’t know whether they still have their bonuses for winning the FA cup.
The fact that they managed to beat Birmingham city in the last round (and Birmingham have been the best side this season outside those competing for the top 4 places) should have been a warning for me.

Well, incredibly, they will meet Chelsea in the final. I don’t remember a team being relegated and reaching the FA Cup final since Middlesborough played against Chelsea in the 90s. (In fact Middlesborough reached the finals of both domestic cups, and lost both. Chelsea won the FA cup.)

Portsmouth – a real sad story. There was an article the other day when David James, their keeper and one of their star players, said that winning the FA Cup was the beginning of the end for Portsmouth. The players were promised bonuses for winning the FA Cup in 2008, and paying out that bonus was something that effectively bankrupted the club. The managers thought that it wasn’t going to happen.

Indeed, looking at the stats in the 2008 FA Cup, it was a topsy-turvy year. An incredible year for the FA Cup where a lot of sides were dumped out by teams from lower divisions. Portsmouth were very lucky to have won that FA Cup, because they only ever had to play 1 other team from the Premier League. (OK, that team was Man U in the quarter finals.) From then on, in the semis and the finals, they only had to beat WBA and Cardiff, both in the lower divisions. Which means that Man U, if they had managed to beat Portsmouth in that match, could conceivably have won the treble again that year and equalled the amazing 1999 season.

This year, though, it was remarkable. They beat Sunderland, Birmingham and now Tottenham in the FA Cup. Not bad for a team in relegation form. So since Chelsea is going to play in the Champion’s League, does that mean that Portsmouth gets to play in the Europa League next year? Not bad for a bankrupt team in a lower division.
Well Man U have screwed up, and it’s up for Arsenal and Chelsea to capitalise.

Football Betting Season 2 Weeks 12

Usually I would write about the times when I did not put down a bet, and congratulate myself on my prescience because a lot of predictions I made would have been wrong. This time, though, I have to talk about how I passed up some opportunities to make money.

Take last week’s matches for example. I would have supposed that Man U would have beaten Bolton, but I’m not sure. I would have supposed that Tottenham were better than Portsmouth, but I’m not sure. I would have taken Man City to beat Wigan, but I’m not sure.

Then there were matches I wasn’t sure about. Liverpool vs Sunderland, Chelsea vs Aston Villa, Real Madrid vs Atletico Madrid, Mallorca vs Barcelona and Arsenal vs Birmingham. Except for the last one, the stronger team on paper won. And the last one was the one I had the most doubts about. So I could have ended up with a lot of money if I had bet on all these matches, and picked the stronger team to win. Except that I wasn’t sure about Chelsea, and had probably overestimated Aston Villa. Chelsea are very inconsistent but they are top of the table – says a lot about what the league is like this season, really. Well – more accurate to say that Chelsea’s form comes in spurts, with bad streaks alternating with streaks where they are just banging them in for fun.

This week, though, I reverted to the ultra cautious approach and only bet on Man City to beat Burnley. The match isn’t over as we speak, but I should be safe: Man City are up 0-4 after 20 minutes. It would be one of biggest upsets of all time if Man City fail to win this match. I might bet on Real Madrid to win Racing Santander, and why not, since they no longer have the Champion’s League to distract them from La Liga.

This week provides some evidence that you’re never completely sure that matches will go according to the form book. Aston Villa, so abject against Chelsea last week, managed to beat Bolton 0-1. Bolton were supposed to be more improved under Owen Coyle but they seem to be losing a lot of matches recently. Sunderland were thrashed by Liverpool but they broke Tottenham’s winning streak by beating them 3-1. Portsmouth were supposed to be relegated by now, but they held Blackburn 0-0. This is the same Blackburn which held Chelsea to a 1-1 draw a few weeks ago and made me lose $20. And Arsenal had to play 5 minutes of injury time before beating Wolves? No wonder they don’t exactly inspire confidence.

About the outcome of the Premier League, at the moment Chelsea are ahead. People used to say that Arsenal had the easiest run-in, but that’s no longer true. Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal no longer have to face each other, and each of them has to face exactly 2 of the 4th place contenders – (Liverpool, Tottenham, Aston Villa, Man City). Man U has lost Rooney. Arsenal has lost Fabregas, Gallas, Van Persie and Arshavin. The good news is that Barcelona will probably knock them out of the champion’s league and they can concentrate on the EPL. Chelsea should win the EPL if they don’t cock up between now and the end (and you know, that is a very big if). Man U can win it if Berbatov can perform (but he can’t). So it will be very close between the 3, although Arsenal is the least likely of the 3 to win it.

You know that the EPL is an absurd thing when one of the most compelling things is who will end up 4th. The favourites are Tottenham and Man City, but both of them have difficult run-ins. Which means that Aston Villa and Liverpool are still in it, although both of them have relatively lousy form at the moment.

Among the relegation candidates, it looks straightforward. Portsmouth and Burnley will be relegated. The last relegation place will most likely go to either West Ham or Hull, but it’s possible that Wigan and Bolton could make a “late charge” for the championship. It’s very amusing that West Ham is threatening to sue Fulham for not fielding their best 11 against Hull, because they had to pay 30 million pounds to Sheffield United a few years ago for illegally playing Carlos Tevez, who did more than any other West Ham player to avoid relegation.

There's one more thing that puzzles me about the EPL, and that is how a lot of Singaporeans use "we" to talk about their favourite team. To be fair, a lot of EPL club fans all over the world also talk about "we" too. If you're a Scouser and you go to the Kop every weekend, if you're the owner of a season pass, you can say, "we". But if you're just watching something on TV, then what gives? You wouldn't identify so closely with Chen Liping on your channel 8 serials, you're not even sure, when you watch Home United (oh the irony of that name) and you see a Brazilian pass the ball to a Camaroonian, whether they are "we". (But let's be fair to Home United - I just looked at their squad and it seems like they have comparatively few Singaporeans.)

I was at a gathering of a few classmates, and I wasn't a football fan when I was in school, so this was the time for me to find out for once who was with who. Well at least people follow the English tradition of having your own "club" and being a fan for life. There was an Everton fan, a Tottenham fan, a Man U fan and a Liverpool fan. You have to give them credit to sticking to English football after 1985 when English teams were no longer the best in Europe. But still, "we?" If you were talking about Fandi Ahmad and company, yes you could say "we". If you talked about the 90s when it seemed that Malaysia was going to catch up with Singapore, when people still went to Johor without the fear of getting beaten up, you could see Singapore vs (some State team) as a natural thing, you could have the wonderful Malaysia Cup where every match was a derby match.

In England, locality is very important. Especially if you were one of two teams that made up the same city (Manchester derby, Northeast derby, Merseyside derby, Birmingham derby, East Lancashire ie Blackburn- Burnley derby) you identified yourself by which tribe you belonged to. How do tribe affiliations measure up when it's a bunch of youngsters huddling in a pub thousands of miles away, or some old men pencilling some boxes onto an optical sheet, and then bringing those chits to a coffeeshop with a cable subscription?

I think there's so much talk about football - you don't really want people to talk too much about politics in Singapore, neither do you want them to be talking about religion, unless in a church or a mosque. You don't want them nosing around and talking about the economy, so what do they talk about? Ever noticed that they're a lot of people talking about football in Singapore, Thailand, Dubai - relatively prosperous countries which aren't really that democratic?

People talk about football because they want to avoid all these things. Because we were also talking about the integrated resort to these same guys, and one of them mentioned about the first law breaker at the casino. I said, "well they have a jail cell there, isn't it? The same one they used to put Chia Thye Poh in, just dump him there." There was a short, abrupt silence for a 1-2 seconds, and then the conversation continued somewhere else, but it was long enough, and noticeable enough for me to conclude that that wasn't quite something people wanted to comment on.