sports

Louis Van Gaal: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Louis Van Gaal has no time for last-minute shirtless histrionics.

What he said:

“He did a stupid reaction after the goal.You can be excited but you don’t have to pull your shirt off because then you have a yellow card. It is not so smart.”

Manchester United boss, Louis Van Gaal rebukes fellow Dutchman Robin Van Persie for taking off his jersey while celebrating his 94th minute equaliser against Chelsea. It was the first time since 9 December 2012 that United scored in injury time to either draw or snatch a victory.

Robin van Persie (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Van Persie was booked by referee Phil Dowd for the infringement.

What he really meant:

“Couldn’t he have waited till the game was over to celebrate? He held back till the 94th minute, didn’t he?”

What he definitely didn’t:

“How about tiny-necked shirts for the players? That way, they’ll think twice about tearing them off especially when they’ll look like headless chickens with the tees draped around their heads…”

Luis Suarez: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Embed from Getty Images

Luis Suarez believes that a bitten opponent, unlike an injured one, is not damaged goods.

What he said:

“I know biting appals a lot of people, but it’s relatively harmless.”

Luis Suarez, in his book, “Crossing the line: My story” reveals his reaction to the four-month ban for chewing his adversary, Giorgio Chiellini, in the 2014 World Cup game against Italy.

Suarez writes:

“Had the ban stopped at nine Uruguay matches, I would have understood it. But banning me from playing for Liverpool, when my bans in England never prevented me from playing for Uruguay? Banning me from all stadiums worldwide? Telling me I couldn’t go to work? Stopping me from even jogging around the perimeter of a football pitch? It still seems incredible to me that, until the Court of Arbitration for Sport decreed otherwise, Fifa’s power actually went that far.

They had never banned a player like that before for breaking someone’s leg or smashing someone’s nose across his face, as Mauro Tassotti did to Luis Enrique at the 1994 World Cup. They made a big thing of saying the incident had happened ‘before the eyes of the world’. Zinedine Zidane headbutted Marco Materazzi in a World Cup final in 2006 and got a three-match ban.

I was an easy target, maybe. But there was something important I had to face up to: I had made myself an easy target. I made the mistake. It was my fault. This was the third time it had happened. I needed help.

After my 10-match ban in 2013 for biting Branislav Ivanovic, I had questioned the double standards and how the fact that no one actually gets hurt is never taken into consideration. The damage to the player is incomparable with that suffered by a horrendous challenge. Sometimes English football takes pride in having the lowest yellow-card count in Europe, but of course it will have if you can take someone’s leg off and still not be booked. When they can say it is the league with the fewest career-threatening tackles, then it will be something to be proud of.”

Suarez added:

“When Ivanovic rolled up his sleeve to show the referee the mark at Anfield, there was virtually nothing there. None of the bites has been like Mike Tyson on Evander Holyfield’s ear. But none of this makes it right.”

The Uruguayan star attempts to explain why he is cannibalistic on the pitch:

“The fear of failure clouds everything for me – even the blatantly obvious fact that I have at least 20,000 pairs of eyes on me; it is not as if I am not going to be seen. Logic doesn’t come into it.

Equally illogical is that it should be a bite. There was a moment in a game against Chile in 2013 when a player grabbed me between the legs and I reacted by punching him. I didn’t get banned for that. That’s considered a normal, acceptable response. When I called Ivanovic after the 2013 incident, he told me that the police had come to see him and asked if he wanted to press charges, and thankfully he had said no. I’m grateful to him, because the circus could have gone on for a lot longer. Punch someone and it’s forgotten, there is no circus. So why do I take the most self-destructive route?

The problem is that this switching off also happens when I do something brilliant on the pitch and, of course, I don’t want to lose that. I’ve scored goals and later struggled to understand how exactly I managed to score them. There is something about the way I play that is unconscious, for better or worse. I want to release the tension and the pressure, but I don’t want to lose the spontaneity in my game, much less the intensity of my style of play.”

What he really meant:

“It’s certainly harmless—for me. I don’t need my mouth to shoot goals; It’d be folly to bruise my feet,head or shoulders while foully taking my opponent down.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“I’m a man who believes in toothing my own horn.”

Stephen Mangongo: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Stephen Mangongo is warily hunting the Bengal tigers on their home turf.

What he said:

“They are called the tigers, which is a tough animal; you mess around with a tiger, it kills you. We have to respect tigers, especially in their own forest.”

It is the battle of the minnows of Test cricket; Zimbabwe tour Bangladesh playing three Tests and five ODIs.

Although the South African nation has a winning record against the South East Asian country, their coach Stephen Mangongo is unwilling to underestimate their capabilities.

The Zimbabwean side are visiting abroad for only the third time since their return to Test cricket three years ago.

What he really meant:

 “I don’t care what the Bangladeshis are elsewhere; at home, they are a handful. Tigers at home are dangerous indeed.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“The Zimbabwean cricket squad wholeheartedly supports the WWF campaign: ‘Save Tigers Now.'”

Geoff Marsh: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Geoff Marsh keeps it all in the family with a hat-trick of baggy green caps.

What he said:

“Speak to my wife, we should have kept going!“

Geoff Marsh is pleased as punch to present the baggy green cap to his second son, Mitch, who made his debut for Australia against Pakistan in the first Test at Dubai on the 22nd of October.

Marsh’s elder son, Shaun, was bestowed the honour by his father in 2011.

Marsh said:

“It was quite tough, really. It was a real honour to be asked to do it. It was just pleasing, more pleasing that he’s got the opportunity to play Test cricket.

I’m pleased for both my boys. They followed me around while I was playing Test cricket and coaching Australia. Deep down you could see it in their eyes they wanted to follow in those footsteps and now they’ve both been given that opportunity. Hopefully there’s a lot of cricket left in them.”

On Michael Clarke’s assertion that Mitch could be a future captain:

“It’s nice to hear the Australian captain say things like that.I said to Mitch you’ve just got to take every day in Test cricket one day at a time. Test cricket puts out a lot of challenges, you’ve got to meet those challenges and you only do that through good focus and concentration and working hard.

He’s only a young boy. He thinks about the game a lot. We’ll just wait and see. He’s got to get through a lot of hurdles. He’s only young, hopefully he can just perform well and consistent and see what happens after that.”

What Geoff Marsh really meant:

“It would have been even better if  the Australian side were simply a Marsh XI.”

What he definitely didn’t:

 “Hindsight is eleven-eleven.”

Richard Ayoade: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Richard Ayoade breaks up Andy Murray.

What he said:

“I am attracted to you, but I don’t like you.”

Andy Murray and Richard Ayoade screened contenders for ‘Andy Murray: The Movie’ in a skit for Stand Up To Cancer, Channel 4’s charity drive. The tennis player was the “executive consultant producer of casting”.

Tim Henman was informed by the Scot that he was “flat, dull and unengaging – exactly what we are looking for” and that he had made the final two. Murray complained that he had never made the final two to which Ayoade rejoined, “The nation knows that.”

The merry show continued.

At one point, Murray said (to Ayoade), “I don’t like you.”

Ayoade responded: “I am attracted to you, but I don’t like you.”

What he really meant:

“In other words: Fatal attraction.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“What a Mills and Boons truism.”

Andrew Haldane: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Andrew Haldane is a front-foot proponent of back-foot play.

What he said:

“Three months on, it is time to update the batting averages. Ian Bell’s batting average has remained at 45 – the front foot recovery has remained on track. But over the same period, Joe Root’s has risen to 51. Cricket statisticians and financial markets are agreed. While still a close run thing, the statistics now appear to favour the back foot.”

Andrew Haldane, chief economist of the Bank of England, appears to obfuscate while outlining the UK’s monetary policy outlook for the coming year.

He said:

“In June, when evaluating the UK’s monetary stance, I used the metaphor of a batsmen in cricket deciding whether to play off the front foot (raise rates) or the back foot (hold rates). And I compared the averages of two English batsmen, one who played from the front foot (Ian Bell), the other from the back (Joe Root), to illustrate the dilemma. At the time, Ian Bell averaged 45 to Joe Root’s 43. In other words, while it was a close run thing, the data narrowly favoured the front foot. Cricketing statistics are not the sole basis for my views on the appropriate stance for UK monetary policy. Nonetheless, on balance, I felt the same front-foot judgement was appropriate for UK interest rates at the time.”

English: Joe Root makes his Yorkshire debut at Headingley, against the Essex Eagles (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

He added:

“On balance, my judgement on the macro-economy has shifted the same way. I have tended to view the economy through a bi-modal lens. And recent evidence, in the UK and globally, has shifted my probability distribution towards the lower tail. Put in rather plainer English, I am gloomier. That reflects the mark-down in global growth, heightened geo-political and financial risks and the weak pipeline of inflationary pressures from wages internally and commodity prices externally. Taken together, this implies interest rates could remain lower for longer, certainly than I had expected three months ago, without endangering the inflation target.”

What he really meant:

“I follow cricket and its related statistics with as much interest as the economy. Maybe, it will help enliven my dry speech and perhaps have you wondering what in heavens am I meandering about so much so that you will ignore the gravity of the message conveyed. You see, I’m on the defensive and can only hope (unlike Joe Root) that things will work out for the British economy from here. This way I can backtrack on whatever I say should things turn worse and if things get better, it’ll simply be a case of ‘I told you so, didn’t I?'”

What he definitely didn’t:

“I’ll be catching up on the cricket this winter and next summer. Haven’t you received my memo? My arm-chair coaching should certainly help England regain the Ashes.”

Jose Mourinho: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Jose Mourinho is no pushover when push comes to shove.

What he said:

“Charged? Charged? If it was me, it would have been a stadium ban.”

Jose Mourinho vents his ire at Arsenal boss, Arsene Wenger, claiming that if he had been the aggressor he would have been severely penalized.

The Chelsea boss was involved in a confrontation with the Frenchman when the two sides played each other at Stamford Bridge earlier this month.

Mourinho said:

“I gave you my reaction after the match, saying nothing had happened. The reaction from everyone else was saying nothing had happened. Am I surprised he wasn’t punished? I’m not surprised. I’m not surprised. Charged? Charged? If it was me, it would have been a stadium ban.“

What he really meant:

“History’s not on my side when it comes to fracases. I may be the Chosen One in more ways than one.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“I have a persecution complex.”

Jose Mourinho: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Jose Mourinho projects his expectations from his players.

What he said:

“The same thing as ‘a project’. The project has to be flexible. The project is never the same from when we start to when we end. It’s like at my house. You change, I don’t like this door, you change. The windows.”

Jose Mourinho compares his footballing strategy to a project. He believes that players and tactics have to be flexible and adaptable.

Mourinho said:

“I prefer my team to press in a low block, but if the opponent prefers to build from the back, and they are fantastic, it gives them huge stability in their game – I’m going to press there. Liverpool wanted to play with Suarez behind the defenders, Sterling the same thing, and Steven Gerrard in front of the defenders. So I go there, I play Lampard on Stevie G, I play my block completely low. I win. And I’m criticised because I [am not allowed to] play that way. So I am the stupid one. I’m not fundamentalist. And I think some people in football are becoming a bit fundamentalist.”

What he really meant:

 “Just like the scope of a project changes with every iteration, the way my team plays depends on the opponent’s style of play. I adapt to the situation accordingly. I am not rigid.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“Of course, I have to keep my stakeholders and especially my sponsor happy. And did I mention that I can always jettison players when the transfer window comes around? That’s how flexible I really am.”

Ian Chappell: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

English: Image of Australian cricketer Ian Chappell. Courtesy of the National Archive of Australia. The NAA has given permission for the image to be used under the GDFL license. Confirmation of this permission has been sent to the OTRS system. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ian Chappell raises his index finger to doctored pitches and biased adjudicating.

What he said:

“The players need to be careful where tit-for-tat pitch preparation might lead.'”

Ian Chappell is not keen on cricketers’ insistence on having wickets that suit them in home series. The former Australian skipper was responding to Shane Watson’s desire for bouncy pitches in the upcoming series against India.

Shane Watson (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Watson said:

“We are hopeful that the groundsmen are going to make the grounds very conducive to what we do, because in India they certainly make sure the conditions are favourable to them.”

Chappell, writing in his column, commented:

“I was reminded of two things when I read that quote. The first was a story told by Tony Greig about playing first-class cricket in South Africa.

It was at a time when umpires were appointed by the local association and the standard had dipped alarmingly. Greig described how the Western Province players would tell their local umpires to ‘send off’ the Transvaal batsmen because that was the treatment they received when playing in Johannesburg. In the end the situation became so dire the players declared a moratorium and agreed to ‘walk’ when they knew they were out.

That situation didn’t last long and soon chaos reigned.

The other was a comment concerning players who decide an umpire is either weak or incompetent and the team agrees to ‘appeal for everything’. Those teams are often the first to complain when the umpiring in a match is below standard. Hence the often-heard and eminently true comment: ‘Beware you don’t get the umpiring you deserve.’

The same could apply to pitches if players are going to start demanding retribution from the home curators.”

Chappell added:

“I’d go one step further and say that as captain, if I’d asked any Australian curator for a certain type of pitch, the answer would have been: ‘Get stuffed. I’ll prepare the pitch, you play on it.'”

What he really meant:

“Tit-for-tat reactions will create a dysfunctional relationship and ruin the ethos of the sport. It also breeds one-dimensional cricketers who cannot adapt to different situations and conditions. It’s  not going to produce great cricketers, but home-grown bully boys.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“How about a tit for two tats instead? Also, you ought to keep in mind that if Team India fold in three days or less, Cricket Australia will lose out on all that gate money and television revenue.”

Shamil Tarpischev: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Shamil Tarpischev is de-fined by his misogyny.

What he said:

“Williams brothers…Look at our athletes–elegant and beautiful. I have tremendous respect for them [Williams sisters], but once one of the sisters passed next to me, and I found myself in her shadow for about forty seconds. They are so physically powerful. Weren’t you afraid to play against them?” 

Venus Williams playing World Team Tennis in Mamaroneck, NY (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Russian Tennis Federation President Shamil Tarpischev made a hash of a television show referring to the William sisters, Venus and Serena, as men casting aspersions on their beauty, style of play and domination of women’s tennis in a single disparaging remark.

Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) CEO Stacey Allaster responded harshly to Tarpischev’s provocative comments with a $25,000 fine. Tarpischev has also been suspended from any involvement with the WTA for a year.

Allaster’s full statement:

“The statements made by Shamil Tarpischev on Russian television with respect to two of the greatest athletes in the history of women’s tennis are insulting, demeaning and have absolutely no place in our sport. Serena Williams and Venus Williams are champions on and off the court – outstanding human beings, incredible sportswomen and amazing role models who have done so much to inspire women and girls around the world to achieve their dreams.

The WTA was founded on the principles of equality, opportunity and respect, and Venus and Serena embody all of these attributes. Mr. Tarpischev’s statement questioning their gender tarnishes our great game and two of our champions. His derogatory remarks deserve to be condemned and he will be sanctioned.

As a result of his comments, I have ordered Mr. Tarpischev to be fined $25,000, the maximum allowed under WTA rules. In addition, he will be suspended from any involvement with the WTA for one year and we are seeking his removal from his position as Chairman of the Board of the Kremlin Cup for one year. His re-instatement will be dependent on good behavior. Mr. Tarpischev’s private letter of acknowledgement is a start. However, Mr. Tarpischev owes Venus and Serena Williams a personal apology, as well as other players and tennis fans everywhere, a public apology.”

What Shamil Tarpischev really meant:

“I really don’t like powerful women especially when they can beat the socks out of me (and everybody else) at tennis.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“How about a Bobby Riggs type of match-up, Williamses?”

Serena Williams at the 2008 WTA Tour Championships (Photo credit: Wikipedia)