Is that an improvement?Yesterday, after a low-tempo opening, Ipswich swept ahead on nine minutes when Mark Venus scored with a deflected shot following a free-kick given against Tim Sherwood for a foul on the effervescent David Johnson. The encouragement was a mirage, however, as Tottenham's experienced troupe clawed their way back and Rebrov began to sparkle. He hit the bar with a shot off the outside of his right foot (when a left-foot drive might have been more profitable), and then helped create the opening for the run on which Stephen Carr was brought down by Richard Wright, which led to Darren Anderton's emphatic equalising penalty.Carr, again, swept forward to swap passes with Rebrov, before sliding Tottenham ahead from close range in the game's best spell, shortly before the interval, when Marcus Stewart also struck a post with a shot on the turn after eluding Sol Campbell. Afterwards, with Ipswich pressing and passing competently, Carr was cautioned for a foul on Jim Magilton before Ferdinand ended the contest. Carr, predictably, fed Anderton, who had hit the post with a 25-yard shot 15 minutes earlier, and, from his cross, the former England striker rose at the far post for a towering header.It was his first goal for a year, but may signal the start of a highly promising partnership with the man from the Ukraine.. A good idea tried bravely to make itself heard last week as our football and rugby union players braced themselves for the unremitting rigours of the sporting stage for the next nine months or more. The fact that it proved as inaudible as a Roy Keane apology was hardly surprising.
A good idea tried bravely to make itself heard last week as our football and rugby union players braced themselves for the unremitting rigours of the sporting stage for the next nine months or more. The fact that it proved as inaudible as a Roy Keane apology was hardly surprising. Matters affecting the actual playing of our winter ball-games seem to take subordinate place to administrative affairs, and the lead-up to this weekend's entry of our leading gladiators has been dominated by loud wailing over the future of the transfer market and the ongoing lamentations about the ruinous level of players' wages.I doubt if the genuine fans would have allowed these negative topics to spoil their anticipation, but it doesn't help it when we approach the new season yawning. One subject that would have had a more invigorating effect on the imagination and been more germane to the start of the long winter haul was the suggestion that we should curtail the body-breaking number of games we impose on our best players.The idea came, appropriately, from rugby union, a game which makes a wider and more brutal range of physical demands than most. Union may be dragging its boots in the attempt to come to terms with professionalism, and the sport spent the week typically preoccupied with internal wrangling.
But from those chaotic ranks did come the plaintive appeal that we should be looking seriously at imposing a strict limit on the number of games played by each player, some of whom could face over 50 matches if they go on the Lions tour of Australia next summer.The campaign to cut down is not new, but has previously centred on reducing the number of fixtures. This was not welcomed by clubs, who need as many matches as possible to balance their books An individual limit is the only solution. Damien Hopley, of the Rugby Players' Association, thinks that a restriction of 36 first-class games a season would be a good starting point, thereafter reducing the total further when the game gets the hang of it. Even that would leave our players with a schedule much tougher that that of their southern- hemisphere counterparts, who are required to don their boots on a dozen or so fewer occasions even than Hopley's compromise.The man giving the debate a higher profile is Graham Henry, theLions coach, who has already highlighted the problems of being handed a squad likely to be battered and exhausted by a domestic season crammed with every conceivable league and cup test.For them then to be matched against players from whom much less has been asked is an absurdity that must soon be addressed. The same urgency exists in football, in which all attempts to reduce the number of teams involved in our top leagues have failed because clubs refuse to countenance fewer games.Considering the boundless expansion of players' wages, this might not be the best time to suggest a reduction in their workload, but it could be an important key to a new era in the employment of professional players. Imposing a games limit would have to come from the governing bodies, who could justify it as being in the best interest of the game, the players and - this ought to appeal to both codes - their international teams.There would be other benefits, too, including more first-team opportunities for younger players and, at those clubs with a high proportion of foreigners, for home-bred players Protecting players from overuse is not a new concept.