Sunday, April 8, 2012

Dazed and Confused: A Liverpool Nosedive

http://tomkinstimes.com/2012/04/dazed-and-confused-a-liverpool-nosedive/


Posted on April 2nd, 2012
Posted by by Paul Tomkins
I’ve been saying for many months that I don’t quite know what to make of this Liverpool side. And it only gets more confusing with the passing of time.
I always felt that I knew where I was with Rafa Benítez’s Liverpool, even if the ride could still get bumpy. And I certainly knew where I was with Hodgson’s: desperate to parachute off. (The Croydonian was a successful Cessna pilot who looked terrified and confused at the controls of a Boeing 747. What does this lever do? – ah, drop Daniel Agger in place of Soto Kygriakos.)
This is different.
We have:
  • a manager who had been out of the game for a decade, but who had won four league titles spread across two different clubs, and whose instant impact last season was a breath of fresh air;
  • a highly-esteemed assistant manager, who helped Chelsea to two league titles in fairly recent times;
  • new owners, who ended a Boston Red Sox title drought dating back to World War I, but who are still trying to work out just what the hell they’ve bought;
  • a Director of Football who, at the time, was ridiculed at Spurs, but whose purchases are now a key part of their new existence as a top four team;
  • an improved Academy set-up, with exciting young players who, though humbled by an incredibly efficient Ajax side, ended the Next Gen series in third-place;
  • and a senior squad that has been altered by three different managers (and one DoF) in the past two years but, when everyone is fit, is still pretty strong.
In every area, with regard to the bigger picture, you can see reasons to feel optimistic, and yet nothing is quite working as it should; certainly in 2012.
Liverpool have a fantastic record in the cups this season, particularly against Premier League teams who qualified for Europe: five wins out of six against Chelsea, Man United, Man City and Stoke. And the Carling Cup in the trophy cabinet to boot. But the Reds’ league form is increasingly poor – and undeniably terrible during 2012, during which time only Wolves have won fewer points.
It’s hard to explain, because of the stark contrast between the league and cup form – often against the very same teams – and also between how the Reds were playing earlier in the season compared with now.
One theory I have is that the success in the Carling Cup – with three months of the season still remaining – resulted in some coasting. Equally, it also coincided with the unfortunate defeat to Arsenal, when the top four chances seemed to peter out. The combination of the two may have collided to disastrous effect.
Some of the subsequent performances have had the air of a post-season tour of a country where the beaches are too inviting. I’m sure that the coaching staff will be livid if complacency has set in, but the psyche of an entire football team is hard to control. It just needs a couple of the starting XI to be drifting, and it can all fall apart.
It doesn’t even need to be a conscious decision from the players; just a subconscious easing off, thinking, at the time of the Arsenal defeat, that they were safe around 6th, having walked up the Wembley steps and qualified for Europe. To return to the aeronautical theme, a nosedive of 20,000 feet has caught them by surprise – and now, whether or not the effort is there, they’re locked into a negative spiral. Mid-table beckons.
Liverpool have gone from a team playing well and somehow conspiring to lose, to a side that seems resigned to missing glaring chances and watching the other side score with its first shot on target.
The surprise has gone; now they seem to just expect it to happen. They play like they expect to be unlucky, and when they are unlucky, as they were with the early decisions at St James’ Park (and Newcastle taking the lead against the run of play), there is no sense of defiance; just resignation.
Maybe Liverpool are a much better team than they look right now – my view is that with Agger, Johnson and Lucas back, the side would be at least 20% better. And a second trophy would certainly do much more than paper over cracks. (If there are indeed deep cracks, then two trophies is, at the very least, a decent blob of Polyfilla.)
But to move forward next season, does it need a change of approach?
British Woes
On the whole, I’m not a particularly big fan of the modern British player. I think the best ones are definitely worth having, and as with anything, it depends on the individual in question. But beyond the elite, do you get enough from them?
Last summer’s spending could quite easily be seen as ‘sensible’. I know, because I thought so at the time. But looking back, it was also ‘safe’; low-risk (or so it seemed), but uninspired. It was solid, unspectacular – all of the main signings had played almost 100% of their team’s games last season – but to date, it hasn’t worked out too well.
Everyone who went in the first XI spoke English and understood British football. No-one was a maverick who could go off the rails (Bellamy aside, although he was a ‘free’ and, at 32, maturing as a person). And yet, at the same time, no-one was anything particularly special. No flawed geniuses. Indeed, no geniuses full stop.
No-one was paid high wages, and with the chaotic comings and goings dating back a couple of years (managers, owners and players), perhaps a bit of sensible thinking – ‘within the box’ – was understandable.
But then Roy Hodgson was unveiled with similar ‘steadying the ship’ principles. Sometimes ‘steady’ just isn’t good enough.
The key thing to remember is that things change; players who were ‘crap’ in their first 12 months (or more) at clubs have subsequently come good, even if others will remain unconvincing. But with all but one of the British signings dating back to January 2011 looking more than reasonably assured, it begs a question.
Go back to Roy Hodgson, and neither Joe Cole nor Paul Konchesky – both capped by England – did much beyond make us groan. That makes seven British senior squad signings – all internationals – dating back almost two years, and only Bellamy hasn’t looked overawed.
All five Englishmen have failed to ‘settle’, and if you had that kind of buying record from any other region – South America, say – then you’d start to wonder why they weren’t working out; you might even put it down to cultural differences. (It’s been said of Italians at Anfield, and only two have been bought.)
Glen Johnson – an atypical Brit in that he’s clever and cultured on the ball, and whose game is not about large lungs and feisty tackles – is the last excellent Englishman Liverpool have bought; and even then, perhaps due to injuries, he’s not been sensational. He was, however, fully established as a first-choice England player, and at a good age. That combination was not shared by Cole, Konchesky, Henderson, Carroll and Downing, who were either one or the other (or neither, in Konchesky’s case).
Expand Britain to include Ireland, and Robbie Keane – who moved to these shores when aged just 15 – becomes another overpriced mistake. No-one had to teach him about English football, and yet he failed to sparkle.
Peter Crouch was often pretty good, and, at times very good; but overall, yet again, bar a couple of overhead kicks, nothing sensational. Jermaine Pennant was man of the match in a Champions League final, but not exactly a dedicated professional who could be that bothered most of the time; talented, but a wastrel. Emile Heskey cost almost £30m in today’s money, but with the exception of an excellent debut campaign – in itself unusual – failed to impose himself thereafter.
In the past 20 years, Liverpool have had some world-class – or, at least, international class – English players. However – and this may again be mere coincidence – there seems to be a pattern: they were all home-grown.
Gerrard, Fowler, McManaman, Carragher and Owen were all great players for Liverpool. They weren’t all perfect, but they are up there with the best this club has ever had in their respective positions.
Now, this doesn’t mean that all home-grown players will turn out like Gerrard, just as not all British purchases will end up like Konchesky. Hard as many have tried, the youth system just hasn’t found locals of this calibre in the past dozen years, and in truth, nor have Everton, beyond Rooney (and possibly Rodwell.)
But it does make me wonder if there’s something in the process that allows younger players to get accustomed to the demands of a big club as part of their formative education. It’s far less of a culture shock going into the first team because they are already ‘at home’. (Just as Jordan Henderson and Andy Carroll gradually eased their way into their previous sides.)
At Chelsea, Daniel Sturridge was bought young, and this could be the key: after a brief, unsuccessful spell in the first team, he was dropped, and then, much later on, phased in gently. It’s taken time. He played just 13 games in his first season at Chelsea, and 13 in his second, scoring just one goal (having previously scored five in 21 for Manchester City, albeit with just two and three league appearances in his first two fledgeling seasons). Danny Welbeck at United also briefly played for the first team, went on loan and came back a better player.
And this is what happens with youth team graduates in general: they are dipped in the water, a little bit at a time. Fans may be excited by hot prospects, but they don’t expect instant miracles. They don’t keep saying “£20m for that? Fuck off!”
A loan elsewhere was involved with Sturridge, just as it was with Joe Hart – the one world-class English player at Manchester City. They got Premier League experience, but without it costing their club points if they made mistakes. Micah Richards is another whose introduction over a period of time perhaps made it easier than if a large fee had been paid and been parachuted into the side from day one.
For Mancini’s men, Joleon Lescott is another who looked pretty rocky for a long time. He seems more assured now, but it has taken a few seasons for a man who may not even have needed to move house after his switch from Everton, let alone relocate to a new country and learn a new language. James Milner also took a while to impress, and has been, at best, very good; never remarkable.
At Spurs, Gareth Bale spent a long time as something of a joke figure; it took him a staggering 25 appearances just to end up on the winning team. Even though that wasn’t necessarily his fault, it took a gentle easing-in, from eight league games, to sixteen the following season, to 23 the one after that, before he looked capable of pulling up any trees.
The reason all this springs to mind is that, in the old days, Liverpool often used to buy the best up-and-coming British players. But then never play them. At least, not at first. It was seen as part of Bob Paisley’s genius. It was seen as part of the Liverpool way.
Alan Hansen was signed at 22 – so, no mere kid – and then only played in less than half of the league games in his first season. Ronnie Whelan was 18 when signed, but only really got into the team aged 20. Steve Nicol was signed aged 20, but had to wait 12 months, and even then only played four times that season. Famously, Ian Rush wanted to quit the club after a year on the fringes following his move from Chester, and could have ended up at Crystal Palace.
Yes, Liverpool could afford to keep young talent in reserve back then, due to winning the league most years. There was no rush (just Rush). And there can be little doubt that these particular players were in a raw form back then.
But it’s interesting that this quartet, who ended up amassing a mind-boggling 2,241 appearances between them (average 560 apiece), all started out so slowly, even though they’d been purchased for what in some cases were pretty big fees. (For instance, a teenaged Ian Rush cost £300,000 in 1980; the signing of Dalglish had broken the British record just three years earlier, costing £440,000.
I don’t know why, but unless you buy players who are sensational and ready-formed, then British buys may need even more adjustment timethan their foreign counterparts – who, you’d expect, face more challenges off the pitch (language, lifestyle, family relocation, etc.) and also have to come to terms with the pace of our game. Perhaps the majority of Brits are just too technically and tactically deficient by comparison, or maybe it’s a question of mentality.
Why do so many foreign players seem to walk straight into top clubs and, within six months or so, seem to have it nailed? Some may take three or four months to get going, but plenty make relatively seamless transitions.
This does not mean that you give up on anyone who takes a bit longer – quite a few times Arsene Wenger has persevered beyond a year and had success, and we’ve seen it at Liverpool with Lucas – but the failure of so many British players does make something of a mockery of the notion that they settle more quickly.
Just look at Newcastle, and how well almost all of their summer signings have done, even if the pressure isn’t as intense on Tyneside. They’ve brought in a pretty eclectic bunch, from French and German football, but they seem united as a collective.
Again, looking only at clubs who have been in the top four in recent times (and starting with Liverpool), you can see that Hyypia, Alonso, Reina, Mascherano, Torres and Suarez leap out in a way that no British signings have in the past dozen (or even twenty) years. Not even one bears comparison with those seven. Only Mascherano had experience of English football, albeit just five games at West Ham.
Elsewhere, in the past decade-or-so, we’ve seen smooth transitions for imports like Fabregas, Vermaelen, Sagna, van Persie; Silva, Aguero, Kompany and Yaya Toure; Makelele, Drogba, Essien, Carvalho, Gallas, Cech, Robben, Ramirez, Mata and Ivanovic; Van der Vaart and Berbatov; van Nistelrooy, Heinze and Hernandez.
The following started slowly, but were excelling from around six months: Hamann, Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Vidic and Evra. Outside of top four, Carlos Tevez did so well at West Ham he’s now played for two of the big clubs. He started slowly, but his talent was apparent halfway through his first season.
Nani, Modric, Nasri and Malouda all took even longer, and Shevchenko never did adapt. Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting because despite too many step-overs, he was very good at 17 after arriving from Portugal, but only sensational a few years later.
The very successful English players signed by these same clubs, where the player settled into top form within six months: Rooney, Ferdinand, Smalling, A. Cole (Chelsea), Parker (Spurs) and Johnson (Liverpool). Joe Cole did well at Chelsea, although Scott Parker flopped there. Phil Jones and Ashley Young have done pretty well at United this season, but without consistent form or fitness. Frank Lampard has had a great career at Chelsea, but wasn’t an instant hit.
Only lately has Theo Walcott started looking suitably consistent, and he’s possibly Arsene Wenger’s second-best English signing, after Sol Campbell. The exciting Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain fits into a couple of brackets: English, young, fairly expensive (£12-15m), but also phased in; a substitute appearance here and there, and a full league debut only after seven months.
Or … maybe there’s nothing in this. Maybe it’s all just random, and I’m looking for patterns in fairly small data sets. Or perhaps I’m cherry-picking examples, even though I don’t mean to. No doubt I’ve overlooked a few examples for either side of the argument, too.
There’s no doubt that the bigger clubs have bought a greater percentage of overseas than home-grown players in the past decade, so there should be a higher number (if not proportion) of successes.
If I’m wrong in thinking that English players might actually find it harder to adjust to life at a big club, then I see absolutely no evidence of it being a more reliable approach than importing from overseas.
It’s just that with the whole footballing world out there, maybe it’s mad to look mainly in here, even if the players’ wives can now all converse in the same language.
Buying the very best English players equates to common sense (Manchester United keep doing so). Buying the next rung down, when you could be buying the very best from most – if not all – other countries, is where it starts to fall down a little. As I’ve said before, any one of Carroll, Henderson, Adam and Downing on their own does not bother me as a signing; it’s just that, when combined, they look underwhelming and overpriced.
(By contrast, young Raheem Sterling can now be eased into the side. He was bought two years ago as a 15-year old, and it’s deals like this, and the more recent capture of 16-year-old Jordan Ibe, that can see young English players adapt to the club away from first team pressures.)
The good news is that, having had a Spanish enclave at the time when Spain was the best footballing nation in the world (only to then disband it, starting in 2010), Liverpool now have a Uruguayan flavour, at the time when they are champions of South America.
Work permit issues can make it tougher to procure players outside of the EU, but if, like Coates, they have recent European ancestry, it can make life easier. The link-up with Nacional can strengthen this bond, and while top players gravitate to Champions League clubs, they can also be swayed by the presence of compatriots if the project is exciting. Right now, I’d rather have some of the best Uruguayan players than more mediocre English ones.
Maybe another problem is signing players injured at the time: both Carroll and Aquilani arrived unfit to play, and while both were bought with five years (and not five months) in mind, it meant that when they did finally play, they were off the pace. And by starting life off the pace, people instantly questioned the large outlay; what a waste of money, etc. And the pressure just ramped up. A good start can be vital for any new signing, and neither of these players were able to achieve that.
If the conscious decision to buy British last summer is repeated in 2012, I’ll be struggling for optimism. Most of the best ones are already at the elite clubs, with a good proportion having come through their ranks.
I haven’t given up hope on those purchased in 2011 (particularly the younger players), and the right Brit at the right price is fine, but there are so many great players in leagues around the world that would surely represent better value for money.
A bit more thinking outside the box might help solve problems within it.

笑话12.4.2


http://limfang.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-post_04.html


男人在外面有了個小三

小三:亲爱的,你要是把满脸的胡子刮掉就更有精神啦!
男人:不行,我老婆说她就喜欢我这把胡子。
小三:你就为我刮一次嘛。
男人:我要是把胡子刮了,我老婆会找我麻烦的。
小三:既然你老婆这么重要,以后你就别来找我! 
小三软硬兼施,男人破例刮了胡子与小三幽会后很晚才回家。
心有余悸的男人没有开灯,他悄悄地躺在妻子身边..... 
妻子没有睡,她伸过手来摸了摸男人的下巴, . . . . . . . . . . . . 
惊恐地说:亲爱的,你怎么还在这儿?我老公就要回来啦!! 

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Serious? Malaysia standard of Education is Better than some advanced countries?

What a joke, this definitely one of the candidate of joke of the year in this Bolehland.........

Stay tune, more joke to come.....

____________________________________________________________

Malaysians fail to get into Harvard for second year running

http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2012/04/07/malaysians-fail-to-get-into-harvard-for-second-year-running/


by Lee Wei Lian
The Malaysian Insider
Apr 07, 2012
KUALA LUMPUR, April 7 — Malaysians failed to gain admission into the world’s most prestigious university for the second year in a row due to a slide in the quality of applicants, said Harvard University’s selection panel chief for Malaysia.
Not only did no Malaysian student receive an offer letter but none apparently was even good enough to make it to the interview rounds.
This comes after a controversy erupte over the quality of Malaysian education when Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin pointed to a World Economic Forum report to claim that Malaysians had a higher standard of education compared to that in some advanced countries.
Opposition lawmaker Tony Pua later rubbished Muhyiddin’s claims, pointing to another international study — the PISA 2009+ — that showed Malaysian students lagging far behind western nations in terms of literacy, mathematics and scientific understanding.
Datuk Dr Goh Cheng Teik, who leads the Harvard team that interviews prospective Malaysian students, said he was informed the quality of applicants had deteriorated.
“I called the Harvard College of Admissions Office and was told that although they received applications from Malaysian students, no one was shortlisted for interviews as they are not considered competitive enough,” he was quoted as saying by The Star.
A two-year absence from incoming Harvard freshman classes is enough to raise concerns over the quality trends of Malaysian education given that at least one Malaysian had been admitted to Harvard every year from 1985 to 2010.
A statement from Harvard’s interview panel showed that Malaysia was only fourth among Southeast Asian countries in terms of enrolment in the Ivy League institution.
Singapore has the highest number of Harvard undergraduates with 18, followed by Thailand with seven, Vietnam with six, Malaysia with five and Indonesia with two.
SMK Damansara Jaya alumnus Avinaash Subramaniam, who was awarded a full scholarship, was the last Malaysian accepted at Harvard in 2010.
Harvard was ranked the world’s best university for seven consecutive years by Times Higher Education (THE) until it was bumped into second place by the California Institute of Technology last year.
It was ranked the No. 1 university in the world last year by the Center for World-Class Universities of Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
Some 34,950 applicants were received by Harvard for the 2016 graduating class and only 6.3 per cent were accepted.
According to the World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness report that was cited by Muhyiddin, Malaysia was ranked 14th among 142 countries and second in Asean for quality education.
Pua pointed out however that the WEF study was merely based on the opinions of 87 local businessmen who were asked to rate on a scale of one to seven how much they felt the country’s educational system has met the needs of a competitive economy.
He noted that the PISA report said that only “56 per cent of students are estimated to have a proficiency in reading literacy that is at or above the baseline level needed to participate actively and productively in life”.
For mathematics, the PISA study revealed that only 41 per cent of students are proficient in the subject at the baseline level. For science, 57 per cent made the baseline level.

笑话12.4.1



相对论
一群青年学生问爱因斯坦什么是相对论。
他打个比喻:如果你与一位美丽的姑娘坐谈两个小时,只感觉那只是一分钟。而你坐在火炉旁仅仅一分钟却觉得有两个小时的难受,这就是相对论。


流行
俄国文学批评家赫尔今对庸俗的音乐总是捂着耳朵拒听。
主人说:演奏的乐曲都是最流行和高尚的。
赫尔今:流行就高尚吗?
主人:不高尚会流行吗?
赫尔今:流行性感冒不算高尚吧?


帽子下的脑袋
安徒生衣着简便,生活俭朴。
一日外出,有人问他:你脑袋上的帽子是什么东西?能算是帽子吗?
安徒生答道:你帽子下的脑袋是什么东西?能算是脑袋吗?


慢性自杀
伏尔泰咖啡瘾头十分大。
有朋友劝告:这是慢性毒药,你这么喝,等於慢性自杀。
伏尔泰说:你说得真对,这真是慢性的,以致我活到今天,65岁还没有死。

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

林丹出没多少纪录已作古 伦敦奥运或成就空前王者


http://sports.sina.com.cn  2012年03月12日02:55  新浪体育微博
  新浪体育讯 对于拥有全满贯殊荣的林丹来说,已无需在运动场上再证明什么。不过,只要林丹亮相赛场,总会吸引众人的目光。牵动众人心弦的不仅仅是林李大战,还有林丹屡屡悄然间完成创造世界之最的壮举。
  五夺全英公开赛,使林丹成为近36年来全英赛男单赛场的多金王。在全英赛历史上,梁海量、柯普斯分别创造了8金、7金壮举,不过这两位巨星创造辉煌的上世纪六七十年代,有着“无冕之王”的国羽队没有参加全英赛,中国选手因政治原因多年无缘世界赛场。这一历史事实,使梁海量、柯普斯这些奖牌的含金量多少打了些折扣。而林丹的5枚金牌,均来自于世界列强云集的全英赛,将他称为世界之最并不为过。
  作为百年赛事,全英赛一直号称国际羽坛第一公开赛,在世锦赛诞生前还有非正式世锦赛的身份。2002年至2012年,林丹年年亮相全英赛,这期间除2003年首轮出局外,其他10届均打进8强,其中竟有9届打进半决赛,一共收获5金3银1铜。扫遍近36年全英赛,在竞争最激烈的男单赛场,拥有如此出色且稳定战绩的,惟林丹一人。
  世锦赛是影响力仅次于奥运会羽毛球赛的国际羽坛顶尖赛事,在这一世界大赛上,林丹同样是NO.1。2006年至2009年,林丹在世锦赛实现三连冠,去年世锦赛夺回冠军,四枚金牌的成绩同样创造了世界之最。林丹的金牌数比排在第2位的中国宿将杨阳竟然多出两枚。
  去年底,林丹在中国柳州参加了世界羽联超级赛总决赛,前几届林丹因种种原因均未亮相。首度亮相总决赛,林丹充分展示了超级丹风采,以五连冠战绩无可非议地摘走桂冠,从而将国内外所有重要赛事金牌揽于一身,这些赛事包括奥运会、世锦赛、全英赛、亚运会、亚锦赛、全运会单打冠军,苏迪曼杯、汤姆斯杯、亚运会团体赛冠军,成为世界羽坛独一无二的全满贯。请注意,这个独一无二,不仅仅是男单,还包括其他四个单项!
  在不少公开赛,林丹也创造了之最。和全英公开赛一样,超级丹在德国公开赛、中国公开赛均书写了五冠王神奇,均傲视群雄。中国大师赛迄今举行了七届,男单冠军竟有4次写在林丹名下。目前同样属于超级赛的丹麦公开赛,林丹也有3次问鼎纪录,力压盖德、陈宏等高手。
在林丹的心目中,书写传奇的下一个赛场应该是4个月后的伦敦奥运会。自从1992年跨进奥运会大家庭以来,男单项目先后产生了5枚金牌,林丹与魏仁芳、拉尔森、吉新鹏、陶菲克各夺一金。即将开赛的伦敦奥运会,给了林丹又一次创造历史的机会。虽然来自马来西亚的李宗伟实力不俗,虽然青年国手谌龙冲击力颇强,不过和林丹相比,他俩距离奥运金牌的距离似乎更远些。(王全立)

林丹:伤病不要影响李宗伟 伦敦奥运我们相约再战


新浪体育讯 北京时间3月12日凌晨,2012年全英羽球赛落下大幕,男单决赛中,因为李宗伟因伤退赛,林丹轻松获胜,摘得个人第5个全英赛男单冠军。夺冠后的林丹还是对老友李宗伟的伤情给予了关注,希望不要影响到他的奥运参赛。
  作为5个单项决赛的压轴大戏,现场有8000多名观众为这场世纪大战助阵。一位是卫冕冠军、世界排名第一的大马一哥;另一位是4夺全英赛冠军,当今世界唯一的全满贯得主。两人的决赛绝对是火星撞地球。
  不过本场比赛进行到第2局时,李宗伟的肩伤复发,无法继续比赛,不得不做出退赛选择,林丹也就此戏剧性的夺冠。而这也是林丹第5次获得全英赛男单冠军。
  赛后,林丹首先感谢了现场观众,感谢他们为自己加油助威。“我想感谢现场每一位观众,正是你们的加油才让我有了获胜的动力。”林丹说。
  对于李宗伟的伤势,林丹表示了关心,“我希望这个伤病不要影响他太多,因为我们还要在奥运会中相见呢。李宗伟还要代表马来西亚征战世界大赛。
  本赛季开始强势拿下韩国超级赛和大马超级赛冠军的李宗伟势头不错,希望能在全英赛中复仇去年世锦赛惜败林丹之仇。不过他在半决赛和韩国名将李炫一的比赛中,伤到了手臂,由此也留下了隐患。
  本场比赛开始后不久,李宗伟就多次出现肩部疼痛的情况,一度请队医给自己进行短暂的治疗。再坚持打完首局,第二局2-6落后林丹时,坚持不下去的李宗伟向裁判提出退赛申请,最终李宗伟和林丹握手致意,交换了球衣,比赛也就此结束。
  选择退赛的李宗伟赛后也向记者透露了实情,“我尝试坚持打完首局,不过之后越来越严重,我不得不停止。我很失望,但我不能冒险。我知道我不能完成比赛,所以我已经退出了下周开始的瑞士赛。”
  汤杯和奥运会已经越来越近,大马也需要一个健康的李宗伟来带队征战,因此大马一个需要更多的时间来恢复,养好伤病。
  和李宗伟的对决,林丹也是很珍惜,“这样的时刻对我们来说很重要,毕竟我们都已经到了职业生涯的末期,现在的比赛更多的已经是无关胜负。”林丹说

Monday, March 12, 2012

Paul Tomkins : Danger: Season Imploding Alert


Three league defeats on the spin makes for pretty grim reading – the worst run over a trio of league fixtures for a decade.
If Arsenal capitulated after last year’s Carling Cup defeat, then Liverpool are in danger of doing the same upon victory. Such success can breed confidence, and long-term, may yet do so – the experience of coming out on top in big games is valuable – but also, in the short term, engender a sense that normal league games are underwhelming.
The last vestiges of air in Liverpool’s league sails was lost against Arsenal – who, by last week, were resurgent – when the Reds were clearly the better team on the day. That left a ten point gap to 4th, and a sense that, in the league at least, there’s little left to play for. I’ve been witnessing these types of seasons for years; once the league position seems impossible to improve upon, and there’s no danger of relegation, it all goes a bit limp.
Spurs are currently doing the same, having also lost three on spin – in their case, for the first time under Harry Redknapp. From being ‘supposed’ title-challengers a few weeks ago, they’re now in danger of falling out of the top four, with Arsenal gaining in confidence and Chelsea likely to get a short-term burst from switching manager.
Had the Arsenal game last week ended in the victory the Reds’ play merited, our mood would be different now. Instead, we encountered a dire match on Wearside, played in howling winds and on a bumpy pitch, and were left with little to smile about. Even the winning goal was a cruel taunt, with Sunderland hitting the woodwork, only for it to bounce against Pepe Reina’s head, back against the post and roll kindly to Bendtner to score.
Before a big week of games you tend to witness a sub-par performance; in this case, one eye on Everton on Tuesday, and the chance of working towards more silverware next Sunday. It’s not necessarily conscious; more a case of the players knowing in the back of their minds that they want to be present, and full of energy, for those bigger occasions. So it becomes a little half-hearted.
And right now, Liverpool are not at the stage where they can go anywhere, at any time, and grind out results; especially not without key players like Agger, Gerrard, Johnson and Lucas in the XI. In 2004/05, Liverpool were similar; winning some massive games, but losing plenty of the easier ones (particularly on the road). Liverpool will play with much more intensity in the next two games, because that’s the way it tends to work.
While we may hark back to the good old days when referring to the credit that Kenny has in the bank with fans, it’s not just a case of remembering the John Barnes/Peter Beardsley vintage and finding faith. Liverpool played some very good football last season, and have on plenty of occasions this season.
Right now, this is indeed Hodgsonesque form – not good enough. But with a trophy in the bag, and plenty of good work during the majority of 2011, before the poor run of 2012, there was a sense of something to build upon.
However, whereas last season involved the supreme reading and recycling of Lucas, the intelligent movement and possession of Maxi and the energy of Meireles, the current midfield is pretty soporific, and the 4-4-2 fairly unimaginative at times.
Put Charlie Adam in the middle of it (Blackpool fans will attest that he was only worthwhile in 4-3-3), and it feels like an accident waiting to happen. Add Jordan Henderson to the right of it, and you get valuable playing experience for a young man with a lot of promise, but not enough end product.
Last month, Carroll had finally started to play well in a few games running, but has largely sat on the bench since then. Liverpool often move the ball better without him, but he was in the starting XI for quite a few of the good away wins earlier in the season: at Arsenal, Everton, West Brom and Wolves, plus Stoke, Chelsea and Man City in the cup. While his hold up play needs improving upon, his inclusion allows the midfield to join up.
Bellamy is another who had started to play well, but who had been out of the side since just after scoring a glut of goals; and when he did start, against Sunderland, his pace was sacrificed when substitutions were made.
All the while, under-performing players stay in the team. This is a criticism that was also labelled at Rafa Benítez, but in the case of Peter Crouch and Lucas Leiva, that faith was rewarded in the end. Managers tend to stick with players they believe in, even if it’s not coming across in their play; the idea is that it will, in the end.
In that sense, we can’t say anything too definitive. Just as so many fans were convinced that Lucas was rubbish, and “never gonna be good enough – end of!”, the passing of time brought new perception. He was always much better than given credit for, but improved significantly, too.
Charlie Adam had just started to look like reverting to a squad player with the return to fitness of Gerrard, when Gerrard got injured again. Lucas’ injury means there aren’t a lot of central midfield options. As much as I prefer Aquilani as a footballer to Adam, the Italian has just had another couple of months out with another ankle injury, so it’s hard to say he would have been the answer.
Another worry is that at this moment in time, Liverpool are not playing like a team. The bonding and man-management may be going well, and in the bigger games there is a terrific togetherness, but there are some worrying trends, too.
Suarez is increasingly going it alone up front; however, doing so in the final third, while frustrating at times, is not such a crime.
But in midfield, Adam looks for the spectacular, or to go himself with a 40-yard dribble from deep, when options are clear ahead of him. (When he loses the ball, he has effectively taken himself out of the game, as well as those who made the runs.) On a couple of occasions Adam has had a good game by keeping things simple, but they are the exception. Either he’s trying too hard to impress, or really is as lacking in game intelligence as many fear.
And even Jose Enrique, who was excellent in the first half of the season, has started overcomplicating things whenever he bursts forward, and is holding onto the ball rather than passing. He remains largely excellent defensively, but lacks ideas going forward.
On the flank, Stewart Downing continues to shoot on sight (of Row Z) from 25-35 yards but fail to attempt anything from closer in, while on the other flank, Henderson – a clever one-touch passer – will do almost anything but shoot. (That should come with  seniority.) Without people putting away the good chances that were being created, results suffered, and confidence has dropped.
As a result, the cup competitions have become the focus. I said a few weeks ago that winning the Carling Cup but coming a distant 7th won’t constitute a good season; but that a second cup final, particularly if won, would. Having said that, unless results pick up, Liverpool are in danger of drifting into the bottom half of the table.
That would make it seem like a repeat of Kenny’s time at Newcastle: come in at the halfway stage and finish the season very well indeed, followed by a disappointing full league campaign (hindered by key absentees) but winning through to a cup final. The difference is that Liverpool won their cup final, and have the chance to reach another.
I would therefore suggest we judge Dalglish when everyone is fit. Perhaps that’s unrealistic in this day and age, but I don’t think we’ve got a look at his best team yet.
Also, there’s no doubt that this remains a transitional season – it is, after all, the manager’s first full campaign, this time around. But the concern is over what we are transitioning into. Right now, that’s not entirely clear.