It was the half-time inducements that won it in the end...
There were so many inappropriate linkages in yesterday's Russia versus England game that it was inevitable that one such dynamic would define the eventual outcome.
As we've intimated in recent posts, the ownership of the outcomes of England internationals is a many splendored thing. On rare occasions, the result may be defined while the game is in motion although, it should be noted, not from events on the pitch but rather from those off it!
The global betting turnover for the game in Moscow was less than £100 million ($203 million) and there were constant rumours in the Asian trading rooms about, shall we say, the complexities associated with England's forthcoming demise.
The one constant about football matches, even when set against the commercialised framework that dominates the modern game, is that there are winners and losers. In the quaint old days, the winners and losers would be local players and owners and their associated communities. Who wins and who doesn't is now a significantly broadened spectrum of power bases.
The people who have woken up with grins on their faces this morning are, in order of grin width, Roman Abramovich, Guus Hiddinck and the Russian national team, Michael Owen and Luis Medina Cantalejo. Last night's option was bad for the bookmakers, the media (three consecutive summers of a no footie vacuum is too challenging for these people), the England footballing family (if such a thing exists), the British government, UEFA and the integrity of the game.
In key matches, our traders micro-analyse the performance of the match officials. Our thorough analysis is not to be shared in this place but we possess, throughout the game, a clear overview of the horizons of the referee and his assistants. There was unanimity across the board in our post-match assessment of Sr Cantalejo last night. His first half performance profile bore no resemblance to his second half reversal. One leading Asian market maker of our acquaintance believes there were conversations at half time between a powerful Russian with loads of money and an influential Spaniard with a receptive bank account. We couldn't, of course, comment on this particular liaison but we would indicate that such a structure would satisfy certain cause and effect linkages in yesterday's match market and atmospherics.
Regulars will comprehend that we don't have much time (a couple of nanoseconds max) for England's latter day hero, Michael Owen. We've repeatedly pointed out the man's inappropriate business linkages with Goldchip (a private bookmaking firm for industry insiders) and the degree that market money is correlated with Owen's performances on the pitch. The media circus could talk of little else other than Owen's remarkable recovery from surgery and the defying of club restrictions to represent his country in these two key games. Undoubtedly, Owen was fit for the games - in the first half until England took the lead in Moscow, he played a professional role. But lets look at his performances in their entirety over these two matches. Against Estonia, superman did not have one shot on goal although he did manage to be the recipient of 50% of the match offside calls. And in Moscow, Owen also failed to have one single effort on goal or off and displayed body language bordering on the horizontal from the moment England took the lead. Does McClaren have any idea of the realities in front of his eyes?
Which brings us on to the losers... The resigned handshake between Venables and McClaren post-match was fully indicative of their acceptance of the imminence of a mutually agreed termination of contracts. McClaren post match psycho babble was pretty entertaining and he has been in the six foot end for too long already and is unable or unwilling to break the links between the England national football set up and the bookmakers. Sven Goran Eriksson's reemergence as a shrewd manager is also indicative of the negative weighting that a period in charge, allegedly, of the England football team may have on reputations. Date of manager change? Next manager? Who cares...
The bookmakers wish for England to lose or draw the maximum number of games possible prior to falling at the latter stages of the final tournament. That is the prime profit profile for the bookmakers bottom line. It is hardly surprising that the template that most suits the bookmakers is also the template that is imposed on the English national team. Through the ownership and coercive practices imposed on some players, the bookmakers are in control of the process. While the game remains in the territory where the prize for winning is miniscule compared with the liquidity of the betting markets, this will remain our reality. It is an interesting aside that the only occasion where the bookmakers grip is weakened would be if England reached a final. The incentive profile would warp as the life benefits of being a real winner always trumps the short-term gain of taking the illicit dollar.
The absence of England from next summer's finals will cost the bookmakers in England a fortune. Shame. It will also cost the British economy £1.25 billion as the feelgood factor that precedes the quarter final/semi final elimination makes us all spend irrationally, apparently.
The English game warrants its comeuppance. Money has distorted the 20-20 vision of those in control of the game at all strata. The FA and their mismanagement of the new Wembley project and, combined with the Premier League, their lack of stewardship of the English game has produced a vacuous expanse where money always wins out in the end, both on the pitch and in the markets.
The new management need to be more meritocratic in their selection. National teams are like national governments, they become more corrupt and less efficient as their power solidifies over time. If certain players, whatever their status, were removed from the squad and selection was less London-biased, England could have a small window of opportunity when they might actually win something. Of course, this would be prior to the same corrupt cycle starting out all over again. As the Frank Lampard's and Michael Owen's of this world settle for contemplation of a summer of dubious Dubai sunshine, they should at least attract the media's attention for their role in England's non-qualification. In the same way that beautiful players are overvalued in the transfer market (Guti and The Beast syndrome), players who have rampant and supportive media attention also experience a value-added to their market price. This is a powerful input to the highly inefficient football markets on both betting and a transfer levels. We are told that Owen and Lampard are good and we believe them. Selective statistics are used in support of their misrepresentations but, if one takes the time and trouble to gather extensive data and statistics, a more holistic overview is possible. Opta Stats and other forms of proprietary match data allow very revealing analyses of player performances. It is not rocket science to neural net these performances with key betting inputs. The sight of England's saviours, Lampard and Crouch (!!), coming on as late match substitutes shows just how close to the bottom of the barrel England have reached.
A positive thing. Once again a major football event has produced a distorted outcome through poor and/or inappropriate officiating. The use of video replays would largely eliminate this blight on the game. Nothing allows the criminals as much control as the referee having such a monopolistic role. There is remorseless focus on minutiae affecting the game but virtually no coverage given to the use of video technology to meritocratise football. All the power bases utilise referees as a direct line of control to the match itself and the value of such linkages would be severely compromised by the democratisation of the decision-making process. It would have taken 10 seconds to determine that Rooney's foul, if a foul at all, was perpetrated outside the area. The argument that this would break the flow of the game is a non-starter. Video tech would also eliminate the very real issue of audience dissatisfaction - people are only going to buy this nonsense for a limited time. However, while all the institutions and the bookmakers are gaining from the current structure, do not expect the monopolists to vote for change.
I suppose now we'll be treated to several weeks of The Hounding Of McClaren and endless talking-head-minutes of Who Will Be The Next England Manager? Once the initial mass depression has lifted somewhat, anger at being expected to play on a Plastic Pitch will have its fifteen minutes of fame. And, in a country where fear resides just below the surface of our spectacularised lives, some nutter will, no doubt, daub paint on the new villa probably being bought at this very moment by Sr Luis Medina Cantalejo.
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
