It had been built as the greatest final in 10 years, with Manchester United and Barcelona -two of the world’s best going toe-to-toe in the Wembley arena- and it did not disappoint. Many articles and reports will have been written on the best spectacle in the world - evening eclipsing the Superbowl - but none could do it justice.
It was a pulsating match from start to finish as the world’s superstars displayed the sort of entertainment that had you on the edge of your seat and as if the script had been already written it ended fittingly with Frenchman Eric Abidal- who 72 days ago was having a tumour removed- lifting the Champions League for the Catalan giants after their fantastic 3-1 victory. It was Barcelona’s fourth time and twice in quick succession over Sir Alex Ferguson’s side- beating them 2-0 in Rome in 2009.
And perhaps the most pleasing aspect from a neutral point of view was that there was little if any controversy which mired the La Liga Champions semi-final against Real Madrid. The game was played the way it was supposed to be, with the exception of Barcelona’s Sergio Busquets- who would win an Oscar for best actor as each challenge he received saw him roll about the floor as if he had been taken out by a sniper in one of the stands.
That aside however, this match was exceptional and it was United who took the game to their Spanish opponents in the early stages as their defence looked lost without their leader Carles Puyol. Ji- Sung Park has been a revelation for the Red Devils this season and put in three decisive challenges – including one on Leo Messi – which demonstrated the kind of character and determination exuberating around the whole team in the opening 10 minutes. United could have even went ahead as Wayne Rooney almost latched onto a through ball but goalkeeper Victor Valdes – who many still question his ability- came rushing out to deny the Englishman. But where that was good anticipation, it was perhaps fortuitous that Gerard Pique’s back pass under pressure from United’s Javier Hernandez did not go past him moments later.
Although after this initial early pressure from United, Barcelona started to stamp their authority on the match and created chance after chance. But they were thwarted by the excellent defending of Nemanja Vidic – who was unfortunate to be on the losing side- however Barca’s pressure soon proved too much as they opened the scoring through Pedro Rodriguez on 27 minutes. It was a lovely goal and epitomised the Spanish’s style of play as Busquets and Andres Iniesta played a one-two, fed the ball into orchestrator Xavi- he darted unopposed towards the United defence before playing an exquisite pass- with the outside of the foot- to Pedro who evaded Vidic’s challenge slotting the ball past Edwin Van der Sar at his near post.
It was the type of goal we had come to expect of Pep Guardiola’s men, a style which has manifested itself in the Catalans – and bares the hallmark of the Dutch total football from the 1980’s. It is no coincidence that Barca have picked up this attractive play. Former Barcelona manager Frank Rikjaard was a Dutch superstar thirty years ago. Guardiola has only smoothed off the rough edges of the style shaping his team into one of the best the world has ever seen.
But if Barca expected the Red Devils to roll over and appease them they were sorely mistaken. Ryan Giggs who perhaps might have taken out a super-injunction for this match as he was fairly anonymous throughout- even the linesman failed to spot that he had strayed into an offside position for Alex Ferguson’s side equaliser on 34 minutes. Despite that the goal was as good as any made in Catalonia. Rooney played a one-two with Michael Carrick before -baring a similar resemblance to Xavi's pass previously -dinking the ball with the outside of his foot into the path of the Welshman who set up Rooney to curl the ball past the despairing dive of Valdes in goal.
The animation witnessed on Ferguson’s face only moments before had lifted and been replaced by joy. But Barca came roaring back and almost took the lead twice before the first half ended. A free kick worked off the training ground as Xavi rolled the ball into Busquets before threading a pass through to Pedro almost made it 2-1. Then Messi went on one of his trademark runs before finding David Villa, the Spaniard then laid the ball into the Argentine’s path but the last ditch challenge by Vidic did enough to put the striker off and the sides went in level at half-time.
Nevertheless United’s defence would be breached again as Xavi and Iniesta orchestrated the play in the final third – a wave of unrelenting Barca attack eventually took its toll and it was Messi who delivered a severe blow to the Red Devils cup aspirations by surging forward and hitting a curling shot beyond the clutches of Van der Sar- who perhaps might have felt he should have done better as the ball was fairly centre of the goal.
The Dutchman soon made up for his unusually poor goalkeeping by producing a string of stunning saves to deny Xavi and co. But he could do absolutely nothing about Barca’s third. Ferguson would have been raging with the sloppy defending in the lead up to the goal. Substitute Nani – who’d only recently came on- surrendered possession in United’s box, the Spaniards' took full advantage as the ball was laid back to Villa at the edge of the D, and he took a touch for control before producing a dipping curling shot beyond the 40-year-old. It was a fantastic piece of skill and thoroughly merited.
United had a couple of chances towards the end – Rooney tried to find the top corner with a curling effort but it only found the roof of the net, and Giggs felt that United should have had a penalty late on but the referee waved play on. Ultimately, it would be the Spaniards' that would go on to lift the coveted trophy.
Sunday 29 May 2011
Monday 23 May 2011
Is Lord Voldemort playing Premier League football? He-who-should-not-be-named plans to sue The Sunday Herald
With the news that The Sunday Herald could face legal action by the footballer-who-should-not-be-named over their publishing of an article about his alleged affair with celebrity Imogen Thomas the debate between the freedom of the press and privacy of the famous rumbles on.
This has since sparked debate over whether celebrities can impose such gagging orders on the media when at the click of the button on Twitter all can be revealed. Many argue that the orders should be disposed of because it is a law that is designed purely to protect the rich as only they can afford to impose privacy injunctions or super-injunctions. Others believe that even the rich and famous are entitled to a private life and it is not in the public interest to know who’s sleeping with whom.
In the Press Complaints Commission ethics code (1992:11) it states that “the public interest is not whatever happens to interest the public.” It must be something of paramount importance to the public – can it be argued that this is imperative to the public’s needs? Celebrity magazines such as Hello! and Heat would certainly have you think so.
And onto the issue that has got The Sunday Herald into hot water. On May 22 it printed a photograph on the front page of the footballer, with his eyes blackened out and the word ‘censored’ over the top – immediately obvious to anyone who picked up the paper and read it as to who the Premiership star was. Underneath the caption: "Everyone knows this is the footballer accused of using the courts to keep allegations of a sexual affair secret. But we weren't supposed to tell you that.”
The paper goes on to name the footballer in the newspaper and this has made the representatives of the player to consider what legal action to take. However, there is a legal loophole and this has created a divide in media law opinion as to whether The Sunday Herald has a right to publish such stories.
Many argue including criminal law expert QC Paul McBride that the super injunction only applies to English media law and not the whole of the UK so it is perfectly legit for the Scottish paper to publish the story.
“They forget that Scotland has an entirely separate legal system which makes its own judgments. They think that their rulings affect the world when in reality it is just England and related jurisdictions,” McBride told The Scotsman.
"Basically the footballer's lawyers forgot that they should take out an interdict in Scotland, and that allowed the Sunday Herald to publish.
"They can call it a super-duper-injunction. If they don't have an interdict in Scotland it is worthless."
Although top media lawyer Brian Deane has a different view he believes the paper’s editors, journalists and directors could be prosecuted for contempt of court.
“If the paper was absolutely sure of its position, why didn't it publish the names of all the other super-injunctions, none of which have been served in Scotland?” Deane told The Scotsman.
"I suspect that if the roles were reversed and a Scottish judge's ruling was ignored this way in England the Scottish judge would be seething."
So it seems that according to Deane being aware of the injunction being in place is the crux of the matter rather than whether or not the injunction was directly imposed on the newspaper itself.
However Mr. Deane has raised an important issue when he asks why they have they not named all the other super- injunctions. If The Sunday Herald was to win the case then this could potentially start a wave of Scottish newspapers naming and shaming celebs that have imposed gagging orders across the border.
But The Sunday Herald is not the first paper to reveal the player’s name as the Spanish print media have also published who the player is which poses the question everyone knows who it Is, so why does he not just come out and admit it?
In 2011 there have been 18 privacy junctions granted with a further 12 super-injunctions being put in place which ban the media from even mentioning their existence. A recent report by the Telegraph revealed that nine footballers, nine actors, four pop stars, six wealthy businessmen and women, a senior civil servant and an MP have obtained injunctions. Schillings, the media law firm, has obtained more than 20 of the orders and been paid an estimated £2 million.
But what is your view on the matter should celebs be granted such orders to avoid their dirty linen being washed out in public, do newspapers and magazines print these stories because they know it will sell papers and therefore is it in the public interest? Or does becoming the status of a celeb mean that the public have a right to know every single detail of the person’s life?
For those of you who are unaware of the debacle a Premier League footballer took out a super-injunction to prevent the media from publishing the story about his six month sexual affair with the former Big Brother contestant. However Social networking site Twitter has been used as a vehicle recently by some users to name and shame celebrities over their scandalous stories and he was one of them – he is also looking into legal action against the Californian company.
This has since sparked debate over whether celebrities can impose such gagging orders on the media when at the click of the button on Twitter all can be revealed. Many argue that the orders should be disposed of because it is a law that is designed purely to protect the rich as only they can afford to impose privacy injunctions or super-injunctions. Others believe that even the rich and famous are entitled to a private life and it is not in the public interest to know who’s sleeping with whom.
In the Press Complaints Commission ethics code (1992:11) it states that “the public interest is not whatever happens to interest the public.” It must be something of paramount importance to the public – can it be argued that this is imperative to the public’s needs? Celebrity magazines such as Hello! and Heat would certainly have you think so.
And onto the issue that has got The Sunday Herald into hot water. On May 22 it printed a photograph on the front page of the footballer, with his eyes blackened out and the word ‘censored’ over the top – immediately obvious to anyone who picked up the paper and read it as to who the Premiership star was. Underneath the caption: "Everyone knows this is the footballer accused of using the courts to keep allegations of a sexual affair secret. But we weren't supposed to tell you that.”
The paper goes on to name the footballer in the newspaper and this has made the representatives of the player to consider what legal action to take. However, there is a legal loophole and this has created a divide in media law opinion as to whether The Sunday Herald has a right to publish such stories.
Many argue including criminal law expert QC Paul McBride that the super injunction only applies to English media law and not the whole of the UK so it is perfectly legit for the Scottish paper to publish the story.
“They forget that Scotland has an entirely separate legal system which makes its own judgments. They think that their rulings affect the world when in reality it is just England and related jurisdictions,” McBride told The Scotsman.
"Basically the footballer's lawyers forgot that they should take out an interdict in Scotland, and that allowed the Sunday Herald to publish.
"They can call it a super-duper-injunction. If they don't have an interdict in Scotland it is worthless."
Although top media lawyer Brian Deane has a different view he believes the paper’s editors, journalists and directors could be prosecuted for contempt of court.
“If the paper was absolutely sure of its position, why didn't it publish the names of all the other super-injunctions, none of which have been served in Scotland?” Deane told The Scotsman.
"I suspect that if the roles were reversed and a Scottish judge's ruling was ignored this way in England the Scottish judge would be seething."
So it seems that according to Deane being aware of the injunction being in place is the crux of the matter rather than whether or not the injunction was directly imposed on the newspaper itself.
However Mr. Deane has raised an important issue when he asks why they have they not named all the other super- injunctions. If The Sunday Herald was to win the case then this could potentially start a wave of Scottish newspapers naming and shaming celebs that have imposed gagging orders across the border.
But The Sunday Herald is not the first paper to reveal the player’s name as the Spanish print media have also published who the player is which poses the question everyone knows who it Is, so why does he not just come out and admit it?
In 2011 there have been 18 privacy junctions granted with a further 12 super-injunctions being put in place which ban the media from even mentioning their existence. A recent report by the Telegraph revealed that nine footballers, nine actors, four pop stars, six wealthy businessmen and women, a senior civil servant and an MP have obtained injunctions. Schillings, the media law firm, has obtained more than 20 of the orders and been paid an estimated £2 million.
But what is your view on the matter should celebs be granted such orders to avoid their dirty linen being washed out in public, do newspapers and magazines print these stories because they know it will sell papers and therefore is it in the public interest? Or does becoming the status of a celeb mean that the public have a right to know every single detail of the person’s life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)