We don’t often discuss other sports on TFT. Cricket has more than enough highs and lows to occupy our time. However, Leicester City’s bizarre triumph in the football is a topic that should intrigue all sports fans. It’s the kids’ movie with a totally unbelievable plot that came true. In fact, if they made a fictional TV programme that followed the same script – the no hopers with no money who inexplicably beat the big boys to the big prize – I’d probably throw up in a bucket. It’s got cheesy and farfetched written all over it.
The fact this fairy tale has actually happened, in real life, leaves me rather dazed and confused. I gave up on club football a few years ago for a number of reasons – the main one being that I thought football was all about money and that only big clubs with enormous chequebooks could enjoy success. I was sick of seeing my team lose its best players to rival clubs offering bigger wages. I truly believed there was a glass ceiling on what 95% of clubs could achieve. The gulf between the haves and have-nots seemed to be growing every year.
Leicester City have shattered this glass ceiling into smithereens. It might be a short-lived success – the big boys will undoubtedly sniff around their best players this summer, offer to treble their wages, and try to eliminate the competition – but it’s reassuring to know that 5000-1 dogs (or should that be foxes?) can have their day … even if they lose the other 4,999 times.
The Foxes’ achievement also shows that money isn’t the be-all and end-all in professional sport all after all (although it’s close). One could argue that a surfeit of dosh is the precise reason why Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea etc have failed so spectacularly to compete with Leicester this season. Excess can lead to hubris and complacency.
Man City have spent more than the gross national product of Brazil trying to establish themselves at the top table. They’ve got nothing to show for it other than one premier league title – the same as lowly Leicester. Meanwhile, Man Utd have realised that Sir Alex Ferguson’s unique abilities cannot be replicated no matter how much money they chuck at a problem. And as for Chelsea, their stinking rich owner Roman Abramovich created a monster in which filthy rich players forced out one of the most decorated managers in football history. All these clubs completely forgot that you can’t magically buy teamwork and spirit.
At the other end of the table, Aston Villa’s pathetic demise demonstrates that money can’t buy you indefinite premier league security either. Villa have slashed their wage bill in recent years, and been forced to sell all their best players, but they still should’ve had enough resources to finish above clubs like Norwich, West Brom, Stoke and Bournemouth. Villa’s plight stems from a disinterested owner who has become disenchanted with English football, and gross mismanagement by the men he appointed to run the club in his absence. Once again, money is no substitute for competence and sound decision-making.
The big question, of course, is how Leicester’s fairy tale might affect other sports like cricket. This is where, unfortunately, my optimism ebbs away. I actually fear this great story might actually increase the divide between haves and have-nots. Why? Because every time someone complains that smaller clubs have dramatically smaller budgets it will be too easy for the authorities (and indeed many supporters) to turn around and say “well, money doesn’t matter, just look at Leicester City”.
What they’ll completely ignore, of course, is that Leicester’s achievement is so remarkable precisely because everything was stacked against them. If the world was fair, and money didn’t matter in sport, Leicester’s triumph would seem somewhat more routine. I don’t want to be a killjoy but one spectacular success doesn’t compensate for years of dominance by the big clubs. I’d like to see a sporting universe in which everyone has a relatively even chance of winning trophies as long as they run a tight ship and manage / develop players efficiently. The Americans seem to manage it in their sports, so why can’t we?
I’m worried that sports like cricket will draw the wrong conclusions from Leicester’s triumph. The problem is that other sports aren’t quite like football. The new TV deal for premiership clubs that kicks in next season is absolutely obscene. English football will be swimming in so much money that it’s conceivable, for the very first time, that smaller clubs like Leicester might actually have the resources to retain their best players. In theory this will create a more level playing field.
Unfortunately, English cricket (to an even greater extent than English rugby) won’t be getting a similar windfall anytime soon. The chances of Leicestershire CCC, who have finished bottom of the championship’s lower tier for three seasons in a row, repeating the football team’s success are essentially zero. Well, I suppose you could call them 5,000-1 shots but that’s probably a tad generous. I fear Leicestershire are more likely to go out of business in the next ten years than become county champions. Money isn’t everything, but it sure as hell helps.
I’d like to know what everyone else makes of Leicester City’s success. Will this become a seminal moment in English sport or will it be a one-off that’s never repeated? And do you think this will affect cricket in any way? I guess it might rekindle ‘the dream’ and perhaps inspire a few struggling clubs to greater things, but can you see any county emulating the feat?
James Morgan
I’d be surprised if Leicester’s win this year will be repeated next year. I can’t see too many of the leading clubs, such as Man United, Chelsea and Man City not improving especially as all 3 either definitely are or will be changing their managers and will have an influx of new players. As for cricket, well “unfashionable clubs” have won the CC in more recent times, thinking of Sussex as soon ago as 2007 and heck Leicestershire themselves won it in 1998.
The one thing that has helped the lesser lights in football this year is that the ridiculous amount of money football gets through TV has allowed many lesser sides to spend a bomb on player wages. I saw that the Cricket Geek pointed out that Leicester had the 8th highest wage bill (he claimed not to follow any team) and that careful spending rather than careless spending as undertaken by some of the aforementioned big clubs has helped bridge the gap. I take your point about the smaller counties, it is far more of a hand to mouth existence and I guess that’s what might not help them.
As I say above, I don’t really follow football anymore. If it’s true that Leicester had the 8th biggest wage bill then their achievement isn’t quite so amazing – although still highly impressive. I did think of Sussex’s recent success (less than a decade ago). What a shame that they’ve been related since. 8 of the 9 div one teams in England are now test venue counties.
This is a freak random event that happens in all sports every so often, doesn’t mean the system works though.
Will a small county win things, rarely in proper cricket but potentially in white ball as that has more luck involved that proper cricket. Depends which format you choose to seem as success. For me, only the 4 day county stuff has any meaning and I can’t see a small county doing anything useful any time soon. Of course, that’s not to say that a club couldn’t happen upon a generation of talented youth like United did in the late 90’s.. Again, doesn’t mean the system works.. That’s also just blind luck.
Yeah Leicester do actually have reasonably deep pockets and bought their promotion to some extent so burnely need to win first to prove money isn’t everything but it’s fantastic nonetheless mainly because their better players have been their cheapest. As for the cc, I think it could happen, a lot of the ‘smaller’ counties have very good academy sides and the minor counties are producing enough talent for those who need more ability. I think generally it’s the bowling that makes a big difference, if a young James Anderson (josh tongue?) were to crop up at a county like Worcestershire (who I don’t count as a small county at all!!) and be a success there’s no reason it couldn’t happen. However, of the ‘truer’ small counties like Leicestershire Glamorgan Northants Derbyshire I don’t see them progressing much currently which is a shame for the domestic game but not so much for the national side where I think realistically a stronger first division develops in players better, even if high quality players have to move to get there in the short term.
It’s unrelated mostly, but I’ve been having a guess at what the selectors are thinking. It’s been prompted mainly by seeing moeen crouching down under the lid in a picture of the worcs game ( this week or last, not sure). It seemed to be to dolly’ bowling which I found bizarre as you’d think the England selectors want him bowling as much as possible if they are to continue using him at 8. I then considered if this meant they had decided to move to rashid but thought about who could field short leg of the batsmen England might pick, it won’t be cook again or root, or stokes. Vince or Compton are both too tall quite simply and I don’t think would be particularly good at it. I would like to see bell back in the side but I feel they will go to Vince and ballance and wait for bell to score a shed load so the public remember that actually he is a fantastic player and quite probably our best after root and cook. You’d think ballance then would be under the lid but I didn’t notice him doing it to rashid though I can’t quite remember if they did indeed have a short leg! Either way it still doesn’t explain moeens crouching workload and although they’ve been playing on seamers, lack of overs! He has batted very well as he usually does for the pears and batted with real purpose I haven’t seen since 2013. Many feel he is wasted at 8, Nasser included, could this hint at a move back up to 5/6 and ballance or Vince missing out? If it is I would praise the selectors primarily because moeen is a natural batsman and a tortured if effective offy yet has never been given the responsibility and pressure to score the runs for England! Am I going mad?!?!
Further! Rashid has bowled an incredible amount of overs, so to ansari and crane (when picked) thankfully! And English cricket has a serious problem with getting a balanced mix of ethnicities( getting the best players no matter background) and primarily its inability to identify and encourage British Asians to progress. Too much emphasis is put on academies and private school leagues which indefensibly give white privelidged (on the whole) a head start. Moeen is an outlier and represents more than anything the quality of cricketers in urban areas like Birmingham that do not get noticed, there are plenty in the Birmingham league! I am not for one minute trying to say we should pick mo over ballance or Vince because he’s a good poster, that would be wrong. But it would be fantastic for English cricket if a test batsman hadn’t come through the traditional system…
Hi Dom. I think Mo has the talent to bat in the top six but sometimes his shot selection lets him down. Is this because he’s batting at 8 and so he plays like an 8 (too many swings and misses) or because he simply isn’t disciplined enough? I really don’t know. His hundred against SL two years ago was an incredibly mature hundred, but I haven’t seen him bat that way for England too often. Mo really is a mystery imho. But what I do know if that he’s great to watch. Something always happens when he’s in the game.
The batting at 8 definetly effects it, being used to the pressure of first drop then batting with the tail clearly will affect mental approach. I’d like to see it, his method is brilliant.
Moeen Ali simply isn’t good enough with the bat to be even close to a test top six spot, that’s why he had to learn to bowl.
Just because he looks good and flashes at everything doesn’t mean he’s any use
*typical English cynicism, one of the more assured players in first class game
Some cricket fans haven’t really caught up with the financial inequality in the game. At least the vast majority of football fans expect rich teams to be successful and don’t continue to regard them as plucky underdogs.
In the international game, England get the second most money from the ICC. England also have the largest economy (still about 50% larger than India’s) and have the fourth largest population among FMs. England players on central contracts are earning seven or eight times what a NZ, SA or WI is earning on a central contract. England should be expected to be near the top of the Test rankings and to be winning every third or fourth ICC tournament. Too many people write as if it’s impressive if England are “competitive” (i.e. not thrashed) or if England exceed (their usually pitifully low) “expectations”.
Most of this is usually put down to the traumas of the 1990s. One journalist even has a book out about it. England were not actually as bad in the 1990s as current mythology maintains. However, even if they were, I’m with Henry Ford and history is bunk. Football fans don’t think Manchester City’s failures in the 1990s have much relevance to current expectations and neither should we.