Was it really worth it Thierry?

Tomorrow the draw for the 2010 World Cup will be held in Johannesburg, and because of the actions of Les Bleurs star man during their knife edge qualifier with the Republic Of Ireland, France will be in it. There has been much furore since the now infamous handball; plenty of talk about the need of video assistance for referees, speculation around the nature of the incident itself, even talk of replays and other landmark decisions to compensate the maligned Irish. But the most intriguing question posed by it all; which has not been delineated with any real clarity; is how will this moment effect the legacy of one of the most talented and charismatic footballers of all time?

The former Arsenal talisman, for me, is unquestionably the best player of his generation. No other player in world football has been as consistently phenomenal, for such a prolonged period, as Thierry Henry. His spells in France, England and Spain have been laden with domestic honours as well as European success; Paris' prodigal son has won the vast majority of competitions he has entered. League titles, domestics cups and european prizes have all been acquired. His list of personal awards, in England particularly, is simply incredible. PFA Player, Football Writers Player, The Top Goalscorer; each year he has either won or been runner-up, pro-forma. Although I believe the Frenchman is yet to replicate his best club form for his country, one World Cup, one European Championship and one Confederations cup, isn't a bad international honours list. Throw in the fact that he is his country's all time record goal scorer and on paper it reads as one of the most impressive international legacies ever sewn. But forget the stats for a moment and think of the memories. Think of his impossible volley against Manchester United with his back to goal; his audacious flick, spin and smash at the expense of Christian Daily at Upton Park; think of the innumerable times he has opened up his body and guided it into the far corner. His quality is unparalleled, on our shores for certain.

Over the years Thierry has become as renown for the way he does things, as for his many achievements in their own right. His debonair and grace, on and off the football pitch, has seen him ascend as one of the great sporting personalities. His elegance and sophistication so uncommon in the modern day footballer, has helped him cement his reputation as one of the most suave and sought after public figures of the twenty-first century. Commercial organisations quite literally clammer for him to promote their products and its easy to see why.

And yet although synonymous with style, Henry also possesses oodles of substance. His alignment with anti-racism campaigns, his association with various charities such as the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, and his work with UNICEF, testify that his notoriety goes well beyond fancy foot skills and cheeky smiles. He has always been the good guy of football, the true gentleman in the ranks. And then came this; the horror show that unfolded at the Stade De France just over two weeks ago.

Players, managers, commentators; they have all came out in defence of the virtuous one, passing it off as a mere instinctive reaction in a tremendous circumstance. Some have commented that these things can, do and always have happened in football, and can be excused. Others have gone even further to suggest that this sort of incident is now part of the modern game, that players can, and must do, what is within their powers in order to win a game. What complete and utter garbage. Hollow words from comrades intending to preserve a man's especially high regard. I do not recall such a spirited defence of Diego Maradonna after his ball handling exploits? What exactly is the difference here?

The truth is that Thierry Henry's behaviour was completely deplorable. Utterly terrible. It can only be described as a deliberate act of cheating, and the consequences couldn't be much higher for the poor folk of the Emerald Isle. Those who have claimed it as a natural, spontaneous manoeuvre are kidding themselves. The Barcelona man could have been forgiven, possibly, if the ball had bounced off the surface and struck his arm, and immediately been squared across goal for William Gallas to turn into Given's net. However this is not how it occurred. After the initial handball, Henry quite concisely and calculatedly cupped the ball with the palm of his hand, conveniently into range for an easy assist. There was no accident about it; it was a wholly intentional, second handball. The Irish where understandably furious, hounding the referee in a futile attempt to revoke the goal. And what was the great man doing at this time? Celebrating enthusiastically, in a demeanour that could only have served to rub salt in the already deep, lacerated wounds of the Irish.

What is most interesting for me, is that the defining moment could have been so different. It may be asking too much to expect a player to admit guilt after such an episode, considering the astronomical importance of the impending goal in this case. However we have seen magnificent moments of sportsmanship in the past. Robbie Fowler for instance, declining a penalty when awarded to him at Highbury (of all places), seeming to admit that he had dived when challenged by david Seaman. Similarly Paulo Di Canio, who caught the ball in front of his home fans, shunning a definite goal scoring opportunity because the opposing goal keeper was down injured. Such virtuousness is not out of the question. Call it a long shot but who, if anyone, would you expect a moment of such monumental honesty from? If you had to cherry pick anyone in world football to put in that situation, in order to get the right and just outcome, who would it be? My guess is that your answer would not be the same now as it would have been before the 125th minute of that fateful match.

The football community seems to have reached a consensus that Henry is off the hook for his role in this one, but I'm afraid I, as I imagine many others, will not be able to forget this debacle so readily. Okay, so Ireland may not have gone on to win the game but the fact is they where crudely denied the chance to do so. His hashed, spurious rhetoric since the goal has smacked of a shamed and compromised man. He seems conscious of the fact that he has caused irreparable damage to his image. Thierry Henry stands today a man who has incredulously contradicted his seemingly inherent principles as a man, and as a footballer. You may interpret this statement as an overreaction but such is the pedestal that I put him on. He will forever remain as one of my favourite footballers of all time but this affair will remain as a permanent stain on his other wise immaculate legacy; an acute, significant one at that.

A titanic victory for both Haye and his sport

David Haye became the WBA heavyweight champion of the world on Saturday night, his success representing a success not only for himself and his adoring fans, but also for the sport of boxing.

Billed as David vs Goliath, the contest captured the imagination of boxing enthusiasts the world over. The gulf in size between the two men was always going to provoke intrigue in the spectacle. Standing at 7"2 and weighing 23 stone, it is not difficult to understand why people want to see Nikolai Valuev in the ring; he is a curious, alluring figure. Its just a shame his boxing skills aren't as fascinating as his frame. However this was by no means a one man show. The colourful Haye played his part in the promotion of the event also. His unruly comments over the past year have seen him emerge as a hate figure in many boxing circles with his appearances always invoking interest; for the wrong reasons some might say, but interest none-the-less.

The london born former cruiserweight fought an intelligent, if at times diligent fight. Haye spent the majority of the contest eluding the Russian giant, deflecting the bigger man's prevalent physical advantages. However his retorts where sharp and explosive when they came; every effective punch landed, in every round of the bout, was thrown by the Burlendsy fighter. His speed and technique proved simply too much for the 'Beast from the East'.

Despite his impeccably exececuted gameplan, the would-be-champion came in for criticism from some quarters for the cautious nature of his approach, notably Jim Watt, the expert pundit on Sky Sports who broadcast the contest in the UK. Watt had Valuev in a comfortable lead on his scorecard, arguing that Haye 'hadn't done enough' to win the title, arguing that it was the Russian who had 'made the fight', 'boxing on the front foot'. But how can this alone be justification for winning a professional boxing match?

Watt's summation suggests that all a boxer has to do is walk forward and throw punches, regardless of them landing, in order to win a tie. Valuev was woeful on his adopted home soil. The amount of effective punches he landed could be counted on one hand, most of them being nominal jabs. Okay, so Haye didnt stand and trade with Valuev as some deluded spectators may have hoped for, but he and his team approached the fight in the only way that they could succeed, and fashioned it expertly. Some, like Watt, may argue that a boxer needs to be seen as the aggressor and the initiator in order to win a title, but in this case, as in many others, to do so would have been illogical and unfeasible. Giving seven stone in weight, 11 inches in height and 7 inches in reach, fighting toe-to-toe would have been a suicidal ploy for Haye.

That said, however, you could hardly call his strategy negative. He threw all of the meaningful blows in the fight, landing a trademark 'Hayemaker' in pretty much every round. The only reasonable criticism you could level against him is that he didnt attack more frequently, but he was stylish, clever and defensively outstanding, despite the broken hand. Haye, like every boxer, had to make his advantages over the opponent count. He did so effectively and his opponent failed to do so. So what, this shouldn't have been rewarded? Valuev should have retained the WBA crown for persistent, if unsuccessful attacking? Ofcourse not. Haye done enough to win the bout and the judges correctly recognised his efforts.

However decisions of this elk have been few and far between over the last year or so. With viewing figures dwindling, primarily as a consequence of UFC's flourishing success, it may be that boxing scorers have been told to favour aggressive tactics over cunning, in order to encourage fighters to be more bombastic like there mixed martial arts counterparts. Carl Froch's points victory over Andre Dirrel at the beginning of this month was a glaring example of this credulous orientation, amongst a multitude of others. American judges have long been renown for crediting chin-out boxing, however it would be a misconception to think that they reward it as a precondition. Floyd Mayweather Jnr's unbeaten record, with many of his wins coming on points after markedly defensive displays, is a testament to this point. The Americans only favour such tactics in the event of an exceptionally close tie; which many of the incredibly suspect points decisions of late, have not been.

If there is a genuine campaign in the sport to make it increasingly aggressive, and ultimately more marketable, Boxing's heirarchy risks alienating the real boxing fan. The fan who admires tactical, astute boxing; the fan who celebrates craftmanship and guile; the fan who would have lauded Haye's performance on saturday.

Boxing's governing body seemingly fears the death of boxing in the face of UFC's burgeoning popularity and is encouraging offensiveness in order to replicate the explosiveness of the octagon in the ring. The scoring of the cards is the most effective way to purge boxing of any unwanted traits; all they have to do is not score said tactic. However Haye's victory went against the grain. Here the slick, skillful boxer; and most importantly, the better boxer; won over the imposing, belligerent and ineffective fighter. Lets hope that this was not just a brief departure from a predetermined trend, because the day that blind aggression defeats dexterity in the ring as matter of fact, the sport of boxing will be well and truly dead.