Boring: a good word to describe bad football

hurled at us hacks every so often. It has become our way of life to be

blamed for the decline in football standards, bad behaviour of fans,

poor refereeing, the quality of pies, the diabolical potato crop, and

the rise in inflation.

Nothing much has changed through the years. Most of us have been

labelled bluenoses, Tims, bigots, and buffoons at various points in our

stroll along the touchline. Maybe the last of which could be stood up in

court, but being neutral is a piece of cake, except when Scotland are

involved or one of our lot are playing in Europe.

What has prompted these ponderings is the allegations of failure to do

their job on the part of colleagues in the south.

It seems that the pen-pushers down in East Anglia, where rammies are

not the done thing, have upset the chairman of Ipswich Town, who has

become a bit incensed at the description of his team by the chaps and,

for all I know, chapesses. It seems that the word used most often to

capture all the sweat, toil and energy of the local Premiership

representatives is ''boring.'' It has to be noted that there is no

allegation of any decorative expletive being used in front of that

six-letter word, of the type used by managers in the heat of the moment.

No, it was a simple, unadulterated ''boring.''

Said John Kerr, the man at the head of the board: ''Boring seems a

juvenile word to use -- teenagers use it. I don't expect it to come from

seasoned journalists.''

Mr Kerr might well be one of the most articulate of boardroom talkers,

but I think I would have to question his grasp of lexicology.

''Boring'' may seem like a juvenile word to him, but to many of us it

works rather well to encapsulate the dreary, repetitive play

which masquerades as football these days. Teenagers may be heavily

into its use, although it doesn't seem to me to be one of the trendier

words of the day, and in any case it may be a gross insult to suggest

that those young people are incapable of demonstrating impressive, even

''adult,'' vocabularies.

But more important than any of that is the basis for this damning

summation of Ipswich Town's efforts. Although Ipswich have managed a

sound run of 13 matches with only one defeat, they also have drawn eight

of those games. That does indicate that there is not exactly a riveting

display of regular entertaining excitement on hand at Portman Road.

Mr Kerr's determination to give his backing to the team manager, John

Lyall, deserves every credit, but he does not devalue the criticism by

saying: ''I am not a football coach, just the chairman. I believe that

the manager and coaches are playing to the club's strengths and that it

is reaping dividends.''

No doubt he is right, and by the standards required in the game these

days the management is doing what it has to do to keep the side in the

league where the big money can be made and the club's economic future

assured.

But Ipswich would not be the first club who have taken the safe route

to survival . . . there is a host of them every season in Scotland, too

. . . and if it was our livelihood at stake we might take that option as

well. But the gang who watch from above are paid to take different

viewpoint, to see the old game from an objective stance and to assess if

the paying customer gets value for money.

Not having watched Ipswich, I cannot say who is right. But Mr Kerr

should be aware that there are far worse adjectives which could be

coined about his team.

Maybe it would be best not press his luck.