Fixing the unbroken

Euro 2008 was one of the greatest football tournaments ever. Fact.

From the word go we were treated to a veritable feast of football packed with goals, drama, excitement and surprises. We had underdogs making it through against the odds, favourites crumbling under the weight of expectation and comebacks so incredible they made your nipples twitch.

And, with Spain as the eventual winners, the entire three week exercise was eventually concluded in the best way possible - with a victory for proper football. All in all, the tournament was as close to perfection as we are likely to see.

So why on earth do Uefa want to change its format? What do they hope to achieve by fiddling with something that doesn't need fiddling with?

Even before this year's festival of football fun there were rumblings that Michel Platini wanted to do some tweaking to the format of the European Cup.

However, most normal people would have watched the success story unfolding in front of them in Switzerland and Austria and come to the obvious conclusion: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But Platini is, if nothing else, an opinionated little chap so he has vowed to press ahead with changes which will probably be introduced by 2016. The first of these involves expanding the competition to either 20 or 24 teams.

"Although the level of these championships is perfect, I think that such teams as England, Denmark, Serbia, Ireland and Bulgaria could bring in lots to the Euros," he said.

For a start that is extremely offensive to the teams he mentioned suggesting, as it did, none of them are capable of qualifying for the European Cup unless the bar is lowered. (Probably right in England's case, but offensive nonetheless.)

But, more importantly, the idea of expanding the tournament comes with some real drawbacks. Firstly, a bigger tournament will drag on. Part of the beauty of this summer's contest came from its intensity with matches coming thick and fast throughout the three weeks.

Any expansion would mean a more drawn out contest that would lose much of the urgency that made this year's event almost breathless.

Secondly, expansion would mean qualification standards would drop. England were not at Euro 2008, for example, because they simply were not good enough. But they would probably have made it to an expanded version therefore diluting the quality of the product on offer.

The World Cup, with all the countries on the planet trying to get in, needs to have a bigger number of finalists by its very nature. The European Cup doesn't. Simple as that.

Platini's other proposal, and this one really makes me wonder if he might not be taking a short holiday from reality, is to move the whole thing from June to August.

This would, in his opinion, improve the standard of the games as players would be refreshed after their summer holidays and less likely to miss the tournament through injury. Maybe. But the problem is, Michel, they wouldn't be fit either.

After nearly two months on the beach and just a few weeks of pre-season training you would have players that are nowhere near the peak of their game.

Yes, they would be fresh and tanned. But they would also be rusty, ill-prepared and more prone to injury during the tournament itself. And can you imagine the clubs backing the idea because I can't.

As it is players have six or seven weeks after the tournament to rest and recuperate or even recover from injury if need be. Push the whole thing further forward and you would have players flying back from international duty straight into their domestic leagues.

Can you see Sir Alex, as the obvious example, agreeing to most of his squad not being around for the three weeks before the season starts. Over his very dead body.

Just what is it about the people at the very pinnacle of football administration that makes them feel they have to meddle, to stick their noses in where they are very definitely not welcome.

Fifa president Sepp Blatter has been doing it for years although, I have to admit, in recent times he seems to be doing it with the long-term interests of the game at heart.

Now we have Platini, still a new kid on the block in comparison to Blatter, trying to leave his mark on the game by doing things that simply don't need doing.

Don't forget this is the man who, just days into the job, said one of his long-term objectives was to make football a non-contact sport. Why not go the whole hog and replace boots with ballet shoes and make the players shave their legs?

From that point on it was evident, to me at least, that what we had here was a man determined to leave behind a legacy and who was not particularly concerned what damage he did in the process.

So, when August 2016 comes round and we are watching games between teams that don't deserve to be there made up of players that are knackered by half-time, Michel will be able to sit back and know his legacy is assured.

The man who fixed what wasn't broken.

Something to chew over

Over the years we have seen referees abused in a variety of weird and wonderful ways. They have been pushed over, chased, punched, kicked and generally assaulted by players, fans and managers alike.

But you can always rely on Americans to take things to a new level, which is exactly what one player did during a 'soccer' match in Delaware.

Annoyed for receiving a second yellow which meant he was off for an early bath, the player angrily clashed with the match official. Heated words were exchanged before the player leaned forward, grabbed the ref and, er, started biting him on the face. In truth it was nothing more than a prolonged nibble but the ref, obviously influenced by years of watching players 'simulating' injury, fell to the ground like he had been machine gunned by a passing rap star.

I just hope this type of ref assault doesn't catch on in Europe where it could have much more disastrous consequences. Can you imagine the carnage if an angry Ronaldinho decided to unleash his teeth on a match official?

It would be like a scene from Jaws...

Anyone but Murray?

This week Wimbledon went Murray-mad when the 21-year-old Scot made it through to the quarter-finals. The media, scenting the possibility of a first British champion in a million years, decided it was time to whip up a frenzy over young Andy. And it worked a treat as the English fans, starved of hope since Tim Henman's retirement, decided to make Murray their new hero.

Sadly it seems they had all forgotten that this was the same player who had insisted he was Scottish, not British just a few years ago. The same player who happily announced he would be supporting anyone-but-England during the last World Cup. The same player who actually turned up for a tennis match wearing a Paraguay shirt the day England were playing them.

I have nothing against Andy at all. He is a cracking young tennis player and has the potential to really leave his mark on the game. But I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to support him after he showed such a fiercely anti-English stance.

In all honesty his comments back then were massively stupid as he had the opportunity to replace Henman in the hearts and minds of English tennis fans and reap the financial rewards that go with it.

Instead he took a stand that alienated many people who may otherwise have become his fans. Myself included.

I won't go as far as saying I will support anyone-but-Murray, but nearly anyone...

sportscolumnist@timesofmalta. com