Alex Ferguson: The manager with the Midas touch

Midas, in Greek mythology, was a King of Phrygia in Asia Minor. For his hospitality to the satyr Silenus, Dionysus, god of wine, offered to grant Midas anything he wished. The king requested that everything he touched be turned to gold.

In his 36 years as a football coach, virtually everything Alex Ferguson touches turned to gold. At the beginning, it had not been easy for the Scot, but bout of successes came in leap and bounds. Fergy has been notching success long before he joined Manchester United some 24 years, 1 month and 25 days ago on his 69^th birthday (December 31^st 2010). On December 19^th 2010, Ferguson became United’s longest serving manager in history, overtaking Sir Matt Busby’s record of 24 years, 1 month and 12 days in charge of the club.

The pathos of football management is that most great careers end badly. Bill Shankly faded into a regretful ghost, Jock Stein died on the job, Sir Bobby Robson's great Newcastle repatriation finished with the sack from Freddy Shepherd and Brian Clough hit the bottle.

Even Matt Busby presided over disintegration as his last act. Prolonged exposure to the strains of satisfying players, spectators and directors while also fighting to subdue mighty rivals empties most men out in the end. But if you look at Ferguson now, after those successful years, you see a 69-year-old who has reversed the old law of diminution to grow stronger with every trial.

The miracle of his survival is that each test has tightened his grip on power. There is a formidable litany of challenges faced and overcome. Some were external: Liverpool, back in the 1980s, then Arsène Wenger's Arsenal and Roman Abramovich's wealth. These days United are the second richest club in Manchester but Ferguson welcomes City's provocations because they reaffirm his own team's most cherished values: experience, unity and the faith in youth that connects him to Busby.

Ferguson’s successes as the manager of Manchester United could easily fool one into assuming all his career has been with United and as a manager. The Scot has been a prolific striker, and has managed three other clubs before coming to Old Trafford. He supported Rangers as a young man, but got his baptism of fire at Queen’s Park, for whom he scored on his debut, aged 16. He went on to score 20 goals in 31 games for Queen’s Park. He also played for St Johnstone and Dunfermline before joining Rangers for £65,000 in 1966 (a then record transfer fee between two Scottish clubs). His incredible goal tally in the 1965/65 season-he was top scorer with 31 league goals and 45 in all competitions-prompted Rangers to sign him. In 1969 he left Rangers to join Falkirk as a player/coach, and in 1974 he finished his playing career at Ayr United having scored a total of 170 goals in 317 appearances for the six clubs.

Ferguson cut his managerial teeth with East Stirlingshire aged 32 in 1974 with an initial wage of £40 a week. In his first managerial season, he immediately gained reputation as disciplinarian. Club forward Bobby McCulley once remarked that Fergy had “never been afraid of anyone, but he was frightening from the start”. He later managed St Mirren between 1974 and 1978 with whom he won the first division title in 1976. St Mirren was the only club to sack him and they will be made to rue that after his remarkable success his next club, Aberdeen.

Aberdeen, prior to securing the services of Ferguson, had won the league only once in 1955 under Dave Halliday. With Aberdeen, Ferguson broke the 15 years dominance of the Old Firm clubs, Rangers and Celtic, on the league by winning the titles in 1979/80, 1983/84 and 1984/85. Since leaving Aberdeen to join Manchester United, no team outside those Glasgow clubs has come close to winning the Scottish Premier League title.

He led the club to even a greater success in 1983 by winning the European Cup Winners Cup by beating Real Madrid 2-1 in the final, becoming only the 3^rd Scottish team to win a European trophy. After the European triumph, Fergy felt he had “done something worthwhile with his life”. He was awarded OBE in the 1984 honours list.

Owing to the untimely death of Jock Stein in 1986, Alex Ferguson agreed to handle the Scottish national team on part time basis, and after the world cup he rejected lucrative offers from Rangers, Tottenham, Arsenal and Wolverhampton Wanderers. During the summer of 1986, there had been speculation that he would take over from Ron Atkinson at Manchester United, who had slumped to 4^th in the English top flight after a 10-match winning start had made the title glory seem inevitable.

Atkinson was sacked in November 1986 and Fergy took over. He moved the club to finish in 11^th place, having been 21^st (2^nd from bottom) when he took over. His first game in charge was a 2-0 defeat at underdogs Oxford United on November 8; his first win was a 1-0 home victory against QPR on November 22. By the time he recorded what would be the team’s only away win of the league campaign at title challengers and fierce rivals, Liverpool on Boxing Day, it was clear that United were on the road to recovery.

At the beginning of the 1987/88 season, Ferguson made several major signings, including Steve Bruce, Viv Anderson, Brian McClair and Jim Leighton. These players made great contribution to the club, who finished in 2^nd place, 9 points behind Liverpool. United lost only 5 games that seasons, but had drawn 12.

In the 198/90 season, Ferguson signed  Neil Webb, Mike Phelan, Paul Ince, Gary Pallister and Danny Wallace. But United had an early woeful run of 6 defeats and 2 draws in 8 games (including a 5-1 drubbing by bitter rivals Manchester City). This had prompted the fans to hoist a banner at Old Trafford declaring “three years of excuses and it’s still crap. Ta ra Fergy”. Various journalists and fans called for Ferguson to be sacked. Ferguson later described December 1989 as the “darkest period (he had0 ever suffered in the game”, as United ended the decade just outside the relegation zone.

Despite the calls for his sack, United’s board of directors gave him the assurance that they were not considering dismissing him. Fergy’s reprieve came in the season’s FA Cup. Following a run of 7 games without a win in the league, United were drawn away to Nottingham Forest in the 3^rd round of the FA Cup. Forest were flying high that season and were about to retain the league title, they expectation was United will lose the match and the press alleged (but perennially denied by then-Chairman Martin Edwards) that Ferguson would have been sacked had United lost and gone out of the Cup, as they were 15th in the league by this stage and had already been eliminated from the Football League Cup. But United went on to win the game 1-0 with the winner coming from greenhorn Mark Robbins. Robbins also scored the winner in the semi-final replay against Oldham Athletic. United went on to the trophy, beating Crystal Palace 1-0 in the final replay, giving Ferguson his first of 35 major trophy as United manager.

Even after 1990 FA Cup triumph, some still had doubts about Ferguson’s ability to succeed where all others since Matt Busby had failed-to win the league. They were runners-up in the League Cup and went on to win the European Cup winners Cup, beating Barcelona 2-1 in the final. The 1991/92 saw Fergy making three major signings-goalkeeper Peter Schmeichel, full back Paul Parker and winger Andrei Kancheskis. But the league title defied him again with rivals Leeds United emerging victorious.

Ferguson felt that his failure to sign Mick Harford from Luton Town had cost United the league, and that he needed “an extra dimension” to the team if they were to win the league. He thus went on the hunt for a new striker. He first attempted to sign Alan Shearer from Southampton, but Shearer opted to join Blackburn.

After a sluggish start to the 1992/93 season, it began to look as if United were throwing away the title again. However, the purchase of Eric Cantona from Leeds United brightened United’s future and Ferguson’s position as manager. Cantona formed an impressive partnership with Mark Hughes and fired the club to the top of the league, ending United’s 26-year wait for the league title, and also making them the first ever Premier League champions. United had emerged champions with a 10-point margin over Aston Villa and Alex Ferguson won the first of his many Manager of the Year awards.

In the following season, 1993/94, United led the Premier League season virtually from start to finish. Ferguson was the first to the Premier League Manager of the Month award (he had so far won a record 24 of those awards), introduced for the start of the 1993/94 season, Cantona was top scorer with 25 goals despite sent off twice in the space of 5 days.

In the ensuing 17 seasons, Fergy led United to win the league title on 10 other occasions, on two occasions, United won it three consecutive times between 1999-2001 and 2007-2009. These victorious seasons saw the breakthrough of a number of young players: Gary Neville, Nicky Butt and Paul Scholes (in 1994/95); Phil Neville and David Beckham (1995/96). They would be known as “Fergy’s Fledglings”, the decision to give them first team opportunities received heavy criticisms among sections of the media, notable among whom was former Liverpool defender and BBC’s Match Of The Day pundit, Alan Hansen, who famously proclaimed “Fergy, you can’t win anything with kids”.  The youngsters went on to prove Hansen wrong by going on to be integral members of the team that won several laurels.

Ferguson’s greatest season as a football manager was the 1998/99 treble winning season. The season was characterised by highly dramatic matches. In the Champions League semi-final second leg, United conceded two early goals away to Juventus; however, inspired by Roy Keane, who would later miss the final through suspension, United came back to beat Juventus 3–2 and reach their first European Cup final since 1968. In the FA Cup semi-final, United faced close rivals Arsenal and appeared to be heading for defeat when Keane was sent off and Arsenal were awarded a last-minute penalty. Peter Schmeichel saved the penalty, and in extra time Ryan Giggs ran the length of the pitch to score perhaps the most memorable goal of his career to win the match. They then defeated Newcastle United 2–0 in the FA Cup Final at Wembley thanks to goals from Teddy Sheringham and Paul Scholes. The European triumph was the most incredible of all. With 90 minutes on the clock they were 1–0 down to Bayern Munich at the Nou Camp following a Mario Basler free kick, but in 3 minutes of injury time allowed by referee Pierluigi Collina, Teddy Sheringham, a substitute, equalised and extra time looked certain. But with just seconds left on the clock, Ole Gunnar Solskjær, also a late substitution, scored the winning goal and history was made. In June 1999 Alex Ferguson becomes Sir Alex Ferguson, having received a knighthood in recognition of his services to the game.

          On May 21^st 2008, Fergy won his 2^nd European Champions’ League trophy with, United beating Chelsea 6-5 on penalties at the Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow. It was the first ever all-English UEFA Champions’ League final.

After the presentation ceremony of United’s 11^th Premier League title, and 18^th overall, in 2009, Ferguson conceded that he would stay on at United for as long as his health permitted him and that he would be glad to win the league title once more.

One recurring theme of Ferguson's management of Manchester United has been his view that no player is bigger than the club. He has consistently taken a "my way or the highway" approach in his dealings with players and the pressure of this management tactic has often been the cause of many notable players' departures. Over the years, players such as Gordon Strachan, Paul McGrath, Paul Ince, Jaap Stam, Dwight Yorke, David Beckham, Ruud van Nistelrooy and Gabriel Heinze have left the club after varying degrees of conflict with Ferguson. It is also suggested that one of the most inspirational players in the club's history, Roy Keane, was a victim of Ferguson's wrath following damning criticism of his team mates on the club's in-house television channel, MUTV. This disciplinary line that he takes with such highly paid, high-profile players has been cited as a reason for the ongoing success of Manchester United.

With 46 major trophies under his belt, Sir Alex Ferguson has became the most successful post-war football manager in British history and deserve all the tribute variously vented on him. His was a feat unlikely to be repeated this era.

THE PARADOX IN ALCOHOLISM

Ethyl alcohol is produced by the fermenting action of yeast on cereals, potatoes and fruits. The potency of an alcoholic drink is gauged in terms of alcoholic content, to which the term ‘proof’ is given. A 100⁰ proof spirit, for example, contains about 50% alcohol.

Alcoholic drinks are divided into four categories: Spirits and liqueurs (whiskey, gin, vodka, brandy and the whole range of liqueurs), which are usually between 50⁰  and 70⁰  proof; fortified wines such as sherry, and the wide range of aperitives, which are fortified with pure alcohol and brandy, and contain between 16-18% alcohol; wines, which usually have a 7-15% alcohol content; and beers, which have a 5% alcohol content..

The most potent local Nigerian brew, ogogoro is in the class of its own. Ogogoro (variously called Sapele-water, Kai-Kai, Kparaga, Sonse, Push-Me-Push-You, etc) is distilled from the juice of Raffia palm trees. Its active ingredient is ethanol and has 30-60% alcoholic content. In Nigeria hundreds die from improperly brewed ogogoro.

As drink and commodity respectively, ogogoro carried substantial cultural and economic significance within Nigeria. It is an essential part of numerous religious and social ceremonies. Ijaw priests pour it onto the ground as offering to their gods, while fathers of brides in some parts of the country use it as a libation by which they provide their official blessing to a wedding.

The economic facets of ogogoro have been equally salient throughout recent Nigerian history. Many poor Nigerian families homebrew the drink as a means of economic subsistence, many of whom sell shots of it on city street corners. The criminalization of ogogoro which occurred under the colonial administration is also believed to have been largely economic; while the public justification for the law regarded health, it has been argued that colonial officials were seeking to suppress local economic activity which might draw money or labour away from the colonial system.

Another local brew of interest is burukutu. This is a popular alcoholic drink among indigenes of northern and middle-belt regions of Nigeria. It is made from fermented sorghum and other protein-enriched grains. Its 3.1-4.0% alcohol is far less than that of ogogoro.

Burukutu serves as a source of alcohol especially to those lacking the financial means to patronise refined brews like beer and other foreign drinks. In Plateau State almost every village has a designated joint dedicated to the brew, sale and consumption of the revered drink. The stylish sharing of the drinking gourd is known to be a potential for the spread of tuberculosis and other communicable diseases.

Scientifically, alcohol is regarded as a food, sometimes like sugars. It is full of calories, but does not provide any of the nutrients the body needs. As soon as it comes to contact with the lining of the stomach, it is absorbed into the bloodstream. For this reason, alcohol drunk during or after meal is absorbed more slowly than alcohol drunk on an ‘empty stomach’.

As soon as it enters the bloodstream, it’s carried to the liver, then to the heart, the lungs and the brain. Having reached the brain it slows down activity and impairs the efficiency of the central nervous system. Worries and inhibitions are discarded and the drinker goes through a phase of carefree exhilaration and happiness. One become ‘drunk’, that’s pass the limit when you have complete control over your actions, when the alcoholic content of the blood is about one-tenth of one per cent.

However, be all that as it may, it is a fact that in the concentration of 1%, alcohol acts like an anaesthetic on the brain and the nervous system. Perception and the thought processes are further slowed down. It becomes difficult to coordinate movement, and the ability to react quickly is lost. If one persist in drinking after becoming drunk, and the concentration of alcohol builds up, after a certain point the alcohol has a poisoning effect. The body reacts with nausea and vomiting, and in extreme cases unconsciousness, from which the drinker emerges with a raging headache, an upset stomach and other symptoms of hangover.

Chronic alcoholism, to which both sexes are susceptible, is nowadays regarded as illness, which, indeed, it is. There is evidence to suggest that some cases are the result of a defect in the body’s metabolism that is the process whereby food and drink are converted into new living matter and waste. The metabolic defect results in the body using alcohol in a way that it makes it more poisonous than it is to people who don’t have the defect.

The snag with alcohol is that the more one drinks, the more one builds up the tolerance to its effects, with the result that eventually one needs to take more and more to produce the desired effects. The frequent social drinker is, therefore, always in danger, even if he or she controls the intake of alcohol during one session, of developing this tolerance and the progressive need for more alcohol, which eventually becomes compulsion.

When this stage is reached personality changes occur. The former frank and trusting man or woman become suspicious and resentful, and these traits are increased if the alcoholic is criticised or rejected by family and friends. The appetite declines, resulting in an unbalanced diet, which undermines the general health. In the last stages, the liver, heart and the nerves are affected, which may lead to convulsions and delirium tremors and eventually death.

There is only one cure to chronic alcoholism-absolute abstinence from consuming alcohol in any form for the rest of one’s life. This, of course, is a drastic remedy, and one which the compulsion and addiction of the disease makes a cure possible only if the alcoholic can somehow be encouraged in his/her desire to be cured.

There are a number of treatments available, but they have to be specially tailored to the individual needs of the alcoholic. For example, when anxiety and depression have caused the compulsion, a sedative may relieve these states of mind, and so remove the compulsion. For other cases, there are various drugs that work on the principle of aversion therapy. Taken with alcohol, they make the latter taste so horrible to have other extremely unpleasant effects, that the patient develops a thorough loathing for it. One form of treatment which seems to be particularly successful with alcoholism resulting from social drinking, is group therapy provided by the world-wide organisation, Alcoholic Anonymous which holds meetings whereby cured alcoholics give support and encouragement to those who wished to be cured.

NB: This unpublished article was written when I was a university student in 1994. I reproduced it here as a tribute to a friend who recently as a result of chronic alcoholism.

FASHION IN NIGERIA: DRESSING TO KILL

The new trend of dressing in Nigeria is to say the least, deplorable. Our womenfolk are at the wrong end of the craze called fashion; nowadays women of all ages dress to capture all eyes, in the event of which they have gone beyond the mark. In the 1960s and early 1970s when mini and midi skirts reigned, there was a lot of criticism of how women bare their knees. Such critics would cry their heats out if they were to witness the manner of dressing by the present day Nigerian women.

          All religions have enjoined that women should dress properly so as to veil their honour. The body parts of women are considered sacred in our society. In Islam, for example, a woman, married or not, is only allowed to expose her face and hands, all other body parts are to be covered. We read in many verses of the Bible where women are chastised to cover their heads and bodies. Sadly these divine injunctions were thrown to the dogs. Religion aside, common sense demands that women should not expose their body parts. In the olden days every youngster desired to view an exposed female anatomy; most often school kids were caught peeping into female lavatories, adults were not left out as they cherish any slight opportunity to see part of the female body. Today the situation is such that the female anatomy is always there on the streets for everybody’s gaze. That has led to the degradation of the honour bestowed on the womanhood. You just can’t get onto the street of virtually every town and city in Nigeria without seeing nakedness, as every girl and even married and older women expose their bodies to be noticed. Our institutions of higher learning are the worst hit in this craze. Female students were so infected that most of them have forgotten how to tie a decent wrapper and head tie, very few of them dress decently while at home, but drop such dresses when coming to the campuses and carry along tight fitting jeans, trousers, sleeveless tops and all kinds of atrocious dresses that expose the pubic area, the tummy, navel and upper breasts. It is so disgusting to watch students dressed in such regalia going into lecture halls and even attending social and formal gatherings. Very few lecturers in some northern schools have attempted to dissuade and repress such shameless act by sending out skimpily dressed girls from their classes. Most of them have not succeeded, and many of the lecturers and schools’ authorities do actually savour and encourage the nakedness. Parents are the biggest culprits, they inspire their kids and purchase all types of indiscriminate clothes for their daughters, some of these girls grow up seeing their mothers dressing in body hugs and other exposed dresses, and they tend to copy them. The larger society is not left out: People don’t come out to publicly scold our womenfolk and their crazy mode of dressing. I always feel aggrieved to hear men voicing out such compliments as “I like your dress”, “you look beautiful”, “you’re too much” etc. to females that dresses in the most ravishing and exposed manner. Such words impel them to dress even more wretched.

      The society ought to rebuke, in the strongest terms, the scandalous mode of dressing by Nigerian women. The honour of women deserve to be safeguarded, most of them are tempted to walk the streets barely naked, in an attempt to catch the eyes of boys and men in general, they have invariably invited public loathing. Schools’ authorities can do a lot in stalling this misbehaviour by imposing strict guidelines on dressing code in our campuses. No student should be allowed into the classes if not properly dressed; none should be allowed to walk naked around the schools premises. Parents should be advised to stop buying exposed and indiscriminate clothes for their daughters, girls should be forbidden from wearing everything that do not properly clad their vital body parts. When they are leaving for their schools, they should be made to park along decent dressing. Religious leaders have the responsibility of preaching against the ugly trend. Recently I read an encouraging report that the Catholic Church will attempt to regulate nudity in places of worship by imposing the use of head ties into churches during wedding ceremonies, that will be a springboard towards total prohibition elsewhere.

There was a popular Kessingsheen television advert in the 1980s, which goes with the slogan: “Looking good is serious business”. Everybody aspire to look good, no father, mother or husband want to see his or her women looking shabby or dirty. In Nigeria our women are bastardising the quest to look good and have legalized nakedness. There have been cases of rape and molestations of women whose assailants were “attracted” by the unclad victim whose dressing has revealed too much. This however, is not concluding all rape cases are incited by the bizarre dressing, but the bottom line is that many do foment unwarranted rape and harassment. Looking good has through turned to “fatal business”.

No sensible person can dispute the fact that our women look the most beautiful when dressed in the traditional African attire. Every tribe in the country has its native wear, and the sanctity of the womanhood is veiled in them. In an attempt towards Westernisation we copy the Western fashion and by so doing our women looks misshapen and ugly. In most cases the dress don’t suit them, they look awesome; the very fat, pot bellied, the most slender, protuberant, bosomed, kwashiorkoid, etc wants to look “good” and seductive thereby revealing what should not be revealed by dressing in all kinds of body hugs and other satanic dresses. 

If the horrendous indecent fashion by Nigerian women is left unchecked I am afraid very soon our young girls will begin to walk the streets in panties and bras, or even completely naked. I recently had a nauseating experience when attending to a patient, a married woman for that matter, whose mode of dressing had revealed every thing. I was too incensed to attend to her and have to tell her so. Her response was as your might expect: “you guys are living in past ancient world”, she angrily said in a fake American accent. If the modern world is a world of nakedness, if it is a world where indecency had substituted moral decorum, I will prefer to live in the ancient world. It is high time we reject in totality the debasement of women dignity in our country, otherwise we will have a BIG case to answer when we come face to face with God’s judgment in the Day of Reckoning.     

NB-This article was originally written and published at http://gamji.com on 24th October, 2004. A teenage girl I saw today dressed in the most bizarre manner made me to reproduce it here.  

ATIKU: CONSENSUS SHROUDED IN CONFUSION

The proclamation by the so-called Northern Political Leaders Forum (NPLF) of the choice of Atiku Abubakar (Turakin Adamawa) as the consensus PDP presidential candidate for the north was as preposterous as the man himself. The former vice president is the worst candidate any region or party will put forward for any contestable office in the land. This is a man that breathes corruption, dines with corruption and is being hailed as corruption personified.

Just after his retirement from the Nigerian Customs, Atiku Abubakar ventured into the nation’s political panorama as a protégé to General Musa Yar’adua. As one of the principal brains behind the General’s People’s Front (PF), which later metamorphosed into Social Democratic Party (SDP) and ultimately to People’s Democratic Movement (PDM), he gained notoriety as the parties’ ‘Master Rigger’. It was that proficiency, and his natural spending spree, that endeared him to Olusegun Obasanjo and PDP. Little wonder then that Obasanjo took him on as his running mate, despite Atiku having already won the 1999 Adamawa State gubernatorial elections.

Atiku’s adeptness in rigging came to the fore in 2003 when he spearheaded the fraud that ensured the return of Obasanjo to power. Few years later, his hunger to ascend the Aso Rock high seat as Obasanjo’s successor, and Obasanjo’s insidious pipe dream to be life president, threw the political cronies apart. Hitherto, Atiku has been so loyal to Baba Iyabo; he once described himself as the ‘briefcase of Obasanjo’.

Atiku Abubakar gained a lot of sympathy from Nigerian and the international community for his role in quashing Obasanjo’s third term ambition and the mouse-cat relationship that transpired between them, which culminated into torrential court battles, most of which Atiku ended up victorious. But I have never for once sympathised with him. He was evidently the major beneficiary of the corruption and business in government; he headed the government’s privatisation exercise and acquired most of the lucrative government enterprises. He purchased almost all sellable properties in Adamawa State, and his private university, ABTI American University, is one of the most expensive in Africa. Atiku is a archetypal bourgeois whose penchant is to own everything and be richer than everybody. Such a person certainly deserves not to be Nigerian leader.

After Obasanjo abbreviated Atiku’s ambition in 2007, and instead anointed Umaru Yar’adua (of blessed memory), the perpetual schemer formed Action Congress (AC), contested, after yet another acrimonious court battle, and lost the presidential elections by a landslide. A seemingly anticipated opportunity came up after Umaru Yar’adua’s demise, with the northern PDP elites disputing that come 2011 elections the party must allow the north to conclude its arranged eight years at the helm, based on the party’s unconstitutional zoning formula. He ditched AC, rejoined PDP and uprooted his old campaign organisation.

With the emergence of Ibrahim Babangida, Bukola Saraki and Aliyu

Gusau, those elites took it upon themselves to choose a consensus candidate out of the four. The method they used is still mysterious, but the committee set up for the selection, under the leadership of wily old man, Adamu Ciroma ultimately came out with the name of Atiku Abubakar as the compromised candidate. Expectations were that Atiku would emerge a distant third behind IBB and ABS.

Now the scuffle for PDP’s presidential flag bearer will be between Goodluck Jonathan and Atiku Abubakar with his band of power-hungry northern elites, who obviously quest for Atiku’s presidency not for the benefit of the north, but for their own selfish advantage. One is apt to ask here what has Atiku contributed to the development of the north, or that of his state? What has he to show for the eight years he was the second in command at the helm of Nigeria’s leadership? We all know that during Obasanjo’s first four years Atiku was running the show and had the opportunity to influence any kind of project to the north, or to Adamawa State, but has he? You only need to take the route from Mayo-Balwa to his hometown, Jada to corroborate that Atiku has abysmally failed his people, and by extension the whole of the north.

If you gauge Atiku’s chances against the incumbent president, you could easily surmise that Turaki will be rolled over in the PDP presidential primaries. Many PDP stalwarts, including those in his home state, are yet to recognise him as a legitimate party member. Despite his proclivity to use money in order to get whatever he wants, he will definitely find it very tough to convince the state governors to rally behind him in the primaries. The state governors have the sole control of the chunk of delegates and the tendency is that they will support Goodluck Jonathan. Few of those delegates, who are naturally conservative, will be poised to choose the less of two evils. From whatever angle you tend to look at it, the odds against Turaki are gigantic.

In the final analysis, my own contention is that the so-called ‘Committee of Wise men’ mandated to select a consensus candidate to challenge Goodluck Jonathan’s unyielding stance, have jeopardised any chance the north has to take over the country’s leadership. Some people might argue that PDP is not the only party in the land, but judging by the swing of the Nigerian political pendulum, it will take a much Herculean task to dislodge the People’s Democratic Party.

 It is a well-known fact that Ibrahim Babangida, as a military president, perpetrated corruption, while Atiku Abubakar, as a civilian vice president, adopted it, embellished it, flourished in it and enriched himself in it. How could such a person ever dream of ruling this country? 

WAYNE ROONEY AND THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

In the 19th-century fairy tale “The Emperor's New Clothes,” Danish author Hans Christian Andersen tells the story of an emperor who is duped by two weavers into wearing clothes that are “invisible to any one who was unfit for the office he held, or was incorrigibly stupid.” Afraid to be labeled incompetent, none of the emperor's ministers or servants will admit they cannot see the clothes. The emperor's own pride and vanity send him parading naked down the street until he comes upon a boy who speaks up about the invisible suit.
The tumultuous couple of days at Manchester United’s camp weren't a fairy tale, but it has all the connotations of one. The abject effrontery shown to the management, owners, players and fans was one chapter in the club's history that every fan would like to forget in a hurry. Long before Wayne Rooney, the club, under the ethically inclined Scot, Sir Alex Ferguson, has recorded analogous trends of star players leaving under acrimonious circumstances.
Paul Ince had set the stage in 1995, when, after a fall-out with Ferguson, he demanded an exit. The gaffer famously laughed off Incey’s departure, asserting that he has more than competent replacement in the holding midfield role in Nicky Butt and Roy Keane. The latter went on to establish himself as one of the finest midfielders in the history of the English Premier League and led the club to that momentous treble in 1999.
Wayne Rooney was taken under the wings of Ferguson at a tender age of 18; he was on the verge of joining Newcastle from Everton in 2004 when United swooped a coup, a payback to the Magpies, vis-à-vis the Alan Shearer situation eight years earlier. The lad quickly won over the fans, especially after his vibrant debut, scoring a remarkable hat trick against Galatasaray, and formed a formidable partnership with Ruud van Nistelrooy.
Even by his standards, he could not instantaneously change the club’s last period of relative decline after 2004. Ferguson recounted that ‘a player (Roy Keane I would like to presume) said to me Wayne Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo were not good enough and he wasn't prepared to wait. Ferguson went on to articulate ‘that is the problem with potential, people don't identify potential. If Ferguson has failed to identify the potential in Cristiano and Rooney, the duo won't have excelled, and the club would have been the loser.
Under the tutelage of Ferguson, Rooney has gone on to mature into one of the best strikers in Europe. He had a fabulous season in 2009/2010 marred only by the unfortunate injury picked against Bayern Munich in March; to this day he is yet to recover from the traumatic and psychological effect of that injury.
Just like they got his maelstromic private life spot on, the English press began to spread troubling rumours of a row between Rooney and Ferguson, suggesting that the striker is poised to move on. Rooney chose Wednesday, the very day United were to host Bursaspor, to affirm he really wish to leave. As a professional player he has all the right to choose where to ply his trade, but the reason he gave was what rocked the club and the fans. His claim that the club is no more ambitious or attracting world-class players that will guarantee winning silverware is preposterous to say the least.
The torrent of backlash that unfounded tittle-tattle attracted has seemingly played a huge part in Rooney’s subsequent retraction of his stance. The entirety of United fans all over the world dispelled Rooney’s baloney and believed that with or without him the team will go on, just as it went on even with the departure of Paul Ince, Eric Cantona, Jaap Stam, David Beckham, Ruud van Nistelrooy and Roy Keane. As Ferguson made his entrance on Wednesday night, he received a rapturous standing ovation, a clear testimony that the fans are solidly behind him, no matter what. After the slim but comfortable victory over the Turkish team, Ferguson told reporters the team would be intact even without Rooney: ‘the structure of the club is good. We have the right staff, the right manager, a brilliant chief executive. There is not a thing wrong with Manchester United’.
The most luscious criticism of Rooney’ cataclysmic statement came from Blackpool’s witty manager, Ian Holloway. He condemned his ingratitude in the strongest of terms: ‘Manchester United have helped Wayne Rooney’s career massively on and off the field. The manager, the club itself, has invested in him. They bought him for massive amounts of money as a young man and they have helped him blossom into a player he is’.
Former United skipper, Roy Keane, who himself left Old Trafford after falling out with Ferguson, believes any player should jump at the chance to play for Manchester United. ‘Players have opinions and if they want to leave then good luck to them, Man United will more than survive’.
Keane went on to say ‘if any player ever asked me, and one or two have, if they had a chance of signing for Man United I would tell them to do it and they won’t regret it. I was there for twelve and half years. I love every minute of every day playing for that club, every minute of every day’.
The very suggestion of Rooney leaving United was surprising, I can recollect him telling BBC’s Dan Walker in November 2009 ‘I love the club and I am really happy…the very thought of leaving the club has never entered my mind’. Almost a year to the day, a combination of Manchester City’s reckless spending spree, Glazer’s financial plumage, youthful exuberance, and the brinkmanship of avaricious silver-haired agent, Paul Stretford, led to Rooney’s first change of mind. His second change of mind came on Friday afternoon after the announcement of the turn-around of events, after all of us have written Rooney off and have started to anticipate for his replacement, that Rooney has agreed to sign a new 5-year contract worth a basic £160,000/week, plus inceptives that could see him earn in excess of £200,000/week should United win another Premier League or Champions’ League title.
Alex Ferguson did confirm Rooney has apologise to him and the players, but to get back any semblance of admiration, he has to apologise to the fans who had revered him all through. The fans were incensed by the proposition that he might join the ‘noisy neighbours’ Man City. The very prospect of that calamity happening apparently made 40 irate balaclava-clad rabble to descend on Rooney’s Cheshire mansion only to be chased away by the police. A banner hoisted at Old Trafford on Wednesday night perfectly depicted the fans’ anger and planned retribution: ‘Collen has forgiven you. We won’t’. Also, graffiti outside a supermarket in Manchester dared Rooney to join City: ‘Join City and you’re death’. Hmm.
The prospectus saga has now been put to bed, but the wound it created will take sometime to heal. While blaming Rooney for taking that bold stance, for condemning his teammate's ability to deliver, we should take a moment to lament on Glazer’s handling of the club. The Glazer family has done more harm than good to the club; they have helped turn the club's £100 million operating profit into an £80 million loss. This financial meltdown, if left unchecked, is very likely to plunge the once-burgeoning club into downward spiral.
When Wayne Rooney celebrates his 25th birthday this Sunday at a marquee party in the grounds of his £4.5 million Cheshire mansion, the champagne will taste sweeter than ever. But his adoration by the fans will remain tainted, if not forever, for a very long time to come.

FEMINISM: BEYOND THE SEXIST CHAUVINISM

Women the world over are earnestly trying to stamp their authority so as to prove the equality between the two genders. They have succeeded in rewriting the lexicon with the introduction of such words as Chairperson and Humankind (in direct rebellion to gender-specific words Chairman and Mankind).
In Nigeria there is today a proliferation of female-oriented societies. A roll-call of such associations gives a harvest of sexist channels like the National Council of Women Societies (NCWS), Women in Nigeria (WIN), Association of Professional Women Engineers (APWEN), National Association of Women Journalists (NAWOJ), Medical Women Association of Nigeria (MWAN), Association of Lady Pharmacists (ALPS), Nigerian Army Wives’ Association (NAOWA), Police Officers Wives Association (POWA), Naval Officers Wives Association (NOWA), National Association of Media Women (NAMW), Federation of Muslim Women Association of Nigeria (FOMWAN), to mention but a few. Perhaps in some years to come we will begin to witness the birth of some female-oriented societies in the university campuses: Women Mass Communication Students Association (WMCOSA), Women Law Students Association (WLAWSA), etc, are most likely in the pipeline.

The rather pixelated trend is undoubtedly likely to prove intellectual fertile because it suggests new insights and new lines of inquiry into the phenomenon of feminism. The feminist mission has obviously created awareness in women to their domination by men, but this has gone beyond the pages of books and fringes of pulling down pristine values.
From stereotype to outright preaching of matriarchy it is also evident that both parties and the government are fanatically identifying with the cause of women. Hence we have people advocating with great enthusiasm that women should be given a chance.
The Federal Government on its own had not bothered to examine its profligate sponsorship of the Better Life for Rural Women and the National Commission for Women. An avalanche of questions arises here: What is the reason for these sexist channels? Why is it an all-female phenomenon? Why, in spite of the female rampage, is nobody talking of female chauvinism? What explanation has the society that bandied our values for being pro-patriarchy, for being not only placid, but gratified at feral gusto with which women are becoming irresponsible?

If the reason for the women’s guilds is to furnish women with a forum to address things from the women point of view, then either we do not have issues to be addressed from men’s point of view or the parent bodies of some of these societies are male chauvinists. Otherwise, they are not suited to address feminine issues. The essay is a question that has implicitly been assumed to be settled, when in fact, it has not been addressed at all. The question is: Are men and women equal?

In response to the question, we must remember that by equality we mean the same (in size, amount, number, degree, value, etc). Sameness here means identical, not different. It follows then that the question of equality need not to be raised at all, when we talk of men and women.
Biologically, each sex offers particular and unique mode of human personality. The attributes and feelings of a man as a human being cannot be the attributes and feelings of women as human beings and vice-versa. Their mode of human ‘beingness’ is not the same; as such they are not identical.

The question of equality is therefore ill-framed and ill-informed. No one of the mode exhausts the possibilities or the qualities of human beings. This means that each mode serves a criterion of identification of human personality.

Each sex is different and an independent and unique dimension of the human personality. It is therefore a misunderstanding of the principle of equality between men and women. Men cannot be equal to women. Equality is entirely beyond the tomboy attitude in the name of liberation or feminism. The sexist rampage does not only betray the sedulous penchant for equality, but also is informed by a defective understanding of equality.

The role and place of women would rather prove fertile by new insights and new line of inquiry into their individual potentials and endowments. This cannot be achieved by megalomaniac formation of sexist societies, for their roles in a refined and changing society are superfluous.
There is always a parallel between the role and the dimension of human personality which a sex represents. The difference in a way which men participate in the human personality and a way women do try to stamp their authority shows that the niceties of equality is beyond the sexist rampage.

The culture, society and tradition that prescribed certain roles for men and others for women were guided not by masculinist fiat, but by the dimension of human personality which each sex represents. It recognises that equality has anthological attachment; that equality is not merely a matter of linguistic style. The paradox of the present day is thus at best an advertisement of society’s anthological properties of sexes difference.
Our intellectual bewitchment, euphoria or excitement does not becloud our knowledge that equality is not a function of mass; it is unique in the physio-neurological properties of being. It is also not without qualification.

It is worthy of notice that there is nothing good about a woman until she is dignified by being put under the control of a man. Going by almost all religions, God present each sex as a different dimension of the human personality and went a step further to implore women to submit to men in the same way they submit to God.

God’s stance on this question makes it such that to be a feminist, sincerely committed to the goals of feminism, one must either be an atheist or an apostate. Otherwise the Almighty is a creation of men or a misogynist whose purpose of creation is only comparable to Sigmund Freud’s analysis at the finite level. Only an agnostic will hold this sacrilegious view.

-NB: This article was written on 6th December 1991 for a Univesity of Maiduguri campus magazine, Flame for which I was an editor.

QUINTESSENTIAL SCHOLES

When Sir Alex Ferguson was asked to describe the most amazing piece of skill he has ever seen in United's training ground, the Scot went on to recall how Paul Scholes once landed a ball on the head of Gary Neville who was taking a pee at the other end of the pitch, following an argument with team mates that he couldn't do that. Scholes has mastered the art of 'pot pass' to perfection, more that any other English player of his generation. But that is certainly not his only attribute going into his 17th season in Manchester United's senior squad. He is as a complete midfielder as you can get.


When the ginger-headed midfield whiz missed the second half of the 2005/06 season with a nagging eye ailment, it was feared his glittering career could be drawing to a premature end. But he got over that and went on to establish himself as the best central midfielder in the Premier League. Amazingly this is a player that began his career as an attacker.

Scholesy, as he is fondly called by his team mates and fans, has shown a remarkable run of form in recent seasons. This prompted Fabio Capello to make a bold attempt at persuading him to recant his international retirement in order to play for England in the 2010 World Cup. True to his principle, Scholes rejected that overture, and after England's dismal show in South Africa, Capello confessed that the absence of a ball winner and passer in the mold of Paul Scholes has hampered their performance at the World Cup.

Recently one of the most decorated players of this generation, Zinedine Zidane, described Scholes as "the greatest midfielder of his generation" and said he regretted not ever playing in tandem alongside him. Zidane is one of many to have extolled the virtues of a player who in May 2009 hinted he may quit the following year. United legend, Sir Bobby Charlton described his as "an embodiment of all that I think is best about football".

His form at the beginning of the 2010/11 season-less that three weeks to his 36th birthday-would probably rubbish that suggestion. He seems to have ample more to give in subsequent years to come; as the proverbial wine, he gets better with age.

Following his masterful display in the Community Shield victory over Chelsea on August 8, Sir Alex eulogized him as "incredible footballer", noting that "it's a phenomenon that he goes out there and becomes man of the match approaching his 36th birthday".

Eight days after the Community Shield triumph, Scholes went on to inspire United to saw off Newcastle in their opening Premier League game, prompting more expressions of admiration from a manager normally economical with praises on one individual: "He proved again he is a master of his trade", said the gaffer. "Everyone who goes to that age and retains that appetite is blessed with something special".

The postponement of Schole's retirement appears to have yielded dividends. A day after extending his contract last April, Scholes headed a 93rd-minutes winner to stun the mega-rich noisy neighbours, Manchester City at Eastlands-and he has not looked back since. He finished last season with 1,497 attempted passes of which 89.7% were completed-making him the Premier League most accurate passer. In the match against Newcastle, he hit 104 passes.

Paul Scholes has been in the books of United since 1991, winning nine Premier League titles, three FA Cups, two League Cups, two Champions' League titles and has won 66 England caps.

England skipper, Rio Ferdinand once confessed that Sir Alex has one time or the other unleashed his hair-dryer temper on all United's players except Paul Scholes. When asked why, Rio's answer was: "Scholesy is too good". Paul Scholes has an impressive down-to-earth persona. Despite playing a pivotal role in the successes of one of the greatest football clubs in the world, and unlike his old buddy David Beckham, he make sure he removes himself from public glare. He has been married to his childhood sweetheart, Claire, for 16 years, with whom he has three children, and chooses to stay at home with his family, after training or match, than mingle with the media conducting interviews, or with fans signing autographs.

Such is the United legend in the making. Born and bred in Salford, Greater Manchester, he is Manchester United personified. Right from his initial recruitment as a 16-year old trainee, he bowed to play for no other club but United. His greatest praise to date came from ex team mate, Norwegian Hening Berg (winner of two Premier Leage titles, one FA Cup and the 1999 Champions' League title with United): "He has a fantastic football brain-he reads the game, reads the opponents, knows which space to drop into to get the ball and has an amazing touch".
The former United defender went on to say: "He knows where to pass (the ball), if he should use one touch or two, he can camouflage his passes, make through-ball and, of course score goals. He sets the pace of the midfield and makes sure the rhythm of the passing and play is what United want it to be".

How England could have benefited from such elusive qualities during the World Cup in South Africa. He did confessed, after the World Cup, that he could have considered Capello's invitation has it been made earlier.

After seeing him score a back-breaking goal in the league against Fulham on August 22 to wrap up his 150th senior goal for United in 646 games (4th in the all-time appearance list) for United, Ferguson conceded that replacing Scholes would probably be "impossible". In my own opinion, ludicrous as it might sound, and as I have earlier written in my twitter page, United has to clone Scholesy to get a replica. Finding the like of him is improbable.

The Curious Case of Chelsea’s European Credentials

After another failure in Europe, Chelsea’s wherewithal to win the European club football’s major prize came under the spotlight yet again. Over the last four seasons they were beaten out by Liverpool at the semi final stage on two successive occasions, lost the final against Manchester United and lost the semi final to Barcelona last season. Two of those defeats were on controversial circumstances; with Liverpool’s winner in 2005 not crossing the line and in last season’s debacle they had three seemingly genuine penalty claims against a Barcelona team that went on to beat Manchester Unite to lift the trophy.
But there was no iota of controversy on Tuesday night when Jose Mourinho came back to his old stumping ground, outclassed and outwitted Carlo Ancelotti to dump his old club out of Europe for the umpteenth time. In the build up to the second leg round of 16 clash, Mourinho insisted he would still be ‘The Special One’ whether Internazionale emerges victorious or not. Mourinho’s tactical savoir-faire left his counterpart Ancelotti looking like a high school coach. He spooked Ancelotti’s plan by fielding an attacking line-up, he shed the cloak of conservatism to use a three-pronged attack-Diego MIlito, Samuel Eto’o and Goran Pandev were supported by the reinvigorated Real Madrid reject, Wesley Sneijder.
In direct contrast, Ancelotti’s abysmal decision to use the pair of Didier Drogba and Nicholas Anelka upfront proved to be Chelsea’s Achilles’ heel. I don’t see Alex Ferguson or Arsene Wenger making that strategic blunder against a team like Inter Milan, they could have used Drogba as a lone striker while deploying two flying wingers, like Joe Cole and Florent malouda, to support him. Drogba, destite his recent form, was handled well; he is used to pummeling relatively inferior defenders in the Premier League. But he was shackled with ease by the pair of Lucio and Walter Samuel, who showed themselves as one of the most effective double acts since Laurel and Hardy, leaving Drogba and Anelka to feed on scrap.
Poor reaction to refereeing decisions afflicted Chelsea last season against Barcelona, as Tom Henning Ovrebo’s reluctance to award penalties they felt they deserved riled them up and distracted them from the task at hand. The same scenario occurred again this season, as Drogba found himself snarling at the referee during the first half at Stamford Bridge, and John Terry once again left the pitch at the end of the game fuming at the perceived slights against his side. Chelsea are certainly at the verge of developing a refereeing complex on big European nights, and rather than channel that into an improved performance it appears to deplete them of all quality and make defeat almost inevitable.
Champions’ League success is Roman Abromavich’s long-held dream, but how much longer can this familiar and time-served expensively-assembled Chelsea team keep on going to the well and coming back empty-handed? How many more blows of this sort can they take? They still have the Premier League and FA Cup to aspire at, but this, as in other seasons, has been an unfulfilling and ultimately chastening European campaign.

ARSENAL MEANS BUSINESS

Whether we like it or not Arsenal are hotly in pursuit of two title-The Premier and the European Champions' Leagues. Ironically this is a team we all wrote-off midway into the season, but the rather erratic run of form by Chelsea and man United has given Arsenal the leeway to have a strong claim at the Premier League title. The walloping of Porto in the 2nd leg round of 16 play-off at the Emirates, even without the influence of Cesc Fabregas, has gone a long way to substatially prove Arsenal, if they can keep on the consistency, are in the verge of ending their 5-year trophy drought.
I must admit, however, that the Porto team that got mesmerised on that overcast London night are poor and highly ineffective. Certainly not in the mold of the team which out of the blues won the European Cup in 2004 under a certain Jose Mourinho, and of course they were a shadow of the team that were narrowly beaten by Man United last season. The highly-rated central defensive pair of Rolando and Bruno Alves played like characters in Last Man Standing and allowed the much-criticised Nicklas Bendtner to have a rump and claimed his first ever hat trick. Whether Arsenal can beat all-comers to reach the final, as they did in 2005, and whether they can go on the clinch their very first European Cup, is entirely a different ball game. It still bedevils Arsene Wenger that upon all his is pedigree he has never led a team, or Arsenal for that matter, to a Europen Cup glory.
Wenger's braggadoccio is well known since taking over the London team in 1997, he now boast that Arsenal can win this season's Premier League title due to the fact that thier remaining fixtures is devoid of any of the so-called Big Four. He has all the moral right to make that boast, and we live to see if the team can roll over the likes of Hull City, West Ham, Man City and Spurs to leapfrog Man United and Chelsea in May to win the title. Whatever the outcome of such encounters, my submission is they CAN do it.
The triumph of Arsenal and Man United in the round of 16 of the Champions' League has sent more signals to the footballing world that the predicted supremacy of English teams in European competitions is becoming real by the day. Who could imagined that giant of European football, AC Milan can be pummelled 7-2 on aggregate by Man United? That night at Old Trafford, marred only by protestations directed at Glazer family by United fans, was one to remember. Prior to this season United have never beaten Milan in any competition over two legs. Revenge was the key word as Rooney went on to score 4 goals over the two legs, they got their revenge and await, together with Arsenal, Bayern Munich and Lyon, the draws for the quarter finals.

Owen's Jeopardy

Micheal Owen is back to the treatment room, where I must say he has been more than the field of play. Latest reports has it that he will missed the rest of the season, as would Anderson.
The debate currently going on is whether he will form Sir Alex Ferguson's plan for next season when he is expected to be back. My own submission is that he will not, and that the Gaffer will begin to look for a replacement.
On the other hand, I feel his long lay off will give Mame Biram Diouf the chance to show the stuff he is made of. With Macheda about to begin training, Diouf will also have another competitor for the 3rd berth in the United striker pecking order, behind Dimitar Berbatov and of course Wayne Rooney