If you're good enough then that's all that should matter...

I was really pleased to read today that some women could appear in the Second XI of Sussex cricket club - particularly Sarah Taylor.  The article is under a title with a quote from Mark Lane, who coaches England's women's cricket team stating that they could one day play the county game.  My response is why not! I'm glad someone's finally saying this to start the discussion.  I've long thought that there should be no reason for team sports to force segregation, surely all teams want the best players - irrespective of age, race or gender, if you're good enough why should being born the wrong sex get in the way?

I guess the major objection would be that it would reduce the relevance of the female only game - at a time when it's improving massively (and in another team sport - football, England's women have secured a large - though in my opinion not sufficient, pay rise).  I don't think this should really be an issue, all that should matter is letting each person fulfil their potential and each team becoming the best they can be.  The only people who will lose out should Sarah, or another woman play in the county game would be the one man they replaced from the team - someone who presumably the selectors feel isn't as good as them so obviously needs to improve their own game.

I don't think it would be easy for a woman to make the step up.  You see the fastest female bowlers bowling in the high 70 miles per hour, where most male seam bowlers reach a minimum of 80, with the fastest getting into the 90s.  I know from personal experience that going from facing 70mph bowling to 80mph is almost a completely different game.  If she can do it though, there should be no problem, I for one am hoping that she does represent Sussex Second XI this year, then who knows.

Almost as good as the Ashes

England can't play cricket in the subcontinent.  They just can't. Last year they proved that by being basically humiliated in the UAE by Pakistan, then only scraping a drawn series in Sri Lanka thanks to a magnificent innings by Kevin Pietersen. 

India don't lose home test series. It rarely happens. Their last home series defeat was in 2004, by the all conquering Australian side containing Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath, Langer and co.

India also don't let teams off the hook, last time they lost a series lead at home was in 1984/85 when David Gower's England won there.

England have had a terrible year in Test cricket:

• 0-3 vs Pakistan in the UAE.
• 1-1 vs Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka
• 2-0 vs West Indies in England
• 0-2 vs South Africa in England

That's just 3 test wins from 11 with 6 defeats, when they started that spell as world number 1.

So of course the writing was on the wall when England were caught in a spin in their first innings in Ahmedabad, all out for 191 and forced to follow on.  However, it seems like this England side has learned from it's mistakes and is possibly turning over a new leaf thanks to the magnificent Captain Cook.  It was in a losing effort but the 176 in the second innings by the Captain swung the momentum around and showed the rest of the team that it was possible to bat in these conditions.

To be fair, after that I thought India were really pretty poor, this was supposed to be a revenge series after the 4-0 whitewash England inflicted on them last year on their way to becoming number 1 in the world.  The mighty Sachin Tendulkar didn't look like he could buy a run, with only one score of note.  Dhoni seemed uninspiring in the middle when the team needed a boost and they haven't really replaced Rahul Dravid who was one of their all time greats, though Pujara was one of their plus points.

I don't want to take anything away from England though, this was a remarkable turn around that after the first test I didn't see happening.  The selectors though got most of the calls for the next few tests spot on, Monty had to play, and picking Root at 6 for the final test was definitely the correct decision. They out batted India - 4 of the top 5 run scorers in the series were English, Swann and Panesar took more wickets in fewer overs at a better economy rate than the leading Indian spinners and Jimmy Anderson was comfortable the best seamer.

Reintergration looks complete
if Prior's tweet is anything
to go by.

The best quote I've read was by Analyst Ayaz Memon who said India "were outplayed in all departments of the game - even more so in two that are not reflected in stats and figures: fitness and planning".  I think this really summed it up.  England also seemed like a team and look to have put the Pietersen issue behind them.

For me, it'd take a lot to top the 2005 Ashes series, the first win against what was clearly the best team in the world at basically full strength.  This though, has to be up there with the Ashes of two winters ago when we dominated Australia in their own back yard.  The cricket wasn't always scintillating but the result is what counts.  Congratulations to the team, and hopefully they can use this for what will be a very big 12 months, with 10 tests against the old enemy - I for one can't wait!

The ugly face of football and I agree with Brian Moore.

I'm fed up.  After a wonderful Olympic summer, just 3 months into the Premiership season and I'm fed up.  The football itself has been top quality, Chelsea have looked fabulous at times with Oscar, Hazard and Mata,  United look frightening going forward whilst must be giving Fergie nightmares about their defending and other teams have been performing well above expectations.  I think the league this year is going to be just as close, with a three way battle rather than last year's two.

However like I said, I'm fed up.  Every single week there seems to be a different controversy, whether it's the many players 'diving' (you know who you are... Phil), trying to gain an advantage from unsporting behaviour, whether it's the R word, one or the other of them - Respect or Race, or whether it's the fans themselves.  

Racism has no place in either modern society, or the prehistoric society that seems to exist on the football field.  I'm pleased to see that the Ferdinands are getting back on board with the Kick it Out campaign, this is one thing that players are better united, they should air their grievances within the body itself.  

Suarez showing the coin

The latest things that have caused me despair of course come from the weekend.  It was a footballing treat, first Everton come from two goals down against Liverpool, then United win the battle of the top two (at the start of the weekend) in a dramatic 3 - 2 victory.  I've already mentioned Phil Neville's dive, there was also a bad tackle from Suarez that could have been red, the immature celebration following the first goal and the terrible decision costing Liverpool all 3 points (which followed from the very soft award of a free kick).  But what angered me the most in this game was players being targeted with missiles.  This happened in both games in fact, firstly Suarez had a coin thrown at him, he tucks it into his shoe for safe keeping. Secondly after Hernandez' controversial winner Chelsea fans apparently showered the pitch with missiles and then in the commotion a steward was injured. 

Chelsea fans in fact proved to me throughout the game that (some) football fans lack class, every time Rio touched the ball he seemed to be booed... I don't think they understand how being the victim works.  (I'm not going to mention the punishment received by John Terry for the incident with Rio's brother).  This of course brings me to the main talking point... the referee.  Mark Clattenburg is accused of making racist comments to Chelsea's John Obi Mikel.  Now if Mr Clattenburg did make the comments that Chelsea allege then he will probably never referee again, and that is quite right.  But I find it a complete double standard as players effectively abuse referees all game long.  Watching on TV you know this to be true, when decisions go against them they always complain and if you can lip read you know it's not always the most pleasant conversation.  I find myself completely agreeing with Brian Moore who was apparently on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning:

Former England rugby player Brian Moore tells BBC Radio 5 live being able to hear referees' microphones would rid football of bad language within six weeks.

He said: "Not only do you record these things you put them on the ref link so the crowd and sponsors can hear it. The pressure to change would be so great it would be carnage for six weeks but it would change within six weeks."

If Mark Clattenburg's mic had been linked to broadcasters then there'd be no doubt what he said, any punishment could be handled quickly and effectively.  Not only that but what players say to the referee could also be used against them much more often.  I think six weeks is being optimistic, but I do agree that eventually you'll see football player's attitudes improving remarkably which in turn could feed into the behaviour of the crowds - and if this happened I might not be so fed up.  

(Also, if Hartlepool could get off the bottom of the table that might help!)

Andy Murray take a bow.

The media liked to play up just how long it had been since there had been a British male grand slam champion.  The length of time lasted a full 76 years since Fred Perry last triumphed in the US open in 1936.  I guess it makes for a good narrative, but really it just casts a shadow on some of the excellent tennis players we've produced since, almost implying that their career's hadn't been good enough because they'd not managed to win one of the sport's greatest prizes.  The stat has been used to undermine a few excellent careers... well they can't use it any more...

On Monday night, in front of a packed Arthur Ashe Stadium, Tennis' biggest venue with a 22,547 capacity, Andy Murray produced a performance of a true champion.  He has had a great career to this point, 23 previous titles (including 8 Masters), almost continuously in the top 4 in the world for over 4 years, all the time competing against three of the best players the game has seen.  Despite his near $20million winnings prior to the US Open the media, and most of the public kept putting this monkey on his back even though he's the most successful British player in my lifetime - we do like to put down our successful individuals.

For years most people just saw the grumpy guy on court getting frustrated, I'm not totally surprised that he hadn't endeared himself to the public who in reality probably just see him once a year at Wimbledon and see another failed attempt, they don't see the gritty battler who is one of only two players on the circuit to have a winning record against Roger Federer and rarely fails to give the best players a game.  He obviously changed many people's view of him this year with his moving speech after his valiant effort in this year's Wimbledon final, then even more so when he was so obviously enjoying himself during the Olympics winning the gold medal but potentially more so with his appearance alongside Laura Robson in the doubles winning silver.

Now though he has cast this monkey firmly off his back, winning in possibly the greatest arena of them all and he deserves to laugh in the doubter's faces.  People may point to Federer's early exit and Nadal's injury but these shouldn't detract from Andy, he deserved it and won the final against a great player.  When you compare this to the other three's first victories it is definitely harder: Roger won against Mark Philippoussis, Rafa only needed to beat Mariano Puerta and Novak had his first victory against Jo-Wilfred Tsonga.  No offence to those players but beating the world number 2 and a player who hadn't lost in a hard court grand slam event since 2010 is a much harder prospect.  

Murray has worked so hard improving his game, every time he's lost it's like his attitude has been that he just needs to work harder and improve.  I've watched so many of his matches over the past few years and he's been so near, he's had some great games against the big 3, the Australian Open semi against Novak this year will live long in my memory, but now it's finally time for him to stand up on the top step and take a bow - hopefully though he wont stop working hard and can go on to cement himself as one of the games greats, just as his coach Ivan Lendl did.

Thank you Andrew Strauss...

It was inevitable really.  Home series against South Africa, Graeme Smith still as South African captain, Strauss had to stand down.  

(Happy times as Ashes Winner, sad times after being bowled by South Africa this summer)

My narative first starts in 2003, a plucky young Graeme Smith turned up for his first tour of England and as captain went on to smash 259 in the first test at Edgebaston, this lead to the resignation of Nasser Hussain.  

Then, five years and one Ashes success later South Africa and Graeme Smith once more proved the downfall of another England captain.  The South African opener hitting 154 not out on the final day to win the third test and the series (once more at Edgbaston), this time Michael Vaughan stepped down. 

Fast forward four more years, that brings us to now and the Saffers have done it again...  Twelve months ago Andrew Strauss was riding high, he'd lead England to the top of the test rankings, they were the best team in the world.  He'd taken on the progress from first Nasser then Michael and used that foundation for not one but two Ashes victories - including one down under and turned the side into a well drilled unit.  Unfortunately a tricky winter followed, despite a promising start to the summer the South Africans, still lead by Graeme Smith, then returned.  His team came over and beat England in their own back yard comfortably and by playing them at their own game.  I said afterwards that Strauss needed to take a close look at his own game as his form has not been good for a while now, but I am surprised to see him stand aside and even more shocked to see him retiring from all professional cricket. 

It is probably unfair that I've turned a post about Andrew Strauss into one about Graeme Smith's knack of seeing off England captains but I wanted to draw parallels.  I see each captain that I've mentioned picking up on what the last had done and improving the team and system further.  For me the Saffers are the second toughest visiting team after the Aussies (although the sub continent is toughest away), so the timing in all three cases makes some sense, you've gone through a big test and you want to rebuild before the next Ashes series - you need to give the new captain that chance. 

Pride

When Andrew Strauss looks back at his career he can do so with a lot of pride.  Every time I heard him speak I thought he was a great ambassador, not just for England but for the sport as a whole.  On top of his excellent professionalism there aren't many Englishmen who can call themselves 3 times Ashes winners, twice as captain.  There are even fewer who can say that they've scored more than 7000 runs and hit 21 centuries.  Only the great Boycott, Cowdrey and Hammond have scored more... just the one more at 22 and his 7037 puts him currently 10th on England's all time run makers list.  He's also played 100 tests and 50 as captain, you don't get to do that unless you are very good indeed.  It's a shame that one of his main reasons for standing down was his "form with the bat", thinking that he "wasn't going to improve".  It is fair to say he averages just 31 since the last Ashes test in the winter of 2010/11, which as an opener just isn't good enough, and has gone a long way to dragging his average down to a touch below 41.  I hope this in no way tarnishes what has been an excellent career.  Thank you for the memories Andrew.

Future

When one door closes another one opens.  England now will look to the future, with Alastair Cook taking over the test captaincy to go with his position as one day captain.  It always seems that with the added pressure of the job the captain's form (at least in England's case) dips a little.  Hopefully though Alastair wont suffer from this, at just 27 he has already amassed an awesome amount of runs and looks likely to become England's highest ever run scorer as well as scoring more centuries than any other (currently just one behind Strauss). There are reasons to be optimistic but it will be challenging for him, he'll be leading a relatively inexperienced side, particularly in the batting order into one of the toughest places for visiting teams this winter when they travel to India.  He will also need to forge a new opening partnership with someone which will probably be crucial by the time the Ashes machine starts rolling again next summer and winter.  Hopefully everyone will get behind him as, given Strauss's resignation, he is the obvious man for the job.

South Africa - best team in the world...

It hardly feels like any time has passed since I was at Edgbaston last summer watching England become the number 1 ranked test team in the world.  I was probably very harsh on India back then, claiming that as number 1 side in the world they should be able to compete anywhere and we had annihilated them.  Since then England have proved that actually, there are a lot of really good teams around that can dominate any given series.  England's spell at the top of the rankings lasted just 11 tests (losing 6 tests, 2 series and winning just 3 tests), which included a 3-0 embarrassment against Pakistan... I don't think our batting has recovered properly since then. 

In this series South Africa were clearly the better side.  If you looked at the two teams on paper they appear fairly well matched, personally comparing each position there's only a few positions I'd have definitely chosen someone from one side over the other (Prior instead of Duminy and Smith over Strauss are the two that spring to mind) before the series started, yet the Saffers out played England in every area.  Our usually consistent bowling attack was destroyed at the Oval, 637/2 is an embarrassment, I don't think Jimmy and Broad really recovered from that.  Their batsmen also dug in with 5 centuries between them and 5 people averaging over 50 - compared to England's 2 centuries with the only people averaging over 50 (Bairstow, Pietersen and Swann(thanks to 2 not outs)) not playing all 3 tests.  I don't even want to talk about our catching.

That said... I don't think it was as one sided as it could have been, England did show some battling qualities and actually had small first innings leads at both Headingley and Lord's, however in both cases this was down to an outstanding innings - KP at Headingley and Bairstow at Lord's.  The game at Lord's was a great display of what is excellent about test cricket, could you get that sort of tension and excitement from a T20 game?  Of course not.  

I was at Headingley for day 2 (the day before KP took the fight to them) and England's bowlers looked a lot less toothless than the South Africans.  You always sensed that the likes of Steyn, Morkel and Philander were in the game and capable of taking wickets unlike the English players.

One of the key reasons I felt we got to number 1 was consistency in selection.  We had a settled team who all knew their roles.  Now however, the issue with Kevin Pietersen totally overshadowed the build up to this test.  It is quite clear that he has never been the most settled person in the dressing room, there has long been assumed that there is a rift there but until now they had put up with it for his quality.  I personally can't see him coming back into the set up, which is a shame because he is England's best player and the stats pretty much back that up.  This effectively opens up two spots in the batting order, as England have struggled for a long time to find a quality number 6.  Since Paul Collingwood's last test they have had:

Eoin Morgan (16 innings, 29.60 average)

Ravi Bopara (4 innings, 24.33 average)

Samit Patel (3 innings, 13.33 average)

Johnny Bairstow (6 innings, 37.40 average)

James Taylor (3 innings, 16.00 average)

Bairstow's performance at Lord's seems to have cemented his place in the team, for now, and he does look like a good prospect.  Taylor can count himself unlucky with his dismissal yesterday so hopefully should find himself in the squad for the winter.  Assuming two of these players are in the starting 11 come the first test against India on November 15th then the team will have quite an inexperienced feel to it (as it did for this test) which is worrying when playing in the sub continent.  It may be that Tim Bresnan gets the nod at number 7 instead (9 innings at 39.17) with Matt Prior (26 innings at 41.82) bumped up to number 6.

To put these figures into context, in the same time period Kevin Pietersen averaged 54.23 from 28 innings.  Only Ian Bell's 58.04 average from 29 knocks is better and only Alistair Cook has scored more runs (1425 to KP's 1410).  One person who should really look at his own game considerably is Andrew Strauss.  Since averaging 43.86 in the Ashes tour where Collingwood made his last appearance the skipper has scored just 953 runs in 31 innings at a lowly 30.74 (10 runs less than Matt Prior and only 5 more than Stuart Broad - 25.37 off 22).  Considering Morgan was dropped for his 30 average this really isn't good enough from the skipper.  His leave on Sunday night was one of the worst pieces of cricket I have ever seen and scoring just 107 runs in the series just wasn't good enough.  I don't think he will, or should stand down - I'd like to think he'd carry on until after the next away Ashes tour (2013/14) but he really needs to perform this winter to justify his own place in the team as that is getting harder and harder to do.  

I hope Strauss is correct and they do come back and reclaim the number 1 ranking but they have a lot of hard work to do.  The batsmen really do need to start applying themselves better.  Hopefully they were watching at the Oval when Amla, Smith and Kallis batted for what seemed like an eternity.

Anyway, congratulations to the Saffers - they thoroughly deserve it, each one of their players seemed to contribute at some point and they definitely look like the best balanced team.  I can only see them having problems on the sub-continent but even then their batting should be good enough.  Could see them hanging around at number 1 for a while!

Everything that's wrong with football...

'It was a terribly expensive deal that would have blown our budget for years and his wages were enormous - too much for a club like ours - but, as the manager really wanted him, we were prepared to pay it'

Short-termism at it's very worst.  Prepared to risk a clubs long term security for fleeting success.  Colossal remuneration for a player that isn't even proven to provide success.  

I can see why Big Sam wanted Andy Carroll, he does fit his style, as does Matt Jarvis, the two together should be an effective partnership.  But £17million and £100k a week for someone who's only scored 38 goals in 133 club games seems excessive for a big club with good finances, let alone one that's only been promoted this season and was struggling financially.  "The Manager really wanted him" should never be an excuse, they are the people with the financial experience, I'm sure the Manager would love Lionel Messi in his side, but their job is to tell him that they can't afford to bring him in.

David Beckham comes with his very
own logo.

I'm not one of these people who claim that all footballers are overpaid.  If you look at their Marginal Revenue Product (MRP) some are actually underpaid for the value that they bring to their clubs... however lots are overpaid as a result of this.  They see stars who bring in lots of money for their getting paid large salaries so they expect to receive them too.  (Think about it would you be happy if your colleagues at work were getting paid multiple times that you were?)  Back in 2003 David Beckham signed for Real Madrid for a cool £24.5 million.  A year later he had already accounted for over 1million shirt sales, in fact around 50% of shirts sold in that period by Real Madrid had "Beckham" and the number "23" on their back.  This is in addition to his contribution on the field as well as other merchandising and the additional attendance from having stars like him in their side, all of this meant he had a higher MRP than almost anyone in world football so deserved his high salary.  The difference here is Real Madrid could afford to pay this because of the income they were able to generate and he had more than that value to the club.  I doubt Andy Carroll could create an additional £100k a week for West Ham as well as repay the large transfer fee.  

Living beyond their means has already hurt so many clubs, Portsmouth for example, are currently having to field basically a youth team after years of chasing glory left them in liquidation and they had to release all of their senior players.  It's not just confined to England, up in Scotland one of the biggest clubs, Rangers, are currently starting life in the bottom tier of their professional football leagues after they were demoted following liquidation. 

If a team can win a competition and then play in Europe the
next season, getting a huge increase in revenue as a result and
still go bust, something is wrong with the system!

For some reason many football clubs think racking up debts that they will never be able to afford to pay is a viable way to run a business, it isn't.  This spending is not sustainable - creditors like HMRC shouldn't allow any delay in their payments.  I find it remarkable that they let some of these clubs build up such high debts in the first place, paying tax and national insurance should never be optional.  Nor should smaller local suppliers have to suffer because clubs owe such vast amounts to each other and their stars whom apparently get priority.  

I think UEFA's fair financial regulations are a reasonable start, but I worry they don't really have any bite.  I would like it if the Premier League or FA also introduced something to ensure that clubs couldn't live beyond their means as to my mind, looking at plenty of club accounts I wonder how they can seriously be treated as going concerns.  I don't think the English leagues have been strict enough with those clubs that have gotten into difficulty, perhaps Scotland got it about right with Rangers, but maybe they should have had to start from scratch?

Now it's time to leave a legacy...

I have to say, I was sceptical about the Olympics being held in London, well maybe not sceptical but definitely not as enthusiastic as I could have been.  I'm quite a big sports fan really, I follow quite a few (Cricket, Football, Tennis and F1 in particular but any major event that's going on), however I had absolutely no desire to actually buy Olympics tickets.  I think for me it was the way they came out that put me off... I didn't want to be entering a ballot or anything, if it had been first come first served then I probably would have gone to something that I was interested in.  In addition to the way they were released other things had made me worry, from the logo to the mascots all of the marketing seemed poor in comparison with Beijing four years ago... one couldn't help but be braced for disappointment.

As soon as the games started though it was a joy to watch, all of my pre tournament fears melted away and seeing such a marvellous event being run so smoothly made me actually feel proud to be British!

It's no wonder people wanted to be
there with such spectacular performances

It was incredible how every stadium looked fit for purpose and top of the range, the transport network seemed to cope remarkably well, the BBC's coverage was exceptional (although shamelessly partisan) and I've not heard one bad word said about the volunteers or the security there.  (Though it does worry me how easily we accepted the thought of armed guards around our capital).  Yes there were some empty seats to begin with, but it seemed like the organisers acted pretty sharply to sort it out, and every session of athletics I watched it didn't look like there was an empty seat in the house.  In all I think the games really showcased what is good about Britain, to my mind this was a welcoming, multicultural celebration to which we invited the whole world, irrespective of differences and helped demonstrate that things are much better when we work with each other rather than against.

Everything about the games for me showcased what was promised in our bid - that it was for the people.  Four years ago we got an excellent display of state power from the Chinese, it was really impressive what they could do, but I was equally impressed with how this was put together for the people.  Right from the lighting of the Olympic Cauldron (by 7 promising young people rather than a famous name and this being split into sections, one for each country), right up to the closing ceremony that was one big party.  I was critical of the latter at the time as I don't think all of what was on display was the best of British, but the theme I think was good and they finished with The Who so I shouldn't really complain.

The real challenge however starts now.   I don't think I've experienced previously the sense of togetherness and enthusiasm that we've had over the past few weeks as a country.  Every other Olympics you get a bit of it but are detached somewhat by it being in a remote place, Football always seems to start with optimism that fades away into misguided anger that we aren't as good as some other countries.  Perhaps the only time I can remember something similar (I was a little too young still in Euro 96) was when we won the Ashes in 2005.  In many ways, England and Cricket have been seeing some of that reward over the past 3 years... but did they really make the most of it?  Now unless you have Sky you only get to watch a small highlights package on Channel 5 any time England plays, even as a cricket fan I forgot that was on earlier this summer.  Over the past year England definitely haven't pushed on as they might and the worry is that they could slip back into the pack.  

Australia's Medal Decline

For however badly this piece in the Independent is written there is possibly a good underlying point hanging around somewhere (and I know the writer was aiming for a couple of other points but I don't wish to comment on what news agencies feel are priorities).  In 2000 Sydney hosted the Olympic games, 12 years on, when they should be reaping the rewards of an inspired generation they picked up fewer medals and finished lower in the table than they did at Atlanta back in 1996.  I doubt anyone expects us to repeat this success without home advantage every games, but I guess the idea is that there should be an improvement now than the overall trend.  It would be foolish to think that the buzz that Team GB along with the organisers have created will last forever (so people are correct to think it will eventually fizzle out), many of our stars of last week wont be recognised on the streets next week but if they have inspired the next generation then they'll have done their job.

Anyway I have to finish this post by celebrating the success of Team GB's athletes.  The overall performance was one that the whole nation should be proud of, we have some very talented and dedicated individuals - so let them celebrate their success:

I bet so many would like to have been a part of that... any ideas how I can get to Rio?

What's worse than Racism? Advertising!

Well according to UEFA it is.


Nicklas Bendtner was fined €100,00 for revealing "Paddy Power" underwear during the current Euro 2012 championships.  

Meanwhile Croatia have been fined €80,000 for their fans racist abuse of Super Mario Balotelli.

It's good to see punishments increasing (they have been pathetically low in the past for racism, in the past Croatia have also been fined the equivalent of under £15,000 for racist chanting against Emile Heskey) UEFA are still getting their priorities wrong.  It's one thing to talk a tough game against racism but surely their actions need to back this up.  (I wonder if there was also only an increase in the penalty to Croatia because of their fans being found guilty in 2008 as well?)  


I would be a lot stricter.  This is at least their second offence, fine them (more) and make them play their next home qualifier behind closed doors.  If they offend again make them play the entire campaign without any fans.  

The start of the summer...

The Home of Cricket

We may have had our summer all ready (do you remember the few nice days we had in March?) but today is when it really starts!  Yes that's right, today is the first test match of the Summer - I don't think I get as excited at Christmas!  As usual, the first test is also at The Home of Cricket - Lord's.  That's special for every visiting team, it's the place everyone wants to play given all the history that surrounds the ground - every player would love to get their name on the honours board.

Who wouldn't want their name up there?

Personally I'm a little disappointed as I believe Cardiff were initially awarded the test - Cardiff is the easiest test ground for me to get to and I would have gone.  I'm not surprised that the West Indies wanted to change this though, like I said, everyone wants to play at Lord's!  I'm going to have to get a ticket for a test there one day!


As for the series itself I am genuinely excited.  The last few times West Indies have toured they haven't been the best of sides (in 2009 they lost both tests comfortably, 2007 they lost 3-0 out of 4 and 2004 they lost all 4 - they haven't won a test in England since 2000 and then they still lost 3-1).  Given that they've only beaten Bangladesh and Zimbabwe away from home in since 1995 you'd have thought that this record isn't going to change, however there have been some promising signs from what is a pretty young team.  They were very competitive in their recent defeat by Australia and have some very talented players who may relish the occasion.  


I of course expect England to win, but it may be tougher than many think.  If the West Indies frustrate England at Lord's then it could cause a bit of tension to creep in after what was a tough winter.  England really need to start off well.  They have won the toss and bowled first so they really need to take wickets and pile on the pressure.  The selection of Bresnan I feel is a sensible one, he's played 11 and won 11 tests which says it all.  Him coming in at 8 really makes our batting line-up look strong, especially with Broad at 9.  Graham Onions may have been a good shout though since he took 10 wickets for 73 runs against Middlesex there earlier this year and has taken 23 wickets at 14.52 so far this year.  Steven Finn can also be a little unlucky having taken 16 at 18.68 in one fewer (3) matches this year.  However Bresnan is played 11, won 11 - how can you argue with that?

It'll be a great day for Jonny Biarstow, 22 year old batsman (also keeps for Yorkshire) making his debut.  I also think this is the right call given that Ravi Bopara is injured, there were a few names in the frame and I'm pleased Bairstow got the nod.  He's proved he's got the right sort of temperament after his match winning knock on his ODI debut against India.  He also averages 46 in first class cricket, which playing his home games at Headingley is no mean feat (I think when fellow Yorkshireman Michael Vaughan came into the England side he averaged under 40).  He's also had a good start to the summer with two centuries.  Hopefully he'll take his chance.  James Taylor and Nick Compton can feel a bit disappointed to not take the place but it is promising that they are waiting there in the wings with Ravi also there and hopefully Eoin Morgan also working on his game. 


The future looks bright, I'm expecting a 2-0 England win, but hoping for 3-0 but most of all hoping for a good performance from the Windies.

My England squad for Euro 2012

I have been having a healthy debate with a good mate of mine over the last week or so about who should be in England's 23 to go to the European Championships this summer.  Now I don't think either of us have particularly high expectations about England's chances, but that doesn't mean that we wont be supporting them.  

The debate itself has been kick started by two things - the appointment of Roy Hodgson as England manager and the return(?) to form of Andy Carroll.  We both actually are in favour of Roy's appointment.  Given that I have no expectations of victory I think he may be a good choice to get the best out of a group of players tactically, as long as they listen to him.  The problem however is that I think he is best when dealing with a group of players who know that they have limitations, whereas most potential England players have been brought up thinking they are the best in the world and have egos to match and he struggled with the egos at Liverpool.  The Andy Carroll situation I'll discuss below.


Anyway, I'm going to analyse here who I would take in my squad plus who I think Roy will take.  This is complicated by the fact I reckon Roy will probably go 4-4-2 as opposed to my preference for 4-3-3.

Goalkeepers

It is good that England finally have a first choice again.  Joe Hart will start every game unless he's injured/suspended.  I would have had him in my starting XI for the World Cup so it have felt vindicated to see him play every game since.  


There are relatively few other options I've always felt that Scott Carson was treated harshly, by England whilst Rob Green was overrated.  Ben Foster has been fairly consistent and given that Roy has managed him I'm sure he'll go.  Ideally you would convince Paul Robinson that he wants to be part of it.  David Stockdale is the only other name that comes to mind but he struggles because of never holding down a first team place at Fulham and having to go out on loan.  He is still relatively young at 26 so it might be good to take him for some experience.

Defenders

The main decision here for me is whether you take Rio or Terry, both or neither.  This is because it will probably effect the rest of the selections.  Personally I don't think you can take both.  They key to tournament football is to make sure you have a good group of players who are working together.  In particular your partnerships all have to function.  


Therefore, for me, this is a a make your choice selection.  I think if you take Rio, you'll probably should end up with a Man Utd player next to him (as first choice), if you take John then you end up with Gary Cahill starting.  Personally, a year ago I'd have only considered John, however the last 4 months or so I've been really impressed every time I've seen Rio.  Also, with John's personal issues I'd suggest that maybe he'd be the better one to leave out.

Defence is actually one area with quite a few choices to make.  For right backs there are Micah Richards, Glen Johnson and young player of the year Kyle Walker.  Not to mention this spot could be filled by the United pair of Chris Smalling or Phil Jones, who can also both play Centre Half giving a bit more option.  In fact taking one of these two could mean only selecting 7 defenders when I would usually take eight. 


In addition  to the United pair, you also have, Michael Dawson, Phil Jagielka, Gary Cahill, Ledley King and Joleon Lescott all with a real chance of being on the plane.  If you leave behind both Rio and John then one partnership with experience of playing together is that of Phil Jagielka and Lescott, which may be worth exploring.  However I've personally always thought Lescott was over-rated.  In an area where I think we have a lot of good players I don't think he's the best and definitely wouldn't be in my 23 - but I can understand the argument for him going.


At left back there is the standard first choice of Ashley Cole, there rarely seems to be any debate about this. However we have a couple of other options.  One of the best crosser's in the Premier League is Everton's Leighton Baines, he has a wicked left foot and can strike a great dead ball.  There are also Kieran Gibbs and Stephen Warnock, I think Gibbs may still be too young and Warnock may have missed his chance.

Midfielders

Scott Parker has probably played his way into most people's starting XI.  In fact I would probably make him my captain.  I have always thought he was a bit overrated, but at the same time he almost never puts in a bad day at the office.  


This is an area that usually there are so many players to chose from, however looking around I was really struggling to pick players.  England's best two centre midfielders in my opinion are Paul Scholes and Jack Wilshere, neither of whom will be available (Scholes through choice of course).  


I've always thought England's reliance on Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard over the years has held them back (despite stating that they would have been my two choices last World Cup).  In fact, along with Gareth Barry I feel that the reason they've excelled at club level is down to the players around them which cover up their own limitations.  For me both Jack Wilshere and Tom Cleverley are much better prospects from an attacking point of view, however Jack wont be there and Tom hasn't played enough games for me (I'd send him to the Olympics).  I personally would only take Steven Gerrard out of the those I've mentioned.


Then you are left with younger players.  I think this season has been far from good for Jordan Henderson at Liverpool, every time I've watched him he's disappointed me, this is frustrating as I had been really impressed when he was at Sunderland.  Jack Rodwell seems like a good prospect but still is only a prospect.  James Milner is one who I think could play that role of a third centre midfielder.  Having ruled out so many in my mind gives Phil Jones even more likely chance of going with his versatility meaning he can also do a job in midfield.


One person I've been really surprised that no-one seems to be talking about is Michael Carrick.  I was slating him for about 2/3 years.  I thought he'd really regressed.  However when Man Utd went on their outstanding run of games he was a different animal, in fact I'd say he's been excellent for them all season.  He was the second midfielder on my team sheet.

Forwards

This section also includes my attacking wingers.  This is one area that I'm finding impossible to say who Roy will chose.  There are so many options to go for - some of whom can play upfront too.  Ashley Young, Aaron Lennon, Adam Johnson, Theo Walcott, Stuart Downing, Danny Welbeck, Daniel Sturridge, Gabriel Agbonlahor and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain all spring to mind.  I would personally take quite a few of these!  

Young seems to have had a great first season with United.  Lennon and Walcott are both full of pace and running, Walcott seems to have done a lot better the last two seasons too for Arsenal - a massive improvement in his goal and assist returns.  Danny Welbeck and Daniel Sturridge are guys in form.  Adam Johnson has been a favourite in that position and can play on either wing.  Stuart Downing however has disappointed me at Liverpool and not exactly set the world alight in an England Shirt.  As far as I can tell Agbonlahor has had a reasonable season whilst Chamberlain is one for the future.  Joe Cole could also fit into this category, he's had a good year in France and shouldn't be ruled out - he could also play centrally in a 3, which could strangely be his best position.

The main problem with the striking position is of course Wayne Rooney missing the first two games.  He's had a good season at United so this is really unfortunate.  However I agree that he still should go.  He is our best forward man so if we get through the group stage we would need his potential to stand any chance of going further.


Who else goes is a key question.  For the 4-3-3 that I like, more of a target man is usually required, but these aren't necessarily the better players.  Again, there are plenty to chose from, but whether or not they are of the desired quality is debatable.  


Darren Bent seemed nailed on until his injury, now I don't think he'll go.  Jermaine Defoe has got a lot of caps (46 - 15 goals), experience may end up getting him a place.  


As for big target men, the main contenders are Andy Carroll, Peter Crouch, Bobby Zamora and Grant Holt's name has been banded about.  I really hope Roy doesn't take more than one of these, however I would take one as they offer something different.  Despite his goal return this season I can't see Holt making the list, nor can I see Zamora getting a seat on the plane.  Andy Carroll's substitute performance (and apparently his performance in the following game - which I haven't seen) may well lead to him getting the nod, however I've always thought Crouch has done what's been asked for him at international level.

Squads

How many of these will still be there?

Okay, so here's the decisions:

Mine:
Joe Hart, Scott Carson, Ben Foster. Micah Richards, Phil Jones, Rio Ferdinand, Phil Jagielka, Chris Smalling, Gary Cahill, Ashley Cole, Leighton Baines.  Scott Parker, Michael Carrick, Steven Gerrard, James Milner, Ashley Young, Adam Johnson, Aaron Lennon.  Wayne Rooney, Danny Welbeck, Daniel Sturridge and Peter Crouch.


Starting line-up:

----------------Hart-----------------
Richards - Rio ------Smalling - Cole
-------------Parker-----------------
------Gerrard ------Carrick---------
Walcott----------------------Young
---------Rooney(/Welbeck*)---------------


I know that side suffers from not playing together before, and it may struggle going forward if Rooney/Welbeck (*to play the first two games) can't get hold of the ball.  Gerrard would be expected to get forward as much as possible and they would be expected to work triangles, in this sense we'll miss Wilshere and Cleverley.  However if it's not working because of the opposition then it is always possible to change it, by sending on another striker and reverting to 4-4-2.  The real worry is of course that it's not a settled defence which almost would prompt me to chose Terry over Rio and partner him with Cahill, but hopefully these could work together.


My prediction for Roy's:
Hart, Carson, Foster, Walker, Johnson, Terry, Cahill, Jagielka, Lescott, Cole, Baines, Parker, Gerrard, Lampard, Barry, Milner, Downing, Young, Walcott, Rooney, Welbeck, Carroll and Sturridge.

I fancy he'll be more defensive/conservative with his choices than me and then line-up with the Chelsea boys at the back and a midfield with Milner, Parker, Gerrard and Young.  Due to the lack of real striking options he may even throw in Lampard to that mix and play with Carroll up front on his own until Rooney's fit.  I wonder how many I'll get right!


No matter who we chose I think even making it out of the group would be a good performance, obviously I'll hope for more though.


Edit:
Chris Smalling is now out of the tournament through injury.  I don't like it but that probably means I'd take Lescott instead, starting with Jagielka.


Edit 2 (16/05/2012):

It would appear that I correctly predicted 18 of Roy's 23.  Out of those I thought would go Kyle Walker is injured and can't go and I'd forgotten that Ben Foster didn't want to go.


Disappointed that Lennon and Carrick didn't make the cut but Stewart Downing did - even Tim Howard has more assists in the league than him this year.  Pleased Chamberlain's got a chance but Lennon should be ahead in the pecking order.  Also pleased to see John Ruddy in the squad - I totally overlooked him as nobody had been mentioning him, I would say he's a better 'keeper than Rob Green.

The abdication of a King...

Just two months since I made a blog post about one sporting legend retiring it looks like I'm doing it again.  It seems to be reaching that time when the sportsmen who have been around as long as I've been actively following the sport are finally hanging up their pads, clubs and cues.  The most recent is probably the greatest snooker player to grace the game - Stephen Hendry.

When it comes to snooker, all I follow are the events that are live on the BBC.  If I had Sky then I'd follow some of the other events/tournaments but I don't.  The one event I love most of all though is undoubtedly the World Championship.  The matches are a test of stamina and concentration.  Even the first round is best out of 19 frames - a lot more than they normally play and by the time they reach the final it's best out of 35.  To win it you really have to be playing better than your opponent, it can't be said that the eventual winner didn't deserve it.  It is this championship out of all others that proves just how great Stephen Hendry was.  

21 year old Hendry after
winning his first of seven

In the 1970s Ray Reardon dominated, the 1980s was Steve Davis' decade, then came the 1990s when Stephen took it to another level.  After an initial win in 1990 he followed it up with FIVE in a row between 1992 and 1996 and then adding a record breaking seventh in 1999.  In addition he's also hit three maximum 147 clearances at the Crucible (a record that he shares with Ronnie O'Sullivan).  On top of this he's reached the single table (semi-final onwards) situation another 14 times, making a total of 21 out of his 27 appearances.  That's why he is called the King of The Crucible.  


In addition to this he won a further 29 ranking tournaments (including 5 UK championships) and 38 non ranking tournaments (including the Masters 6 times), compiled a record of 775 century breaks, was world number one for 8 years in a row, before slipping down only to regain the accolade it nine years later.  The stats don't lie, he was incredible - he also changed snooker, made it much more attacking.  Recently the BBC posted about how Ronnie "The Rocket" O'Sullivan changed snooker, which he did, but only by taking on the aspects of the game that Stephen had already introduced - the desire to score big breaks and really crush opponents.


To be honest, growing up, I actually always wanted him to lose.  I like to back the underdog and he was definitely the one there to be shot down.  I think it stemmed from the fact my parents were Jimmy White fans and he suffered more than most to Stephen.  However I've thought differently about him from the last few years, since around the time when he reached Number 1 again.  Back in the 90s he was so much better he made it look easy for him, however the next decade everyone seemed to be closer together and he definitely wasn't out front, but he had the will to win.  He said recently after knocking in his last 147 break (video below) against Stuart Bingham in his last tournament that he would hate for someone to do that against him. That's what makes him different, special, that unequivocal will to win. 

Whenever he retired he was always going to be remembered as a great, however I think the way he's done it is perfect.  It's at the tournament to which his name will be synonymous, he made a 147 break and he knocked out the defending champion.  He may not have been at his peak, but unlike so many players he was still right up at the top when he decided to call it a day.  


It's not surprising that he's decided to stop playing on the tour, there are an awful lot of demands put on a player these days, they are expected to play in a lot of tournaments all over the world or slide down the rankings.  He said it well when he described it as a young man's game - for the likes of Judd Trump, those whom are single and have no commitments.  In this sense it is a shame as the game is losing a legend, but there has probably never been a better time to be a snooker player and the sheer volume of talented players coming through is really great.  


The game will miss him but I can still cheer on Ronnie for now at least - hopefully he'll at least get to the final to give me something to cheer for this bank holiday weekend!   In my opinion Ronnie is the most talented player I've ever watched - but Stephen was the best.

Rahul Dravid - One of the games' greats...

There are times in sport when every now and then a truly great player comes along, with regards Indian cricket they were lucky, at the same time they had four.  Sourav Ganguly, VVS Laxman, Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid.  Together they formed a scary middle order that even the best bowling attack would struggle to break through. 

This line-up lasted around 12 years together - from 1996 when Ganguly and Dravid joined Tendulkar (already a main figure) in the team during their tour of England, with VVS Laxman joining later that year until 2008 when Ganguly became the first of this magnificent quartet to retire from the international game. 

I grew up watching the magnificent Australian team lead by Mark Taylor then Steve Waugh before Punter took over, but even in this period it was always India's batting line up that was the scariest as an opposition fan - particularly in the subcontinent. 

VVS and Ganguly were both fine players, but for most people the star that shone brightest was Sachin, particularly in India where he is treated like a God.  For me however, if I could have taken one of them and put them into the English team (form being equal) then it was no contest, I'd take Dravid every time.  

"The Wall"

He wasn't known as "The Wall" for no reason, it was because of his immense powers of concentration. it was first mentioned after an epic 12 hour innings (that's two full day's play) of 270 runs against Pakistan back in 2004.  It was a very fitting nickname, as far as the opposition were concerned if he got himself in then you might as well just bowl to the other end as he wouldn't give you a chance - you might as well be bowling at a wall.

I was very lucky (even though I paid for it etc) last summer to go to one day of the Edgbaston test between England and India and luckier still to see the three remaining legends have a bat.  I actually saw both Rahul and Sachin get dismissed in unlucky fashions, Rahul was "caught behind" when in fact he didn't touch it, he actually hit his shoelace with the bat which had made the correct sort of sound so he didn't review it and Sachin was run out at the non-striker's end.  Having seen both of them I had to agree that Sachin is the best batsman I've seen bat, just so elegant... but I'd still take Dravid. 

Dravid at Edgbaston '11

The main reason for this is that time and time again Dravid seemed to deliver when the others around him failed. This was really summed up in that series, he was top run scorer with 461 runs and 3 centuries... between them the rest of the team didn't manage a single treble figure score (against England's 7)  and his average of 76 was double that of the next best.  In particular I have been so impressed with his ability to adapt to English conditions when so often his countrymen failed to do so.

In many ways it is a shame that Dravid's career has overlapped Sachin's completely, as he has always been in the great man's shadow, going about his business quietly whilst the maestro gets all of the attention.  Yet for all his quietness he has amassed 13,288 test runs at an impressive average of 52.31, that total is second only to Sachin himself with only Kallis close enough to over take any time soon.  At the same time it has been great for Indian cricket, as a result Sachin and himself have 20 century partnerships (a record) out of 143 innings, with another 29 50+ stands.  The highest of which was 249 against Zimbabwe in 2000.  If they came together you might as well already add 50 runs to the score and hope they were having an off day!

It is therefore in my mind a very sad day today that Rahul Dravid has called time on his international career, every time he spoke he did so with intelligence and what seemed like genuine warmth.  The modern game, with the explosion of Twenty20 cricket has many incredible stroke makers (which Dravid could match on his day) but very few who can match the concentration this man was capable of.  India must have been fearing this day, especially with Sachin and VVS also in the twilight of their careers, but it was always going to happen, hopefully they still have some young players to come through and fill these incredible shoes.