Barclay Talks Sport

OK, so the first FA Cup final at the new Wembley Stadium will be between Chelsea and Manchester United. These are, without doubt, the two leading teams in the country right now. I've been cogitating for a while now and can't make up my mind. Is this a hugely fitting final tie between two giants of English football or is it final proof that the FA Cup has little romance any more, that the semi-final draw could even have been -err- seeded (this is not an allegation) and that yet another game between these two is frankly, dull. Why bother with the earlier rounds because the dream is dead? Or is it that, kept apart by chance, our best sides have reached the final?

Anyway, what it does give us is great potential for yet more pathetic whingeing from Uncle Jose and altogether pithier comment from Sir Alex. Can't wait. But in the meantime, what do you think about this cup final? Regular contributor Ariel, had this to say:

Well, considering the damn thing should never have been built in London in the first place, because the National Stadium should have been located in the Midlands in order to make it easier for as many people as possible to actually get to it and provide much-needed investment outside of our already-bloated capital; and considering the vast amounts of money that have been thrown at something managed by a load of lackadaisical foreigners whose hearts clearly weren't in the job then yes, it seems that Manyoo vs Chelski is the perfect first FA Cup Final for the New Wembley...

Mind you, I'm still smarting about Bury being chucked out on a technicality, and look what effect that had on the whole rest of our season... grumph...

A reasoned response if ever I read one... come on, people, respond.

So did he fall or was he pushed? I guess it doesn't really matter in the end. I'm trying to work out if this is a good or bad thing. It was certainly inevitable. With the sad demise of Bob Woolmer, who would have been a great replacement, the candidates are thin on the ground. I've heard Tom Moody being bandied about. That would be just fine. And the academy coach too. No, no and thrice no. If you're going to change, change, don't promote from within.

I thought Fletcher was a fine coach. He took England from the test wasteland and made us no.2 in the world and Ashes winners, beating all-comers on the way and drawing series in the sub-continent. No mean feat. Things have gone astray in the last few months. If he made a mistake or two it's all in not thinking far enough ahead, resting when he should have been pushing, allowing the players to think they'd 'made it'. And in the one day arena, he/ECB clearly don't understand the way the game is going. I think there is an argument for two coaches, and two teams. There will be overlap but what is obvious is that the two sides of the game are racing apart from one another very quickly. In the One Day arena, you just have to have players suited to the particular conditions of the day. You don't have a fifth day when spin will be important. You have 100 overs on a pitch. Pick on that basis. Pick accuracy, not speed. Pick accumulators, not prodders.

And get Ian Botham to play some part. That man knows what he is talking about. Just don't make him leave Sky's team. That would be a big loss.

So, we got thrashed by South Africa. Well and truly buried. Our capacity for mediocrity matched by an avalanche of aggression by the Proteas. Well done them. I'd like every England player to be forced to watch their approach to batting in particular. Ours was pitiful, there's quite exhilarating. So how did the England tactical conversation go?

Fletcher: Remember lads, prod around lamely for a good ten overs. See off the new ball and score off the bad balls.
Bell: But boss, what if there aren't any bad balls?
Fletcher: Piffle. Haven't you seen Saj Mahmood? There are always bad balls. Often several an over. Trust me on this one. Play yourself in.
Vaughan: But i've got no form whatever. What if I get a bad ball and get out after scratching about for ages?
Fletcher: That's a given, Mike. That's why we've got KP. he'll take up the slack when you are dismissed tamely.
KP: But what if I get out cheaply, because the run rate is so abysmal that I have to try and force things?
Fletcher: And what chance is there of that? I've got a laptop here, y'know. It does stat and everything. Haven't you seen your average?
Freddie: Can't I go in at 1 or 2, boss? I hate going in at six, it's killing my game.
Fletcher: Poppycock. You're the man to blast us out of trouble when everyone but KP has been dismissed for less than 20. It's always been the way and it always will be. Your last twenty innings hardly indicate a trend do they? I've got a laptop here, y'know. It does stats and everything. You'll come good when it matters. That's the way it happens. Now is there anything anyone doesn't understand?
Saj: Why do I have no idea where the ball is going when I bowl?
Fletcher: Because you aren't all that good when the pressure's on. But hey, if you don't know, neither will the South Africans. And they'll get out to your worst slow, wide deliveries. I've got a laptop here, y'know...

How many times do you try a tactic that blatantly fails before you admit such? There has been severely stubborn Ostrich-like behaviour here and it has really cost us. Because actually, England look a pretty talented side, with one or two exceptions (and I'm talking about Vaughan, who hasn't ever performed at ODI level, and Mahmood who has too little control to be effective when playing the top nations). GOing forward, every England batsman needs to target a personal run rate of at least 3 in the first 20 overs (and that means we are aiming to go at 6 an over) and then up it every ten overs. Then we are targetting big scores. And if we lose a couple of wickets, only then do we dig in. Digging in as the inninge opens does one thing really well; it lets the oppo bowleers settle. And this is something we absolutely cannot afford.

Sack Fletcher? Not necessarily. He's a great test match coach. But something is seriously wrong with our one day prep and tactics. It cannot be that hard to work it out.

There was a chance to arrive at the ICC World Cup yesterday. A chance to demonstrate intent and belief. To really put down a marker and make other teams a little nervous of playing us. And having reducing Bangladesh to 65-6, I made the fatal mistake of thinking we might actually do so. How stupid of me. From that moment on, we were treated to the most turgid, dull and frankly depressing display I have ever seen by an England one-day side in victory (I use the term merely for definition purposes because it felt like defeat).

Firstly, rather than roll the Bangladeshis over for 80-odd by applying maximum pressure, we relaxed, got sloppy and let them get to 143. Still a poor score but far more than they should have accumulated. But that wasn't the really terrible thing. Oh no. The batting, now that was truly miserable. Now the Bangladesh attack is neat and tidy. A couple of accurate medium-fasts and a trio of left arm spinners. But there was no spin in this pitch, and no movement off the seam. Just a bit of bounce. Nothing to bother England's finest. Ahem.

From the first ball, my gloom developed. Instead of tinkering with the order, sending in Freddie to do real damage against the pacemen, Bell and Vaughan prodded and poked around. At 7-0 all the runs were extras. I stifled my first yawn. What the hell were we doing? I'll tell you...we were gently accumulating runs while keeping wickets intact. What for? Good grief, even at a gentle five an over, the game would have been done in less than thirty overs. I couldn't believe my eyes. And then the wickets started to fall. I suspect our players were so bored they began falling asleep at the crease. It's the only explanation for the pathetic display they put up.

And so we batted our way into deeper and deeper trouble. Bangladesh could even have won. I fail to understand our tactics. Flintoff clearly hates coming in against spin bowling. So don't let him. Put him in at 2. Pietersen is an aggressive and splendid batsman. Put him in at 3, not 4. Show some guts, for god's sake. And if you lose a couple of wickets for 70 after eight overs, so what? Job done already because your dogged accumulators can come in and clean up, can't they?

This was not entertainment. This was death by a thousand feeble prods. I didn't even watch the end. It was too excruciating. A rerun of Location, Location, Location provided more guile, surprise and excitement. The case for the prosecution rests.

England lost to Australia in the World Cup of cricket (or, given how the indigents pronounce it, Ustraya) which in itself is hardly a surprise. What is most disappointing is that the manner of the defeat is depressingly familiar. England's batting tactics appear to be ismply these: 'Don't worry about it, lads, KP, maybe Bell and certainly Collingwood will bail us out when we're two down for almost nothing.' And that kind of happened. KP got a fine century. Bell got 77. Trouble is, only three players got into double figures. Flintoff never looks like he wants to bat these days and every time one of our players decides to 'cut loose' they inevitably pick the wrong ball to do so. So, we got thirty runs too few.

Then in come the Aussies to bat. And they are very, very good at it. And we had them in some big trouble. That's because england are pretty good in the field. But we have a huge weakness at the moment and it is most demonstrated by Sajid Mahmood. This is the inability to bowl at, or just outside, off stump for six balls an over. The art of winning one day matches is to strangle runs so much that batsmen are forced into risky shots and get themselves out. Take a look at England's innings to see how this is brought about. We, Flintoff aside in terms of pace, are flatly unable to do this.

I am sick of hearing how Mahmood is a great talent but you get the odd bad ball every over. I'm sorry but at this level, that simply isn't good enough. Ustraya took him to the cleaners and we lost the game because of it. I know he's quick and that's terribly nice but until he can bowl in the right spot at this great speed, he needs to slow down. I don't think even he has any idea where the ball is going half the time. Just be accurate. No room = no runs. Simple equation. He and Vaughan/Joyce/Strauss are weakening us fatally at the moment. Too many weak links. Too many repeats of the same problems

My advice; drop Mahmood and bring in Plunkett (who is handy with the bat too). Stick Freddie at the top of the order (like Botham said) and let him flay away. If he's out for three, it's no worse than his efforts at number 6, is it? Drop Vaughan down the order to 4. Keep Bell opening. Just try it out. What do we really have to lose?

Amazingly, we can still qualify for the semis because the fabulous Bangladesh side beat the arrogant South Africans (who do not look like winners to me). And we may do so. But unless we do the simple things right, there'll be no point, will there?

I was away so didn't post directly after the match. Had I been home, I still wouldn't have done so. You know I watched more of a meaningless World Cup cricket group game in the end since it was the only way to lower my blood pressure.

Israel were a poor side. A couple of decent players but a poor side. England were far poorer given the ability our players are supposed to have. It was a diabolical performance. Anyone taking any positives out of it for England needs to be shot until it really hurts. I could not believe Maclaren standing there saying we should have won but for not scoring a goal. That it was only the goals that were lacking.

Give me strength. The reason there were no goals was because the creativity, passing, movement and imagination were all utterly absent. Football is about scoring goals, Steve. That's how you win games. I'm going to open a restaurant and serve you a meal. Except there won't be any food. I hope you understand, Steve that the food was all that was lacking from your meal.

Idiot.