Barclay Talks Sport

This was an intensely satisfying victory for England. Yes, because we bowled very well yet again after losing the toss on a good batting track. Yes, because after playing ourselves into a huge hole with some very dim batting, our 8th wicket pair of Bopara and Broad demonstrated how it should be done - seeing us home with a magnificent 99 run partnership. Yes, because 10 matches ago, I'd have bet my house we'd have lost the game by sixty runs. But mostly because, after the abuse suffered particularly by Ian Bell and Keven Pietersen, the very best answer was to inflict a demoralising defeat.

I've got a couple of pieces of advice for the main culprits. First, Dinesh Karthik. One of the key elements of a man able to chirp and sledge is to be any good at all. I note your scores in this series so far have been, 44no, 1, 0 and 4. Pretty poor really. Yet you felt able to level a volley of abuse at Ian Bell. His scores, by comparison have been, 125no, 64, 79 and 24. Pretty bloody impressive. And at Pietersen too. He'll be one of the world's best one day batsmen and although he's had a quiet series, he has still amassed more runs than you. So. Get a decent run of scores, get a bit humble and respectful of players who are way better than you at the moment and avoid looking like a total pratt with zero credibility as a result.

Second, Zaheer Khan. You need to pick and choose when to do your long follow through and insulting comments. Doing it every ball makes you look like a petulant eight year old doing a poor parody. It becomes like punctuation and is dull and easy to ignore. Watch a quality bowler do it. Glen McGrath for instance. He mostly let the ball do the talking and when he came down the pitch to deal out a few well chosen words, that was the time to get really scared. And you're a good bowler too. No need for all the other crap all the time. And get a shave too. Scruff. Freddie, Gooch and Warny can carry it off, your chin ain't the right shape.

I also note generally that once things started to go a little astray, it went terribly quiet out there during the England innnings. The song beginning 'Sing when you're winning...' does tend to spring to mind. We all love to see aggression. But you're mistaking aggression for abuse and I'm afraid when you lose, like tonight, you just look stupid.

As regular reader will know, I don't go in for triumphalism on this blog. Very dangerous. But England are looking good at 3-1 up in the seven match series. That's right Zaheer and Dinesh. 3-1. To England. Chirp about that, why don't you? The game we lost was tight too. We've unearthed a sound opening bowling partnership and have batting right down to number nine. I just hope the development goes on and we manage to stick to a steady line-up.

That's better.

Tim Henman's victory over Dimitri Tursanov late yesterday evening was like stepping back in time. All the touch, all the fluidity and all the sheer determination, balance and world class skill were there for all to see. Impending retirement certainly seems to suit Henman. Tursanov is a man he's been beaten by five times out of six, often badly. Last night though, he gave the Russian a lesson in all court tennis. Able to aply his serve volley, chip and rush game while removing all Tursanov's weapons - his power hitting came straight back, the points were short denying him rhythm and his serve was harrassed so badly he served a dozen double faults in four sets.

Let's not get too excited. This is a renaissance for Henman but it is not a lasting resurgence. He will retire and he is unlikely to get past the third round where he will most likely meet Rafael Nadal. That will be a match to savour nonetheless.

If there's one regret it is that watching Henman's demolition of Tursanov last night reminded me of how brilliant he can be but how he has too rarely strung that sort of form together in a Grand Slam. Play like he did last night for seven matches and you win the title. I don't think anyone believes he can do that but it shows us just what we will miss when he is gone.

The news of Tim Henman's impending retirement was by no means a surprise but it is sad news nonetheless. For over a decade, Henman has almost single-handedly carried the torch for British tennis. He has far exceeded the expectations of his coaches, reaching no. 4 in the world and staying in the top ten for over five years on the bounce. An achievement unmatched by any other solo British sporting star in recent years, barring perhaps Colin Montgomerie. He has been a consistent, world class performer.

I've always been a huge supporter of Henman. I've cheered at his successes and been frustrated at his inexplicable losses. And like many, will lament the fact that he didn't ever win the Wimbledon title he so richly deserved. He has carried himself with impeccable dignity in the face of often ludicrous and ignorant criticism, mainly by hacks who think tennis begins and ends with Wimbledon fortnight. He has worn the pressure of the British zeal for success and delivered a great deal of simply mesmerising serve-volley tennis. His skills are a dying art in the wham bam game and will be sorely missed.

I'll say it just one more time. Anyone who brands Henman as a heroic failure is an ignorant pratt. Eleven tour titles including the Paris Masters which is, in effect, the fifth major. More semi finals than you can shake a stick at, often on courts where he should not be able to progress so far (Roland Garros in particular) and a mainstay of any British Davis Cup succcess for more than ten years.

He should look back on his career with massive pride. When he began his pro career, no coach thought he would do so well for so long. That he did is testament to his spirit, will, skill and desire.

Have a great retirement, Tim, you deserve it. And one last thing. Please stay in the game and help the LTA. They really need it.

Last night's England v Germany friendly highlighted pretty much everything that is wrong with English international football. We are incapable of building on a bright start. We are incapable of closing down opposition midfield runners. We are incapable (unbelievably) of consistently defending crosses from either flank. We miss chance after chance after chance. And the international manager said 'we shouldn't have lost.'

Well you did, Steve. 1-2, at home in that new fortress of Wembley. And most of us could barely recognise half the German side because they have a worse injury crisis than we do. Will this be his post match chat after another premature tournament exit? That we can take positives from another defeat? Someone needs to remind him that after qualifying comes knock-out football. There is no second chance.

There were only two positives in the game as far as I was concerned. First, Micah Richards was superb at right back. All the more odd then, that he was switched to centre back when Wes Brown came on, thereby nullifying a key threat. And Joe Cole is a class player. He commits defenders, makes space and scares the opposition. Why he was subbed is a total mystery. I know big Frank scored and that is nice but he spent the rest of the time trying to score another rather than passing.

I'm not going to join in the Robinson bashing. He made a bad mistake. End of. We don't have a huge pool of great English keepers so let's not destroy what remains of the confidence of one of our better ones. Owen looked short of match practice (which he is), Beckham was not 100% fit and had a poor game, Carrick was hopeless. It does not bode terribly well. No Hargreaves, Gerrard, Rooney etc and for the most part, we look really, really ordinary. And look, I know our star players make a big difference but there were no genuinely adequate replacements on show last night.

Oh, another question. When Barry came on, why did he play in the centre? He's a left footed, left sided midfield player. That's where hs is best. Play him there. Wright-Phillips is a speedy right winger. Play him there. Is this formula so difficult to understand?

Frustrating. Why must it always be so with England?

The 1-1 draw between Liverpool & Chelsea was in many respects a typical encounter. Some decent football interspersed with ridiculous amounts of moaning, whining and play acting. Ah, the beautiful game. But that's not what I want to talk about. The penalty that gave Chelsea their equaliser was the central controversy in the game and raises an interesting issue.

Now I don't care if Malouda made a lot of the contact or not. Actually, I'm not sure he did. Seemed to me both players tried to avoid a collision and the Chelsea player fell. Such is life. But the plain fact is that it should not have been given as a penalty and we saw Liverpool players making their feelings known very clearly. It was a poor decision but perhaps from Rob Styles' angle, it was a clear cut foul.

It is unedifying to see packs of footballers surrounding a referee who will not change his decision, no matter how wrong it was. And nor should he under such pressure. However, an injustice was done. I feel very strongly that the captain of any football team should be allowed to appeal decisions his team feel are wrong. I've mentioned this before I know. Give each team three chances to appeal to ensure the system is not casually abused and let the video replay ref decide. In this case, a clear mistake was made. You might be able to argue an obstruction on behalf of Steve Finnan the defender but nothing else. The penalty would then be withdrawn. Importantly, the decision has to be final or we will merely substitute one pack of angry footballers for another in a different coloured strip. Check out rugby to see how this works.

If you allow appeals, you can so quickly remove the heat from the situation. The referee can even invite a team captain to appeal. He can then talk to the players involved and in seconds, make his judgement. You are also then free to make dissent at decisions a sin-binnable offence. After all, players should then be complaining to their captain and asking for an appeal, not raging at the ref. I know all this is laced with a little naivety but it makes good sense. It doesn't stop post match pub chat but what it does do is, in these days when huge sums of money are at stake, make sure that match-changing decisions are correct. And surely we all want that.

I'll return to this subject later in my series on 'What should be done in football but won't be...'

I fail to see how this can possibly succeed. I understand their bitterness and all that stuff but to want compensation from West Ham is being blind to reality. Do Sheff Utd really feel that West Ham, Tevez etc was the only reason they went down? Good grief, had they beaten Wigan on the last day of the season, they would have stayed up regardless. That in itself is evidence enough that there is no case for West Ham to answer.

Blades fans, try to understand, you went down because throughout the whole season, you did not score enough points. It has precious little to do with West Ham. There is no sense in this legal action. It cannot and must not succeed. The precedent is so dangerous. What next, sueing a ref for making a decision that cost a game and hence the points to stay up when the season was done? Sueing a player who broke your player's leg because your man might have scored 20 goals and saved you?

Seriously, we need to worry about this. West Ham have been punished under the rules. Enough is enough.

So, we lost to the MK Dons on penalties. So what? Ipswich have a dismal record in the league cup in any sponsor guise you care to mention. We can do without extra games. The championship is going to be tough this year and given we have a chance of a play-off place, insignificant runs in half-hearted trophies are to be avoided. What we cannot afford are injuries to key players.

I mean, well done to the MK Dons for beating us. But I'm far more encouraged that we have scored seven goals in two games at the start of the season than I am disturbed that we lost to lesser opposition. Beating Plymouth away at the weekend is far, far more important.

Can I ask, does anyone care about this cup competition? Even if they reach the latter stages?

I am irritable aboutEngland's test series loss to India. Not because we lost, actually, but the manner of the series defeat. Set 500 to win the third test and square the series, it was quickly clear that England had no intention of trying to chase down the target. Fair enough, it was a hugely tough ask and very unlikely to succeed... but not to try?.

Atherton, among others, says there is a difference between losing 1-0 and 2-0. Sorry, but unless 'goal' difference is important, no there isn't. England, apparently, have to learn not to lose. Yes, we do. But only in games where it matters even one jot. Losing this match while trying to win it would have been brave and shown the sort of aggression that we need if we are ever to frighten the Australians again.

I don't buy the fact that India deserved to win 1-0. And I don't buy why England didn't put up a show and try to get the runs on the final day at the Oval. We have the players to do it. As a fan of cricket, I would much rather have seen us take on the total and give it a go. Losing in a blaze of glory is infinitely preferable to eking out a turgid and meaningless draw. One thing we have seen is that when under pressure, the Indian bowlers are apt to lose it. But if you invite pressure on, they are capable of exploiting you.

The fact is, we didn't try so we'll never know. What we do know is that England settled for a 1-0 series defeat and announced themselves happy to have forced a draw in the final test. Is it just me or is that a loser mentality? Can you ever imagine the Aussies settling for defeat in that way? I can't. Think about it. It's like being 1-0 down at half time in a cup game, going on to lose 1-0 and then being pleased you drew the second half 0-0. Makes no sense. You still lost. Where is the pride and accomplishment in that?

This is such a mind-bogglingly simple idea to implement that I cannot for the life of me understand why it has not been adopted. Both codes of rugby use it very successfully and every which way you look at it, it works.

Being clear about which transgressions result in a sin-binning is key. For me, it's all about letting a player calm down a little and reduce the risk of a red card. It's also about on-the-spot punishment. So, swearing and handbags between players are where it should begin. I also feel a late, cynical tackle is another area. All these offences are yellow card jobs and the ref should still issue the card. The player heads to the Bin for 10 minutes and returns, we hope, with a clearer head.

And in addition to letting peace be restored and to maintaining eleven v eleven when the Bin time is done, there is another, really useful effect. It means the player is punished during the match in which he is playing. If one of the oppo hacks down my flying winger and gets a yellow card, I don't care at all that he will be suspended in two games time when his team plays some other outfit. I want the effect of his crime to be felt then and there. A mouth full of expletives or a crude challenge in midfield should be punished by a few minutes in the Bin. My team gets a short term advantage, like in rugby, ice hockey etc yet the game is not spoiled over the whole of its remaining course.

Like I say, you have to be careful what constitutes a binning offence but aside from that, can anyone see any downside whatever to this?

Next - Retrospective punishment using video evidence

The announcement yesterday of the England cricket squads for the upcoming one-day series against India and the 20/20 World Cup have come in for a bit of stick from many experts. They feel that picking specialists for 20/20 who are not included in the One Day squad is an error. That 'a good cricketer is good in any form of the game'. Actually, I don't wholly agree with that and in any case, have we not always wanted England to pick the men in form? Well, I have at least. And it makes such good sense.

Atherton complained yesterday that Ian Bell, among others, is a victim of 20/20 selection because he has not played much 20/20 domestic cricket. For me, this means he needs to be released to play some, not be stuck on the world stage with no experience whatever. Athers also questioned whether the in-form domestic players would translate to a World Cup. We'll find out but one of the things we've learned this summer is that getting our test players to play county cricket has hugely improved their test match games - the bowlers and Vaughan in particular have all found their touch.

I feel that the 20/20 Squad in particular is brave and inspired selection. It introduces good young players to international cricket in a short and informal (relatively) style of the game. It gives them touring experience, big game pressure and access to other top world players in what is, let's face it, a less important contest than a test match or One Day world cup. I think we might be in for a surprise too. Watching Luke Wright devastate the Gloucestershire attack in a Pro 40 match last night tells me that if our other specialists fire, we can look forward to a succcessful campaign. That doesn't mean winning it necessarily, but showing the world of cricket we are more than a test match nation. And whatever happens, it will surely be exciting.

So, here's a quiz question for you. Take Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Fulham and Portsmouth (I may have missed one or two). All have taken part in money-spinning tours and tournaments, as far afield as Asia and the US.

Which of these club's managers will be the first to moan about the amount of football being played this season?