Barclay Talks Sport

The dear old Beeb are doing their best. They're trying desperately to gather interest in Euro 2008 with their 'Who will you support?' campaign. And last Friday there was chatter on Five Live with various people saying things like... 'Actually, it'll be nice. No pressure, no heartache. I'm really looking forward to it. We can just watch a football tournament as neutrals and fans of the sport.'

What utter, utter bollocks.

Never mind that failure to qualify meant England could get shot of Maclaren, the fact is, as the tournament looms ever larger, the reality is starting to bite. We will not be there. Couldn't care less about the other home nations these days by the way. England aren't there and that renders the tournament dull and uninteresting. And there is no true England fan who would dispute that. I went to the World Cup Japan in 2002, to Euro 2004 in Portugal. And I'm upgrading to englandfans+ so I can go travelling again. All in the knowledge that abject failure is staring me in the face as it so often has...

Of course we wouldn't have won Euro 2008. Of course we'd have suffered penalty heartbreak. Of course we'd all have been put through the wringer as we got out of our group by the absolute skin of our teeth. This is what supporting England football is all about. And people are trying to say they won't miss it? Bull shit. I love that gut-wrenching agony. The nerves as kick off comes round and the spectre of depression looms just 90 minutes away. There's even a perverse part of me that enjoys the empty feeling after the inevitable quarter final elimination. The kindred spirits you see all about you with the long faces. The sad looking flags fluttering dispiritedly from the backs of cars from those who will not be bowed by defeat.

Who would not rather have all that to face than Lineker failing to get excited about Russia and Croatia playing teams we should have faced. Yes, we'd almost certainly under-achieve and darkness would grip the nation for a few days but always, always if you're in the tournament, there is a chance. And one day, my friends, one day...

So the ludicrous nature of football mangement comes to this. Avram Grant was sacked because John Terry slipped on a muddy piece of turf by a penalty spot. Let's not hide from this truth. Because had Chelsea won the Champs League, Abramovich, running the Thai bloke a close second in daftness, would not have been able to sack him.

And one of the most depressing about this sorry affair is that all the pundits I heard kept on saying. 'well, it was inevitable', shrugged their shoulders and started speculating about whether Ronaldo would go ro Real or not. Not a one mentioned that Grant's sacking is an absolute outrage with no basis in footballing terms whatever. Chelsea feel they have a divine right to win a trophy every season. They do not. What Grant did in his nine months in charge was take a team that was not his, get them to one domestic final, to the final day in the premiership with hope of winning it and to the final of the Champions League (something ego Jose failed to do), the blue riband event of European club football. This is a fantastic achievement and a more solid platform from which to win multiple trophies next season is difficult to build.

Yet he was sacked because of some mud. I note Arsenal won nothing this season. Wisely, they did not sack Wenger. And back in the days of Fergie's early tenure at Man Utd, they stuck with him when to sack him would not have been wholly unreasonable. It doesn't take a footballing genius, nor a statistician to work it out. Keep faith with a boss who is doing a good job and building for success and you will achieve success. Rocket science it ain't.

Sorry, Chelsea fans, but I hope your club has a dreadful, underperforming season next time round, I really do. Man Utd will be better than you. So will Arsenal and I hope both Liverpool and Everton nudge you aside too. How do you fancy the UEFA Cup in 2009/10? Perhaps you'll have to sweat on entry via the fair play league. So, no chance then.

The Champions League Final was a proper football match. Two teams trying to win, not trying to avoid defeat. It was nerveless English league football at its best. Ebb and flow, chances, petulant players, whining managers and some fabulous skill on display. But never mind that. Like so many big finals, this one had to be settled on penalties, reducing a team game to a one-on-one lottery. I find it unacceptable.

Yes, I know it's dramatic and all that but it isn't football. There are no team tactics, and the only skill is in hitting a ball from 12 yards and hoping your standing foot doesn't slide. Because in the end, this final was settled by a patch of mud beneath the boot of John Terry during an artificial ending to an exhilarating match. Shouldn't be this way, if you ask me. John Terry was disconsolate, clearly blaming himself for losing the match. Wrongly. He had a great game but he is now forced to carry the can for events beyond the final whistle.

So what should we do? Well, fundamentally, the game needs to go on until someone scores. But of course, there has to be a conclusion in a reasonable time. So, some artificiality is necessary but it must retain the team ethic and skill of player and manager. Tactics should be evident right until the end. Now this is not a new idea, but at the start of extra time, each team should be reduced to ten men (red cards not withstanding). Every ten minutes, a further player is withdrawn. The decisions on who is withdrawn will win the match for one side or another. They are not arbitrary and they do not leave one man carrying the can for a spot kick failure. Football is played until the game is decided by that single golden goal.

I think what's key to this is that at the outset, every player knows that the game will be settled during play, not by a fairground sideshow. So there is no 'playing for penalties'. This forces endeavour during extra time. Results will come quickly. Defending will win you nothing.

So, debate away... what are the strengths and flaws of this? Can it work?

Read this, laugh and then spare a thought for City fans

If true there can only be one conclusion, which is that the Thai bloke is a complete twat.

No one is going to claim that Rangers played pretty flowing football in their UEFA Cup Semi Final 2nd Leg against Fiorentina. The Italians had all the flair and passing and fleetness of foot you could want. They created many a chance. Trouble is, they didn't stick any of them in the net. Now that's not to say their strikers were inept athough a couple of the missed chances were pretty simple. What really happened was that Walter Smith and Ally McCoist manufactured a tactical masterpiece and their players followed the plan faithfully for every minute of the 120.

The defensive organisation should be studied for years to come. The sheer will not to conceed needs to be understood by psychologists and lectured to other football teams. And the raw energy, belief, heart, grit, determination and all the other words that mean 'precious little flair but plenty of basic football skill allied to desire' was uplifting, frankly.

I hadn't meant to watch this match but it became, as these games do, utterly compelling. And as the minutes ticked by, my desire not to see Rangers concede grew in concert. I love seeing sportspeople put themselves on the line. Really give absolutely everything in pursuit of their goal. I love it when genius is involved and I love it when strength of character is involved. And the bald fact was that Rangers did not want to concede more than Fiorentina wanted to score.

Thence to penalties and the lottery that this is. It was the level playing field Smith had been after. And despite Ferguson's early miss, there was always the knowledge that somehow, Rangers would prevail. And so they did. The Rangers keeper, Alexander (an ex-Ipswich man, by the way whom our Manager, Jim Magilton let go with his blessing to play on a bigger stage though under no pressure to sell) pulled off the one vital save and put enough pressure on Vieri for the once great man to miss over the bar. Nacho Novo finished the job with a coolly taken winning kick.

There may not have been guile and beauty in Rangers' victory but there were the mechanics of an astute plan deployed to perfection. And actually, who's to say that there is no beauty in that?

Well done, Rangers. Well done indeed.

This is, or should be, of deep concern. Sven Goran Erikson's possible departure could easily be the tip of the iceberg. I'm talking about rich owners of football clubs being utterly unable to see the facts in front of their face. The Thai bloke (and I won't quote his name as that might denote some form of respect for him) who owns Man City is demonstrating confounding ignorance. What Sven has done is turn a relegation threatened club into one that plays attractive football and will finish the season comfortably inside the top ten. This is a platform that gives the club real potential to get into Europe next season. Thai bloke apparently expected Europe, or maybe a cup or two, in his first season as owner. Pratt. Rather than applaud the progress, invest a little more and get a club built on strength, belief and respect, he is going to undermine a decent season and start again from scratch. I'd say I hope they fail next season but I don't bear Man City fans, the victims of this, such ill-fortune.

And perhaps as worrying are the rumblings that Avram Grant might be removed from the Chelsea helm if he doesn't win the Champions League. WHAT?? I despair. Into the last two games Chelsea are still in the Premiership race. He made the Carling Cup final and is in the final of the Champs league. How can this not be good enough for a man in his first season in charge? Dear God, save us from stupid club owners. Have neither of these people looked at why it is the Man Utd and Arsenal are so consistently successful? And why it is that Aston Villa are making quietly impressive progress?

It worries me because some are treating clubs like personal play things. Meddling in matters they plainly don't understand and displaying childish impatience that makes them unfit to be owners of our biggest clubs. As more and more clubs are sold to the super rich the problem will only get worse. And what no one wants to think about is what happens when these children tire of their toys and look for something newer and shinier to play with...

Look, it's quite simple. So simple, in fact, that even football players could understand it. When a foul is committed, the man who has committed the foul and his team captain are allowed to speak to the referee about it. No one else. That is because it is no one else's business. The player fouled need say nothing. After all, the referee has agreed that he has been fouled. None of his team need say anything either for exactly the same reason. Thus, the referee can talk to the offending player and his skipper in a calm and considered fashion (with only thirty thousand fans baying for blood) before explaining what action, if any, he is taking in addition to the free kick given.

If any other player decides to get involved, they should be booked. If they persist, they should be sent off (under current rules there is no sin bin and this is another place where a sin bin would be perfect, by the way). You could throw in this as an extra deterrent. If another player from the offending team joins in, the ball moves forward ten yards. If a player from the oppo gets involved, the decision is immediately reversed.

That's it. No more surrounding the ref brandishing imaginery cards. No more intimidation of the official. Let him do his job and he will do it better than he does now.

Great scott, how much simpler can it be? Is there anyone out there who doesn't understand this?

There I've said it. I didn't think the day would ever come but it has, courtesy of the extraordinary arrogance and greed of the Premier League. It's staggering when you sit and think about it. That any country should think their domestic league so important that it should be exported all over the world. How wrong can they get? Supporters across the world don't love the premier league, they love Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool. With the greatest respect, no one cares about Wigan and Bolton. And neither would they care about Ipswich if we were promoted either.

Let's get one thing straight. All these 'supporters' in far flung countries are really nothing of the kind (ex-pats excepted). They are armchair footie-watchers who buy shirts and put up posters of the better-looking players on their walls. They do not understand the culture that underpins English league football. They have no idea what it means for a proud Geordie to be a Newcastle fan and to watch his or her team at St. James's Park. They know nothing of the joy and pain of being a lifelong fan of your home team. And they never will.

On another tack, I'm trying to work out if these matches could be played at any other time than in a mid-season break. I don't think so. This is the mid-season break that is needed (so we are told) because it would reduce the number of injuries suffered in the latter months of the season due to the attritional nature of weekly football. Someone needs to tell me how these injuries would be helped by transatlantic flights, a game in God knows what climatic and pitch conditions, appearances, jet lag, acclimatisation training etc.

This is a plan that cares not about the players. It cares not about the home supporters who remain the lifeblood of every club. And it cares not about the essential fairness that MUST underpin a league championship. Look. In a league, every team plays each other home and away. This is fair and equitable. How can having another random round of games meaning you play one club three times be anything else than a mortal blow to the very basic ethic of league football?

It is simply a moronic idea that has the making of money as its only goal. Richard Scudamore would like you to think there is an element of missionary work involved... taking the great game to the provinces and all that. Bollocks. This is more like a crusade, looking to crush other countries' professional leagues under its steel shod boots. If the Premier League really wants to make money overseas, far better to suport the construction of properly supported pro leagues in places where beamed in TV from Europe makes them struggle so badly. Feeder clubs, places to loan your players, places to find new players for your team. All these can be achieved to the long-term benefit of our league. But it'll take a bit of altruism to achieve. And I suspect that is a word Scudamore would have to look up. Idiot.

Kevin Keegan's return to football management at all is good news for those of us who love the characters of the game. That he has come back to manage Newcastle is the perfect storm made flesh.

Whether he succeeds (and I hope he does) or fails, football lovers are in for some terrific times on and off the pitch. Keegan the manager will turn Newcastle into a dynamic footballing force. I'm predicting St James's Park becoming a true fortress for them once again. And on the road, just bags of goals at either end. At every club he's managed, this is what we have seen to a large extent and I don't see his style changing. It must be wonderful to be a Newcastle fan right now. Expect excitement... and rightly so. Expect success... well, a tougher challenge but if he can attract the right players, why not?

Keegan the media face has always been gold dust. He carries his passion for the game and his job to every interview, to every dugout, and he is unafraid to express himself. Most of us will recall the shattering of his dreams in the 'I would love it if we beat them!' interview when he had been well and truly 'Fergied'. I doubt we'll see such an outburst again. But having watched his press conference this afternoon, and seen the determination and the humour shine through, er are set for some really precious moments.

Gawd love 'im, it's great to have him back.

Almost a done deal, we are told. Here's why it is a good appointment:

1 - He has a phenomenal track record in club football. Proven to be able to win championships in extremely tough leagues like Spain and Italy.
2 - Not scared of players. If his reputation is true, we might actually see players willing to die for their shirt when they pull on the three lions. We won't see players shoe-horned into areas where they are not compfortable and we will play a recognisable system as a team. Hallelujah.
3 - Will not stand interference from the FA. This is a very good thing. He won't be a patsy or a puppet of the board. If they stick their noses in, he'll walk. We need a manager who will do it his way or not at all.
4 - He actually wants the job.
5 - But most importantly of all, and the reason he was the number one choice... his name is the greatest Christmas gift ever to the tabloid headline writers. Years and years of puns and plays on Fab and Cap and 'ello!'. They must be drooling with anticipation.

Reasons why we ought to be worried about this appointment:

1 - It has happened in a big rush. The root and branch investigation into English football's failings appears to have taken three weeks. And even if it is still ongoing, it will be shoved on to the back burner while the FA board cross their fingers and pray Capello delivers success on the field.
2 - It misses the point about the most successful England manager of recent times. Bobby Robson, that is. From small club on limited budget to England manager. The key skill of any national coach is to get the best out of the available talent. This is the same model operated by almost every club outside the top 4 in the premiership. A national manager cannot but in the big player. This is a test for a man like Capello. All very well having millions at Madrid. So we'll see ifa good CV really does make a good national manager.
3 - All England players will need to learn how to roll over six times following the briefest of contact with an opposition player, or failing that, a stiff blade of grass. Seriously though, I do fear an indulgence of play acting (worse than now...) when we really get to the bones of how to win football matches, Italian style.
4 - He knows nothing at all about English football or its players bar what he has seen on the telly. This was the same for Sven, of course. He didn't win us the world cup, did he?

Got to say I'm in favour of this move. I think Harry Redknapp would have made a fine choice too and his time will still come. But for now, this appointment will restore hope and that is exactly what English football needs just now.

Good

Oh, Blimey. Look, everyone. He's a decent coach, blah blah blah and that he has been approached is not at all surprising if it is true. But read further down the piece. The England job, it says, is not his first choice. That's what we want for our national side, is it? A coach who's eye will be forever on La Liga just in case a more attractive job turns up? It says absolutely everything about the commitment we would get from Jose right now. Let him play with Real Madrid. Now there is a cauldron. If he can succeed there, then yes, get him in to coach England if he would then be 100% commited. But not now, or we'll end up replacing a totally committed coach who was not good enough with a good enough coach not totally committed.

There's going to be a whole lot of fall out after England's failure to qualify for Euro 2008. A load of soul searching, star gazing. What I'm fearful of is that everything else other than the obvious will be blamed. The number of foreign players in the Premiership, the pitch, the occasion, the position of the planets, biorhythms. Whatever. The bare fact is that, we do not have enough players of the requisite quality to qualify for tournaments, forget winning them. We were without five of our first team last night and the holes they left were enormous.

It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that the reason there are so many foreign players in the Premiership is because they are BETTER THAN THE ENGLISH PLAYERS. Wake up. Our technical skills are woeful. Croatia gave us a lesson in how to play international football last night. Their players are not based in the Croatian league. They play in Holland, England, Italy... all over the place. If we really want English players in the Premiership in greater numbers, they have to prove themselves good enough. And cheap enough, for that matter.

It is clear that our coaching and schooling of young players is wrong at the most basic level. Youngsters should not play anything other than five a side until they are ten, or even older. Physical presence can be developed as a player grows into adolescence. What they need when they begin is to learn the abilities to trap, hold, pass, move, shield, press, control. I don't care how fast they can run or for how long. It is immaterial. I cringe with embarrassment too often seeing how 'lesser' countries are so comfortable on the ball. How easily they pass and move.

There is a reason why Owen Hargreaves is the best technical player in the England side. It is because he learned to play football in Germany.

You do the maths.

England 2, Croatia 3. Actually, you won't get the chance because he'll resign. Or he should. It barely matters that this was the game that decided our Euro 2008 fate. The fact is that it was so abject and depressing that had it been the first game, we'd have been howling for change. I'm not going to point the finger at individual players, that is pointless. The real problem is that in a game we only had to draw, we didn't ever look like doing anything but losing. The formation was wrong for 45 minutes, the players were lacklustre, scared I think. They played poorly (apart from Crouch). There was a fundamental failure in leadership and management here and Maclaren has to carry the can for that. We were given a second chance and we absolutely blew it.

I'm too disappointed to say anything clever and incisive. Next summer is going to be a desert for England fans. And that will hurt.

Stuart Pearce among many others is standing in support of Steve Maclaren. And, amazed though I am given my stance earlier in his tenure, I am too. We desperately need long-term continuity in the England set up. We've cast off the dull tired and negative tactics of Sven and have in recent games looked a decent side. Five straight 3-0 wins is good. Yes, losing to Russia was very disappointing but we look a side playing with some definable shape and purpose now. And we are scoring plenty of goals.

It is traditional to call for the manager's head at times like this and Mac did have a slow start. But he's into his stride now and dumping him will not help anyone. And who will do a better job? Martin O'Neill. Well, possibly but does he want it? And it isnn't like Villa are challenging for the title. And don't anybody say 'well he doesn't have the players' because it is exactly that situation he will face with England. Jose Mourinho? Dear God, no. I do not want that strutting peacock in charge of my national side. Just because a man can win championships by spending piles of cash does not make him good international material. National managers have a limited pool of talent. You cannot buy in any more. Unless you're Irish and keen on geneaology perhaps. That's why Bobby Robson was such a good manager. He never had the money to spend at Ipswich and so had to know how to get the best out of the squad available to him. Think about it.

Anyone else? Errrm. Not a host of names are there? Hiddink is too old and cynical, Klinsmann is a German and Wenger doesn't even know that the English have football players of their own. A knee-jerk sacking only benefits the appetite of the press for blood. If they wanted him sacked, they should have shouted louder after the 0-0 against Macedonia at home. That was where this campaign went wrong. And if he goes and the 'best man' whoever he is, tells the FA to go forth, what then? Another bloody shambles.

Leave it be. Let him take on the next World Cup campaign and please, please, remember this. England aren't that great. Good on their day but no strength in depth and a confidence that is wafer thin.

Brian Barwick is not always known for smart talking but this is just supreme common sense. The FA are going to pilot a scheme at grass roots level in which only the captain of a side can talk to the referee... just like in Rugby Union. Hallelujah. RU has so many intelligent rules that aid discipline and leave players in no doubt as to the correct course of action and the consequences for not taking that course. And communicating with the ref is one of the best.

Witness the Rugby World Cup. As much fire and passion (in most games anyway but that's another story) yet any decision that is questioned is not done so by 15 men clustering round the ref and shouting. It is done by the captain, on his own and is hence sorted out very quickly and respectfully. Only once have I seen another player question a reffing decision. A Georgian prop was about to make a noise but the ref, perhaps half his size, merely put a finger to his lips and shook his head. Problem solved.

I pray this pilot works. One of the central blights of football the world over is the normally unfounded screeching injustice of players when they believe a decision has gone against them. Ally this to the sin bin and wave good-bye to foul-mouthed abuse from Old Trafford to Hackney Marshes. Say hello to better referees too. This has no downside, only goodness.

Jose Mourinho's rather sudden departure from Chelsea probably sould not come as too much of a shock. Clearly unhappy at the end of last season and utterly miserable and given to even more confused press conferences this season, he has looked checked out for some weeks.

More of a shock is the extraordinary coverage. Top headline on FiveLive and BBC Breakfast TV, the subject of the FiveLive phone in as well and no doubt there is blanket coverage on many sports websites, radio and TV stations. I daren't turn on Sky Sports News. He has had the British media in thrall ever since he turned up. They drool at the prospect of a Jose comment and can find no wrong in him despite his often daft comments. Who will win the adulation now?

While I have some sympathy for the way Jose was treated in the last few months... having a director of football put in place, forced into playing has-been strikers etc, I will not miss him at all and rather hope he disappears off to manage in Italy (where he says he would like to go), Spain or, oh I don't know, Luxembourg.

Admittedly, he was good fun in the beginning. Charming and disarming in his honesty. But it changed pretty rapidly and rather than the smile, we got the scowls and the tirades. Sure, he was under pressure but, hey, £5 million a year means you need to be able to handle it. And I don't think he could. Ever blind to the crimes of his own players, he had the sharpest of eyes for offences committed against them sixty yards away and even resorted to a parody of Sir Alex, showing the fourth official his portable TV for a replay of a disallowed goal last weekend. He never understood about balance in football. Never understood that Chelsea could actually lose games or that officials could make mistakes. I got very bored of hearing how unfair it always was. How his team were singled out for bad treatment. But you know what, Jose? You needed to rise above that. You needed to be aware you had a very talented squad who shouldn't have cared if one goal was disallowed because you'd already scored four or were going to during the 90 minutes.

We hear a great deal about what a brilliant manager he is. And his record is pretty damn good. But at the very top, if you're told that you will be measured on winning the Champions League and you fail to do so, you can have few complaints if you are shown the door, or find it so AWFULLY hard that you have to take your leave. Whatever. Takes your money, pays your price.

For Chelsea, though, there are serious implications. If what we hear about interference is all true, then any other manager will be little more than a figurehead and that is the way to mediocrity. So, the door is clearly open for Graham Rix...

England 6-1 Argentina. Ah, wonderful. Now there is a scoreline to warm the cockles of your heart. And it could have been more. After their 11-0 thumping by Germany in their opening match, Argentina tightened their defence against Japan, losing by the only goal, and that in stoppage time. But England are a very strong side and showed it by thrashing Argentina to book their place in the FIFA Women's World Cup 2007 quarter finals where they are likely to be playing the USA should scores remain as they are right now.

Although they were helped by some diabolical goalkeeping and a stunning bullet header own goal, England have laid a marker for the rest of the tournament. Kelly Smith is an accomplished and seriously deadly striker and our midfield packed with hard tackling and good passing. We look dangerous down the flanks and through the middle and our defence appears sound against anything barring free kicks. What will have encouraged England so far is a hard fought clean sheet against a very strong German side, a good battle against a decent Japanese team (unlucky to concede the draw with the last kick of the match) and a confident demolition of a poor Argentinian team.

I've enjoyed the tournament so far. I've only watched bits and pieces of England matches but, having been a cynic of women's football, I have to hold my hand up and admit that on this evidence, the chortling behind my hand at the mere mention was wrong. Skill, passion, energy, pace and a high level of excitement. Everything you want from any game of football, frankly. And what you don't get are volleys of abuse, arguing every decision, surrounding the ref, play acting (well, not much) and utter cheating. You should watch a match if you can. You might be in for a very pleasant surprise.

Yes, I know Owen scored another two very good goals and Ferdinand managed a piece of country dancing before scoring the third, but the engine room of our 3-0 victory over Russia was our central midfield. Gerrard and Barry were absolutely outstanding from kick off to final whistle. Indeed, they were probably tackling back on the way to the dressing room at half time. We expect great things from Gerrard every game and in recent games, I don't think we've seen them. But versus Israel and now against the far more accomplished (but not brilliant) Russians, the partnership of Gerrard and Barry looks like it has been in place forever.

The pair bossed the midfield to such an extent that the Russians had no answer in the first half and either played on the break or down the flanks in the second. This limiting of their attacking options made our back four's job pretty easy. Even when they did threaten, what was really pleasing was the way one of Barry and Gerrard was there to break up the play and bring the ball clear. The link between back four and midfield was solid and meant that we were very seldom reduced to thumping the ball upfield to relieve pressure and hence immediately surrender possession.

In an earlier blog, I said we should play Barry on the left. OK, got that one wrong. He is a revalation to me in central midfield. Barely putting a pass astray, playing simply, enabling our strikers to cause heaps of trouble and of course, laying on Owen's first goal. I sincerely hope that McClaren resists the temptation to include his 'star' players merely because they are fit. I'm talking about Lampard in particular who ought to be set for a good long spell on the bench as Gerrard's understudy while Carrick, if he ever makes the team again, should be subbing for Barry.

It is interesting that in a game where neither Cole nor Wright-Phillips sparkled all that much, we were able to make a mess of a previously solid Russian defence (one goal conceded all group before Weds night) because our centre pairing could take the strain and maintain the required pressure. There is hope for this England team yet, and therefore hope for McClaren. But only if he pays attention to what is right in front of his face.

As for Rooney. Does he come back for Heskey? You know, that's actually a tough one. Yes, if he will play in a defined role as support striker for Owen (because that is why Owen has looked so dangerous in the last two games). But brilliant though he is, he is prey to selfishness and over confidence and that leads to wasted chances. This is not about pandering to egos or having any player with a divine right to play. This is about England winning football matches, and in some style. Nothing else matters.

It is a rare day indeed when England win three important games in a single afternoon. But such a day was Saturday 8th September. We won important matches in Rugby, cricket and football... but how to score them in terms of quality?

As a fan, wishing to see all three matches and not being omnipresent was a problem. All three ought to have clashed at around 5pm. And because they did not, performance of the day has to go to England's cricketers. Beating India in the decider of a seven match series was a terrific achievement. it really does look like brighter days are ahead for our one day side. We outplayed India throughout the day and won deservedly by seven wickets with 12 odd overs to spare. That is a resounding win against very good opposition. Great to see Freddy back but I worry about his long term fitness. Great to see KP score runs and keep concentration under pressure. And great to see Luke Wright opening the batting. I don't care that it didn't pay off this time. What the selectors did was make a brave decision based on form and that is the right way to go. Critically, the emphatic nature of the victory against a strong and passionate Indian team meant the game was done before 5pm... kick off time at Wembley and in France. Luvverly.

In second place, England's beleagured footballers. Too often we've scratched out results against crap opposition. This time, against a very average Israel side, we went at them for 90 minutes, scored three, could have scored six and came away with poitives in every department. Special mention to Gareth Barry who was excellent in the centre of midfield. To Shaun Wright-Phillips who just gets better and better. To Micah Richards who is a mountain in defence and a genuine threat coming forward. And Michael Owen who looked sharp and scored a lovely goal. As for Heskey, well actually, he played well, spent less time on his arse than usual and gave the forward line balance. Oh, and Joe Cole. Great player, end of story. If I was the England coach, who cares who else is fit for Wednesday against Russia, you have to start with the same 11. Anything else is a betrayal of all the work, energy and belief. As for speculation making this the end of Beckham's international career, well I doubt it. If SWP isn't fit or doesn't perform, who else would you play? Serious answers only.

Which leaves England's rugby players. I saw bits and pieces of this match and it was a turgid affair. The US were all muscle and no style and England tried to be fancy and dropped the ball a lot. Yes, we won 28-10 but scored no bonus points while other sides playing the weaker teams in their groups have run up big scores. In the end, the win was everything, of course, but the manner was very disappointing. All we had to do was stick to a single game plan (probabaly sucking players in to rucks and mauls before using our wing pace to score tries would have done it. It's simple after all) and we'd have scored 60 points. I just don't think we gave the US enough respect for being organised and tough tacklers. We tried terribly clever moves which are unnecessary against lesser opposition and screwed them all up, more or less. Must try harder. Or we'll get a sreous beating by South Africa next weekend.

Roll on Wednesday, the 20-20 World Cup and, sort of, the South African challenge.

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?

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

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?

Subtitle: Because if those at the head of the game were serious about cleaning up the foul-mouthed, cheating, whining crap we see too often on our pitches, they'd do this tomorrow...

It has worked brilliantly in Rugby Union and was tried and abandoned in football and all it is, is this: when a free kick is given, if a player shows dissent at the decision, the ball should be moved forwards ten yards and towarsd the centre opf the goal. So simple and so effective. And yet abandoned largely because, I believe that the ref had to book a player for dissent before he could then advance the free kick the fabled ten yards. Why a booking? No idea.

Here's what should be done. Same as before but with no necessity to book. If players still complain, march the ball forward another ten yards (so long as the winners of the free kick want it so) And what happens if the ball ends up in the penalty area? If it's an indirect free kick, nothing. If it's a direct free kick, then, well sorry chums, it becomes a penalty. It's so simple and if applied ruthlessly would be so effective at stamping out dissent at free kicks.

Even footballers with their often demonstrably small brains should be able to get their inflated heads around this one. Don't talk back. It has never worked in the history of football and now you might be costing your team the game. Is that so hard to understand? Is it so hard to implement? No and no.

Next time: Sin Bins

The news that there is to be a trial of the Hawk-eye technology on goal-lines is very welcome indeed. it demonstrates that, finally, the football authorities are dragging themselves together on the technology issues and pursuing the most promising. Whether a ball has crossed the line or not is clearly one of the most crucial decisions a referee can make. It is also one of the most difficult in marginal cases. With players all over the place, line of sight is seldom clear. Given the potential magnitude of any incorrect decision on the outcome of not just a match but a club's long-term future, the future of players and managers etc, the sooner this technology is fail-safe tested and adopted the better.

But a note of caution. I watched plenty of challenged decisions at Wimbledon where Hawk-eye was in use. And I'm not convinced it is utterly infallible. During the final, Nadal challenged an 'out' call and the ball was called 'in' by hawk-eye. Federer was incensed by this and I have to say that to my eye, the ball was long by two or three inches. It wasn't even close. Now I'm not saying my eye is better than some electronic gizmo. What I am saying is, let's not assume technology always, always gets it right. A TV camera looking along the baseline would have given us all immediate confirmation and provided cynics like Federer with a whole lot more confidence. I'd lay money Federer was right to be upset in this instance.

The sale of Thierry Henry by Arsenal to Barcelona is undeniably good business. £16million for a 30 year old who is becoming injury-prone is a lot of money. Even if the player is a fantastic professional, a consummate goalscorer and a man who has truly graced the premiership.

But what of Arsenal? Interesting one. No team relies solely on one player but Arsenal have come close with Henry. His departure follows that of David Dein and there is much chatter about the future of Arsene Wenger. To lose all three would seem like carelessness, to coin a phrase. Wenger remains central to future Arsenal success. The team is not as strong as in past years and Wenger needs to be there to usher in the new generation.

With competition for top four places in the prem genuinely hotting up at long last, Arsenal could find themselves dumped into the UEFA Cup. For them, a financial calamity. I'm no Arsenal fan but in the Henry-Wenger-Vieira heyday they were a joy to watch. The prem needs them to remain title contenders. I fear that if Wenger does go, and a striker is not found to replace Henry's goals, a preiod in the relative wilderness beckons.

England's 3-0 victory against a pretty lame Estonia side was the minimum expectation. I said we should have scored six and we could have. Joe Cole's opener was a goal to grace any international stage. And there was plenty of promise too but what must be worrying is that much of it was provided by David Beckham. I'm delighted to see him back in the England side. He should never have been dropped in the first place. But he cannot go on forever. His move to LA Galaxy might take the edge off certain of his abilities. Pace at a higher level might start to surprise him for instance. But his crossing, surely peerless in the world game to date, is something that comes from innate talent and perfected on a training ground. He will never lose it until he retires.

Beckham is so dangerous for any opposition because he is so unfailingly accurate. And from any distance you care to name. Sad to note that we would not be worried about Euro qualification had he remained in the team. Sadder that altrhough we have some fine potential in Lennon and Wright-Phillips, we do not have anyone who can hold a candle to DB in terms of accuracy and sheer reliability. It's all very well running past defenders but if your crosses end up in Row H, you aren't a whole lot of use. Beckham never bothered going past people. Why, when you can land the ball at your striker's feet from fifty yards away?

Long may he play. But what will we do when he hangs up his boots?