The romance of the cup is dead.

Ben Watson's header sealed the biggest FA Cup Final upset in recent history, consigning Man City to an early night in front of the television watching ITV. The same television channel which only had 266 minutes worth of FA Cup Final coverage. 

The lack of coverage only scratches the surface of the current 'sell-out' version of the FA Cup. While I'm a big believer in moving with the times and adapting, the FA Cup should be left as it is, it's one of few traditions left in football and should stay that way, but it seem's it is too late.

Wigan's fantastic performance today may have re-ignited the romance of the cup, but the romance stays firmly on the pitch. For everyone else, the romance of the cup is dead. 

There was 4,000 spare seats at Wembley today and what's the betting on them being in the corporate sections, which occupy almost a third of the stadium? With clubs receiving just over 31,000 tickets each, the game is no longer for the fans. The FA has torn the game away from the people who made the game, almost as badly as Callum McManaman tor Gael Clichy to bits today. 

That's before we get started on the price of them tickets and the 5.15pm kick off! 

It must have been a great day out though for all the fans, visiting Wembley for the final, that'd be if they hadn't been already for the semi-finals. Another ticket-selling, money-making idea from the FA. Where's the tradition of Villa Park, Old Trafford etc for the semi-finals? It's been sold out to the 90,000 Wembley capacity, it all takes the gloss off the final. 

I didn't even know it was the final until yesterday, just one day before the game. Maybe it's just engrained in my brain that the FA Cup final is the finale to the domestic season, sorry I should say was the finale to the domestic season.

While the game itself lived up to the traditions of the FA Cup, the underdog giving it a wholehearted go against the should-be-winners, no sooner had the game finished than we were back to the commercialised competition we have now come to have to accept. 

As Wigan lifted the cup, marking their biggest day of the clubs history, Budweiser was emblazoned all over the ribbons, another iconic FA Cup tradition, sold to the highest bidder. No sooner had they lifted the cup, than we were talking about the possible departure of Roberto Mancini, what about covering the winners, celebrating their big day? Instead we have to hear Mancini field questions on his possible future. It's pathetic. 

I'm actually surprised we didn't have an ad break as soon as the trophy had been hoisted! 

Once the celebrations have ended, I almost imagined we might have got some analysis on the game itself, but we had yet more adverts and then got a couple of clips of the key moments. 

It wasn't long before we got the end credits and the coverage was done, maybe a blessing in disguise given the analysis would have been given to us by Chiles, Dixon, Keane and Southgate. 

Give the game back to the fans, and return to the traditions. That'd be my hope, but I'm pretty sure that hope is long gone. Time to sit and watch Britain's Got Talent with the City players...

The Public are Simon Cowell's Money Making Machine

Before you read this and think, “I hate the bloody Xfactor, it's criminal TV and typifies everything that is wrong with Britain nowadays”, hang on a second and carry on reading.

It's an annoyance of mine that I'm going to share, and something that winds me up, without fail every Sunday night. My Facebook and Twitter feed crams full of people talking about the Xfactor results, which is their right, if they want to watch the Xfactor (any plenty do) then that's their choice, I'm nobody to say whether you should or shouldn't. BUT year on year, and week after week I hear the same things.

“It's a fix” is the usual one, topical after tonight's sing off between two of the favourites or the “he/she has only done that because it's a publicity stunt”. If you think it's a fix then why do you keep watching it?

Do you ring up and vote? Probably not. So firstly you aren't really in a position to say whether it's a fix or not. Will you be watching again next week after whinging this weekend that it's all a fix and a person is out who could have won? Probably yes.

If you are one of the above, you are all part of Simon Cowell's merry-go-round, and you keep falling for it. If you ring up and vote, you're handing money to Simon Cowell, if you carry on watching you are handing money to Simon Cowell.

Every person who tunes in on Saturday and Sunday nights are increasing the viewing figures for Xfactor, and therefore the adverts between the programmes are more expensive. Why are adverts more expensive during the Superbowl? Because, millions and millions of people are watching. The more people that watch Xfactor the more money he makes.

You probably contributed to that in one way or another!

But if you do choose to watch, and don't want your favourite to go, you have to vote, handing yet more money to Mr Cowell. But will you tune in again next week, probably.

Do you really think Gary Barlow et al think that these 'fun' acts like Jedward and Rylan are ever going to win the competition? Course not. Do people go out in the earlier stages who are better singers? Course they do. But these people get through because they make 'entertaining' TV, and they provide another storyline to gain the Xfactor publicity. They are as much to blame as anyone. Like any entertainment, be it Coronation Street or a film, it needs different characters playing different roles. Xfactor is no different and that's why people like Frankie Cocozza are voted through to the live shows. If everyone was good, pretty plain and were nice to each other, it wouldn't make entertaining tele, it would however do what the show is supposed to and be a singing contest.

Add to that the fact that some people are actually ringing up to vote for these people, makes it even more of a joke.

They judges sit there every week and make a decision on who they want through out of the two acts in the final sing off. But what is the point? Each judge has it's own act in the final two usually, so that means that two votes are null and void. Each judge is going to vote for their own act, so it becomes a 1v1 vote off between the other two judges.

Any sports fan knows you can't have a decider in an even amount of games. Same with this, you are likely to get a draw in a 1v1 vote. They are paid to decide who is the better signer, so let them do that, not decide who is their act and then let the rest have it go to the public vote, oh which makes it more important to vote, and more money for Simon Cowell. There is more competition between the judges than the actual singers.

Whinge and cry all you want, but unless you stop watching you'll be adding to Cowell's very big pot of money. If you do want to watch it, then that's fine with me but give it a rest of a Sunday afternoon – and remember, it's all about making money. 

LFC: New Season, Same Problems

Another season, another record broken, unfortunately it's not a good one again, as Liverpool have got off to their worst start to a campaign in 50 years. Given that we've had to take on last seasons champions in Manchester City and Arsenal, but both have been at home and there was a poor result to open the season going down 3-0 at West Brom. 

Have we moved any further forward?

New manager, and half a new team and we appear to be no further down the line than we were last year under Dalglish. Swept aside by Arsenal who have shipped out two of their best players and anyone who thought Brendan Rodgers way of playing football would bring back the glory days to Anfield look to be sorely mistaken. 

It's early days, new players haven't really gelled together yet but for someone who's philosophy is to keep hold of the ball, Liverpool seem to give it away more than ever. They look toothless upfront and other than Raheem Sterling don't look like creating an opportunity (both this season's goals have come from set pieces). If they do manage to create one, who's going to stick it away?

Having let Andy Carroll go to West Ham on a season long loan, Suarez leads the line with Borini playing out wide. As is well documented, and as he said himself - Suarez isn't a 'natural' goal scorer, he isn't a tap in merchant. He wants to come deep, get on the ball and link up the play. So why do we have our one center forward playing that way? We need someone in the box to put the ball in the back of the net. At the moment we don't have that, yet Borini stays out wide? Let's be honest, do we actually know if Borini is any good? He's only ever scored 15 senior goals. I'm pretty sure we'd be better with him down the middle and Suarez somewhere else.

Andy Carroll has moved on for the season, with no replacement,
but can Rodgers really blame the board?

It seems a basic error to let Carroll go to another club, being 'confident' of bringing someone else in, rumoured to have been Dempsey or Sturridge, is simply unacceptable. You have to tie up the deal before you let Carroll go, surely that's simple? Rodgers can't blame anyone else either, he's in charge of the transfers, he turned down the opportunity to have a Director of Football saying he wanted complete control. That's fine, I'd rather it was that way, but then don't tell me you've been 'let down' by someone else because you didn't tie up the other contract. If the owners wouldn't pay the money for Dempsey, don't let Carroll go, it's that simple.

John Henry's open letter to LFC fans might have given some realisation to the less deluded of Liverpool fans out there, and even some that are; that the club isn't a contender for the title, isn't a contender for the top 4 and isn't a contender for winning the Europa League competition either. Top 6 will be a decent achievement, and that will be a tough ask too. 

While I agree with some of the points made by Henry in stabalising the club on a financial front, building something for the future rather than making expensive short term fixes I also agree with what the Spirit of Shankly group posted on their page earlier today. The post, criticises Henry and the Fenway Sports Group for it's management structure of the club, or lack of. There is a Chairman, but he is based in the USA, there is no Chief Executive, nobody making the big decisions and being held accountable for them, here in England, based at Anfield, every day of the week. How can that lead to a successful club when everyone who's important in the decision making is in the USA? They sum it up perfectly below:

John W Henry

"There comes a point at any football club where the Chairman has to step forward on behalf of the board and be held accountable for decisions that they have made and strategies that they have implemented. With key questions continuing to go unanswered, Spirit of Shankly suggests it is time for Tom Werner to be held accountable as Chairman of Liverpool Football Club. After all, the buck stops with him, not with those acting with his authority and not with people no longer at the club."

But back to the players and what's going wrong on the field, I'm all for trying to knock the ball around and play attractive football, but you HAVE to have the players to be able to do it. Barca can do it, but they've got Xavi, Iniesta, Messi et al. Swansea did it at times and got all the plaudits, but would Liverpool fans accept seeing good football and finishing where the Swans did last year (11th)? I doubt it. Do we have the players to do it? I doubt that too.

New season, same Liverpool problems. 

The Power Of Sport

Truth be told, everyone thought we'd mess the Olympics up, it's the British way isn't it? When the North Korea and South Korea flags were mixed up on the scoreboard before the opening ceremony had even taken place, people obviously doubted how we were going to handle the largest sporting event in the world. 

Olympics or not we've witnessed our team go out in a penalty shootout, but that's about all that's gone with form. Prior to the Olympics, tickets were unsold, the public weren't bothered about the Olympics and who was going to light the flame was the least of anyone's worries. Not to mention the squabble going on over the Olympic Stadium. 

Generally, Britain was in the doldrums. Cameron and Clegg were roaming round with a pair of monetary scissors, cutting anything they could, unemployment was at it's highest for years on end and we entered a double dip recession. When was the last time you heard the names of Cameron and Clegg? Probably not within the last ten days while Olympic fever has taken over the British Isles. 

The Olympics has everyone hooked, and even more so because it is a home Olympics. I don't remember such a fever for Beijing, despite the success of British athletes compared with previous Olympics. Why wouldn't you be hooked? There is something for everyone. Even sports you've never watched before you find yourself watching and become an armchair expert. You know the rules for sports you wouldn't even consider watching if your Sky listing said "World Championship Archery/Equestrian/Volleyball.

I'm a football fan, a big fan, but I haven't really got into the Olympic football tournament at all. I've found myself watching other sports instead of football, when else would you get the opportunity? Football is on all year pretty much, and I'm glad the Olympics hasn't been dominated by football, which must have been some people's worry considering it's our national sport. 

"Inspire a generation" has been the tag line used throughout the Olympics and there has been a huge focus on the legacy left by the 2012 games. It is doing just that, it must be. People who generally have no interest in sport are being inspired by watching Olympic sport. How can you not be inspired by someone like Jessica Ennis? She is the Olympic Champion taking in various sports, if people take up one of those events then it has done some good. 

The crowd sounded electric as she completed the 800m and the 'Golden Saturday' was one of the best nights of sport I've ever seen. Gold after gold for GB and if anything I'm sure the crowd inspired them when they needed that extra boost. Several times I've heard "GB haven't won a medal in this event since...." and we've won the gold or at least claimed a medal.  That must make people want to get up and give something a go?!

The Olympics Stadium has been full every time it's been opened, 160,000 people in one day watching the athletics. Two sessions of athletics each holding 80,000 people, thousands in Greenwich Park for cross country horse racing, who'd have thought it? Who'd have thought I'd have been watching Equestrian's equivalent of a penalty shootout and leaving as late as possible for work because I wanted to see the conclusion?

The rush of medals, which has taken GB into 3rd behind the USA and China, who don't forget have many more people to pick from, has boosted British pride to a high point for many, many years. Like I said before, is anyone taking about recession at the moment? No, they're talking about sport. Even if GB hadn't taken home as many medals as they have so far, you'd still have to be proud of how we've taken on the Olympics and the public has actually got behind the games.

Maybe local pride has been boosted by the performances of Yorkshire born athletes who would have more gold medals than a lot of countries if Yorkshire was a country. They have claimed 5 gold medals, which is as many as Germany, and more than Holland, South Africa, Australia and Japan. 

I'll leave you with the words of Dickie Bird as a suggestion as to why: "Yorkshire folk are wonderful, wonderful people known for their hard work and sheer Yorkshire grit which has pulled them through."

FIFA Catching Up With The Rest Of The World

Finally FIFA and that silly old man Blatter have realised football needs to join the rest of the world and use technology to ensure the vital decisions are made correctly. It seemed obvious to everyone else, but at least eventually they have come round. Too late for Frank Lampard and Co, but they've come round nonetheless.

We all know rugby has used technology for tries, cricket for run outs and now a more enhanced system, and more recently tennis with hawkeye. What is more frustrating is that cricket now uses technology which is miles in advance of just a TV camera. Hot spot shows up the smallest of touches on the edge of the bat while hawkeye tracks the predicted route of the ball, snicko uses noises to determined what the ball has hit. 


What do you need to make goal line technology work in football? A camera. That's all goal line technology is, a camera that can see whether the ball is over the line or not. Not something that is a heat camera, not something that predicts the travel of the ball. It's something as a viewer we can see in an instant, we know within seconds what the right decision is yet the game goes on. Yet FIFA has lagged behind these other sports in moving with the times. Cricket and tennis are regarded as 'classic' games, ones which are steeped in history yet they have adapted to the technology quicker than one which has the disposal of billions of pounds and a game which is global.


It's so much of a basic incompetence that I am going to leave it there, I'm sure you agree with me, it's just taken Sepp Blatter much longer than anyone else to think what everyone else is thinking, maybe next he'll wonder about how we are going to have a World Cup in 50 degree heat in Qatar? Unlikely.


What I am really interested in is how technology is actually changing the way the game is played. Technology has improved the standard of the game, it's changed the way people practice and it's changed the way people approach a game. While it has been a long time since cricketers will have had a few beers before a game, the detailed and meticulous planning before a game is enhancing the sport, and it's all thanks to technology.


Hawkeye keeps precise measurements of where players intercept the ball, where the bowler is landing the ball, how often he is landing it in each place and so on. If a player keeps getting out to the short ball, it will all show up on hawkeye. If one batsman is struggling with the swinging ball and one is doing ok, a look at where the player is playing the ball from (how far down the pitch) might give an indication of how better to play a swinging ball.


Equally I saw this week at Wimbledon, hawkeye can track where a player spends most of his time on court. If he spends most of his time at the base line it shows up red, and less frequently covered areas in yellow. I'm not a huge tennis fan but surely this sort of information will affect how you plan to beat an opponent, and if you know that your opponent is going target you in a certain way, you can improve that part of your game. 

The review system in cricket (using technology to arrive at the correct decision) has also meant that spinners have now got more of a chance in the game, batsmen are having to come up with new ways of combating the finger spinner. Greame Swann's emergence as a world class spinner has been aided by the amount of LBW's he can get because umpires now see the amount of balls that are hitting the stumps. It's changed the game for the better, and has become a more interesting game because of technology.

I wont bore you with loads of examples of how it's changing the game, but it is, whichever sport. Technology has brought something new to the viewer, but deeper than that, it's improving the standards of the sports we watch and providing more compelling viewing. 

England Euro 2012 Ratings & What Do The Stats REALLY mean?

So England go out at the quarter final stage, maybe as we'd all expected. Optimism was low going into Euro 2012 and I've heard it said that England have maybe over achieved by reaching the Quarter Final stage. That's rubbish, you'd expect England to be better than Ukraine and Sweden and make it to the Quarters. Surely that was an expectation? Going out at the Quarters fair enough, that is obviously our level, but to say we have over achieved by getting out of the group isn't fair.

I'm not a big fan of stats, but when your goalkeeper and centre forward (who came on as a sub) are the top passing combination you know something is wrong. The reason I don't like stats is because they can be con-strewed to say whatever you want, depending on the context. For example, England had on average 39% of the possession in their four games, their lowest figure at a tournament since Euro 1980 and Italy had more shots on target in their quarter-final match than England had in total in their four matches in Ukraine. That makes it look like England have been awful, but they haven't been that bad. They haven't set up to dominate the ball and the chances, if we'd have gone out and tried to hammer teams like we've done before, Hodgson's side would have taken even more hammer.


Playing devil-advocates here but Joe Hart and Andy Carroll combined as the highest passing combination during the Quarter-Final, but what does that say? Joe Hart is an accurate kicker and Andy Carroll dominated his aerial contests? Or England were quite happy to lump it long? 

Milner and Young made 29 crosses in 4 games, but only 3 found a team-mate. What does that ACTUALLY tell you? Milner and Young weren't accurate enough with their crosses or nobody was in the box for them to hit? Or does it mean that the attacking English players didn't attack the ball enough? I think you see what I'm getting at. Statistics are all well and good, but what do they actually mean? 


If you've watched the games you'll know that Young and Milner's productivity in the wide areas and hitting the box with quality balls was poor. You'll know that England didn't keep the ball well enough and therefore went long and that's why the Hart-Carroll combo was the most frequent in the Italy game. 


Statistics aside, and having watched every minute of England's Euro 2012 campaign, here are my thoughts: (1 = might as well not have bothered going, 5 - average, 10 - worldie)


Joe Hart - 6 - did fairly well. Is a fantastic keeper and will be England's undisputed No. 1 for years to come. Maybe could have relieved pressure with a catch and roll out from time to time, but easier said than done under pressure.


Glen Johnson - 5 - got caught more than you'd want in the group stages but got out of trouble a couple of times with his pace. Patchy going forward and gave the ball away too much, average tournament but not terrible.


John Terry - 8 - fair play to him. I said pre-tournament I wouldn't have taken him, but he's had a great tournament. Lacking pace, but we always knew that. Only got caught a couple of times trying to anticipate the ball because he knew he wasn't quick enough. That aside he was solid, kept the back four organised and was surprisingly one of the better English players.


Joleon Lescott - 7 - good season with City and didn't really put a foot wrong in an England shirt. Didn't help that he nor Terry has much pace but didn't do much wrong, did his job and if you don't really notice him at centre half, that's probably a good thing. Remember we only conceded 3 goals in 4 games. 


Ashley Cole - 8- two good tournaments now for possibly the best left back in the world. Was good going forward and solid defensively. Knows what he is good at and forced wingers to try and beat him. Class act, but very poor peno.


James Milner - 6 - did what he was asked I presume. Helped Johnson out on the right hand side in defense but wasn't good enough going forward, hasn't got a change of pace or trick to go past his man. Straight up and down player and no creativity. Don't think anyone expected him to play, but helped Hodgson's defensive set up.

Steven Gerrard - 9 - man of the tournament for England, only Gerrard looked like creating anything for England on a regular basis. Supplied Carroll for the first goal against Sweden with a world class knock and whipped in some other threatening crosses. Won more tackles than anyone in the whole England team and really was a box-to-box midfielder. Positioning was superb too. Tried to do a little too much at times as he has at Liverpool, maybe through a lack of creativity from others, but ended up losing the ball.


Scott Parker - 8 - can't fault what he did. Worked hard, got stuck in and positioned himself well too. Grafted his nuts off as you'd expect but then again you'd expect that from anyone pulling on the Three Lions. Never in the same mould as Xavi or Iniesta with the ball. Allowed Gerrard to express himself and go forward with confidence that he would sweep it up.


Ashley Young - 4 - appalling display. After a decent season for United I had high hopes for him both beating his man and being able to get a goal. Looked like he didn't have the confidence to go past the full back, delivery was awful and didn't threaten the 'keeper, staying on against Italy was a surprise. Has to score from 12 yards.


Wayne Rooney - 4 - got a goal that your mum could have scored and that was it. Caps two poor tournaments for him. Looked unfit, as sharp as a bread knife and didn't show any ability that we see in the Premiership in a Man Utd shirt. As one of the 'world class' players in the squad you'd have wanted more from Rooney. No creativity, no dynamism, no end product. If he hadn't have been a petulant child in the qualifiers this might not have been the case.


Danny Welbeck - 5 - got the winner against Sweden in possibly the game of the tournament and fair play to him for that, but didn't link with the out of sorts Rooney as we've seen in the Prem. A lot to learn at international level including being able to hold the ball up to bring others into the game, when the ball went up top, it was coming straight back...which might explain some of the possession stats.


Theo Walcott - 7 - didn't play much in the tournament but when he did against Sweden he changed the game. Pinged one in from the edge of the box and then beat his man to provide the 3rd. Good impact change and did well in that game. Brought on against Italy but didn't get into the game, and didn't impose himself on the game like he did vs Sweden. That stops him being an 8.


Andy Carroll - 7 - scored a bullet header and won his fair share of aerial battles. Looked threatening at times and put himself about, did what Welbeck didn't and got hold of the ball a bit more. Flicked it on too much against Italy and it kept coming back at us.

Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain - 6 - could have played a bit more because he looked like he'd have done a job for us. Probably missed out to fit in with Hodgson's defensively minded set up and with a different manager may have got more of chances. Can't fault what he did when he played so gets a 6.


Roy Hodgson - 7 - got the team playing as a team for once and wasn't naive to think we could go out and try and hammer teams. We've seen it fail so many times in the past and set up in a manner which was befitting of the standard of our players. Did a decent job, handled himself well and players seemed to respond to that.

UEFA AS CLUELESS AS THE FA

So who'd have though it, there is someone out there who has less sense as a governing body than the English FA. With previous blogs demonstrating my frustration at the English FA over various matters, it comes as a slight shock to me that Uefa are also incredible stupid.


While they have flown under the radar in recent outcries against Sepp Blatter and FIFA's decision to award the next two World Cup competitions to Russia and Qatar, Uefa's inability to make decisions which make common sense have been highlighted by the Euro 2012 competition in Poland and the Ukraine.

Let's start from the very beginning, who on earth decided it would be a good idea to host a tournament in two of Europe's most dangerous countries to go and watch a football match? There is only possibly Italy, where there could have been more and serious violence. Furthermore, racism is a known problem in these countries and players have been subject to racial abuse playing for club or countries in these countries before.The book stops with whoever made this decision, get the host nation(s) right and you can minimise any trouble. It would also mean I wouldn't be able to write about what I am about to.


Racism has been prevalent throughout the tournament, starting before anyone has even played a competitive game when the Dutch team was subject to racial abuse while training. It hasn't gone away and it hasn't been a isolated incident either. Uefa are 'investigating' several issues of racial abuse will anything come of them investigations, probably not. At least if they are 'investigating' these incidents they will be doing it thoroughly (having taken so long) unlike our FA which jump to conclusions and go on the 'probably' nature of racism. Maybe a mixture of the Uefa approach and our FA's approach might be the future??


While they are deliberating over the racial issues, which have to have been expected given the countries which the games are being hosted in, they haven't wasted any time in fining the German FA for their fans throwing, and wait for it, paper planes onto the pitch during one of their games. Oooo-no the fans are throwing paper onto the pitch! What next? You'll be picking up fines for your fans singing too loud or something!!


Throw Nicklas Bendtner into the mix with his Paddy Power boxers on and you can tell Uefa are really losing the plot. Agreed, it was a blatant case of ambush marketing (where one company who isn't a sponsor of the Euros uses the competition to boost their brand) but was the £80,000 fine really in line with their previous sanctions? Especially considering the seriousness of the misdemeanors: 

• October 2000 Patrick Vieira says Sinisa Mihajlovic called him a black bastard and a fucking black monkey, which Mihajlovic denies. The Serb also claimed that Vieira had started it by calling him a gypsy. Uefa's punishment? Two-match ban for Mihajlovic.

• June 2007 Serbian fans aim racist abuse at England's Nedum Onuoha at the Under-21 European Championship in Holland. Uefa's punishment? Serbian Football Federation is fined £16,500 for "the racist chanting of supporters and the improper conduct of their players".

• June 2008 Some Croatia fans are found guilty by Uefa of "displaying a racist banner and showing racist conduct" during a Euro 2008 quarter-final against Turkey. Uefa's punishment? The Croatian Football Federation is fined nearly £10,000.

• February 2012 Porto fans subject the Manchester City striker Mario Balotelli to prolonged racist abuse in the Europa League tie. Uefa's punishment? Porto are fined £16,700.

Don't forget the Russian FA was fined the exact same amount as Bendtner for their violence with Czech fans and the stadium staff at the very first game of this tournament. How can you justify fining him that much money with the above standards set by Uefa?! It's mystifying! If that wasn't enough, Bendtner will miss a game for his troubles. 

I can understand, to a degree, fining him, as you have to keep the integrity of the tournament's sponsors but banning him for a game is just simply crazy! 

One last thing to add to the wishy-washy approach by Uefa's disciplinary panel Manchester City were fined £24,740 for appearing for the 2nd half of a game 1-minute late...