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...

Roy's England Squad

It's a bit belated, but I've decided to have a look at who Roy Hodgson has picked for his Euro 2012 squad amid much controversy. Nobody will ever agree on a starting XI never mind a 23-man squad to go to a tournament, one which if we are honest will be very happy if we make it through to the semi-final stage. 


That basis of being realistic and not getting ahead of ourselves is also the basis for some of the reasoning behind who I would and wouldn't have picked. If you never get these younger lads experience on the big stage, when the World Cup rolls around in 2016 people will be saying "you can't pick so-and-so cos he's never even played in the Euro's" and don't tell me that's not true because we hear it every World Cup year!! If we do get to the final stages of the Euro's and lose out due to a lack of experience then fair enough, we might then have a half decent crack at a World Cup.


Goalkeepers

Joe Hart - England's No1

The ones who have been selected behind Joe Hart are only there to make up the numbers. We all know Hart is a fantastic keeper and will certainly wear the Number 1 shirt in Poland & Ukraine. Rob Green can do a stand in job if required and Ruddy has had a good season but unless Hart gets injured they'll be carrying the drinks.


Defenders


With Rio being left out, and rightly so in my opinion, Terry was an obvious pick. Personally I'd have had neither in my squad. Both are getting on and neither has had a particularly good season. Cahill is going to be a future English centre back so I'd have certainly picked him and would have him in the starting XI. His partner would be Joleon Lescott, Premier League Champion and a unsung hero alongside Vincent Kompany. He isn't the quickest but has enough Premier League experience with Everton and Man City and Cahill's pace will compensate for his lack of. 

Gary Cahill

Phil Jagielka may have also been in with a shout of a spot, but his lack of games this season has cost him, and you can't knock Hodgson for that. The injury to Chris Smalling has cost him his chance of a crack at the squad, but his Manchester United team mate could always cover at centre half if needs be.


In the full back spots, a lot of people can't understand why Micah Richards hasn't been included, but I believe it's fairly obvious. What people see of him, he bulldozes past defenders and is great going forward. It's the other end of the pitch where he struggles, and it seems incomprehensible for a lad of his size and with his pace that he'd get caught out. Mancini rarely plays Richards when they are likely to be under the cosh, opting instead for Zabaleta who takes less risks. In the same way Kyle Walker does at Spurs, neither are particularly good defensively and pace often gets them out of a hole, and if those teams do concede goals it's often because the right back has switched off. Johnson is going to play at right back, and even as a Liverpool fan I think this is our weakest area of the team. Phil Jones hasn't set the world on fire at United but he makes the squad because of his versatility and will cover at right back. 


If Leighton Baines was a right back he might get a go, but unfortunately he is behind one of the best, if not the best left-back in the world in (C)Ashley Cole. One of very few to come back from South Africa with any credit.


Midfielders

Theo Walcott

Stewart Downing has obviously, and right so been a highly criticised inclusion of Roy Hodgson's squad. Having no league goals, and no league assists is simply not good enough from a winger. However, he's not even going to get a look in, so don't get your knickers in a twist too much. He will be behind Walcott, Young, Oxlade-Chamberlain and James Milner in the wide positions. People have been talking about Adam Johnson not being included in the squad, but he has hardly played a game this year. 


If there is one thing defenders don't like its pace, and England have got Walcott, Young and Chamerbrlain to get at the full backs, with the potential they have. The only thing is, when they pull on an England shirt, they don't really seem to do it. Walcott needs to do something to stop people talking about his hatrick in Croatia which was too long ago. All three would have been in my squad, Downing wouldn't have been, but like I say, he won't get a look in I don't think. All three a relatively young and are all good inclusions, all will be available for the World Cup and need the tournament experience. 


Daniel Sturridge has been unlucky to miss out after having a decent season at Chelsea. I can only imagine England won't play in the same way Chelsea do and therefore couldn't find him a place out wide, or one of a top two, as that's not where he has played for Chelsea.


In the middle, Gerrard is obviously on Hodgson's team sheet in marker pen, baring injury. Who partners him in midfield will depend on Hodgson's preference. Gareth Barry obviously does something right because Liverpool chased him, and then City paid a lot of money to acquire his services from Villa. He is also on Mancini's team sheet every week. Equally Scott Parker has been a shoe-in for Spurs and has done a good job in the engine room. Lampard makes up the four central midfielders, but probably won't play, it's a years old theory that Gerrard and Lampard can't play together, and unless we play with 5 in the midfield, it will be Gerrard plus Barry or Parker. Whether Parker recovers from his injury may decide who makes the first XI against France. I'd play 4-4-2 personally.


Michael Carrick has missed out, and rightly so. Manchester United struggled to make incisive balls between defenders and that's partly down to Carrick, he gives the ball to someone else and isn't as good as Parker or Barry in the defensive role and has rightly missed out. He has the highest pass completion record in the Premiership, not hard when you pass the ball backwards or sideways 5 yards. 


Strikers

Andy Carroll

With Wayne Rooney missing for the first two games due to his petulance, the forward line looks thin on the ground while he is unavailable. Welbeck has had a decent season for United, and his inclusion may have been due to the way he works with Rooney, but when isolated up on his own, he isn't the same player. He doesn't seem like a natural partner for Andy Carroll either. Carroll has looked more like the player he was at Newcastle towards the back end of the season, but has been lucky to get in. People have talked about Grant Holt, but he's 31. Is that the future of English centre forwards, no. Could Carroll? Possibly. 


Jermaine Defoe has a great goal scoring record for England and is a great inclusion in my mind. Rooney likes to drop deep and get on the ball, whereas Defoe is the complete opposite. These two would be my starting pair when Rooney becomes available. Leaving Welbeck and Carroll on the sidelines, both of which could make an impact from the bench. 


Darren Bent was unlucky to miss out I'm told. But I'm not a fan. He had 9 league goals last season, a terrible return for a centre forward. He needs several chances to get himself on the scoresheet and isn't clinical enough for the international stage. He is another who isn't the future of English football and needs to be cast aside. For good.


Those are my opinions on the side, and what Hodgson is thinking is anyone's guess. What I will guarentee is that the press will build up England's chances only to shoot them down once they struggle. There is also good odds on someone embarrassing the country on the field, losing their rag and getting sent off, or something of that ilk. 


My starting XI would be: (4-4-2) Hart, Johnson, Cahill, Lescott, Cole, Walcott, Gerrard, Parker (if fit, Barry if not), Young, Welbeck (Rooney when available), Defoe.


What I think Hodgson will play: (4-5-1 or 4-3-3): Hart, Johnson, Terry, Cahill, Cole, Walcott, Parker Parker (if fit, Barry if not), Lampard, Young, Welbeck (Rooney when available). 


As I said at the start, nobody will ever agree on the starting XI never mind the squad, but that's the beauty of football, "its a game of opinions".

Long Live the King

As bookies stopped taking bets on Tuesday night about the future of Kenny Dalglish as Liverpool manager, he may as well have been clearing his desk at Melwood and Anfield. The bookmakers are seldom wrong about these things and everyone could see Dalglish wouldn't be the Liverpool manager much longer. On Wednesday the news finally came through that the club and Dalglish had 'parted company'. 

While Sky Sports reported he had been sacked, others claimed it was a mutual split. The most likely scenario is that Fenway Sports Group (FSG) asked Dalglish to step down as they wanted someone else in charge. Key to their success with the Boston Red Sox, they know how to work their PR department. They have garnered the support of the Anfield faithful and have been very keen not to damage that bond. They did the same with the Red Sox, rebuilding their current stadium at Fenway Park as the fans wanted, rather than moving to a new site. If they'd have 'sacked' Dalglish and headlines were 'Dalglish Sacked' or 'Dalglish Kops It' it would have riled a lot of Liverpool fans up the wrong way, unable to see why they have treated a club legend so badly. The mutual split means Dalglish and FSG walk away with their reputations in tact, and the educated Liverpool fan probably realises it could be for the best.


Dalglish has been a stop gap, and while there is a good argument for giving Dalglish another season, to gel the group of players that he has bought together and see another season of progress from them players, is a very valid point. We all know Fergie was one game away from supposedly getting the boot and look what has happened there. 

Dalglish has copped a lot of stick for his signings, of which this year they haven't produced the results you would have wanted. Stewart Downing has no goals or assists (in the league!), Henderson has looked like a League 1 player at time, while showing signs of promise at rare intervals, Carroll hasn't looked overly interested until the back end of the season, and looked a real handful when he did. Charlie Adam hasn't shown the form he did at Blackpool, and struggled with his fitness and the tough ask of being asked to be more disciplined than he had to be at Blackpool. 


From what I understand, Damien Comolli is the one responsible for paying the prices. Dalglish identified who he wanted, and Comolli was the one who was sent out to do the business. Much like Harry and Daniel Levy at Spurs. That's why Comolli was shown the door long before, why spend £20m on Henderson, when you could have van der Vaart for £8m. What a lot of people don't realise is that it wasn't Dalglish writing the cheques. 


That said, the league results are what Dalglish has to take responsibility for. He has done with the ultimate price. The inability to beat teams at home has been a real thorn in Liverpool's season, I'm pretty sure it is the worst record at Anfield, possibly ever, if not, in a very, very long time. The league season was as good as over when the Carling Cup was won, and the Europa League place never became a necessity. Throw in the FA Cup run and players were resting during the league games ready for the cup matches, leading to defeats at home to WBA and Fulham. 


I'm not making excuses for Kenny, he has looked out of touch with the game and some of his selections have been strange. Results and the league table don't lie, and it hasn't been a good league season for the reds, it's been painful to watch at times.


While I agree that we needed a change at the helm, FSG and Dalglish have done a more important job that is more of an intangible benefit. The Suarez saga was a prime example, right or wrong the club went for a unified approach. Something that was badly missing with Hicks and Gillett. The fans hated the board, the board hated the fans, and the players and manager(s) were lost somewhere in between. That is no more, Liverpool are no longer airing their dirty laundry out in public, going back to the 'old' Liverpool way. While the results haven't reflected the 'old' Liverpool, there is no change in the way you should conduct your business and   Dalgish has re-instilled that in the club. He's done his part, and now it's time to step aside.

Don't forget in one season, Dalglish has delivered a trophy and a FA Cup final appearance. Something others haven't done, despite Liverpool having a bad season. 


Who will be the man to take over? Roberto Martinez, Rafa Benitez and Andre Villas-Boas are all possible candidates, and only time will tell who gets the job. Whoever does take over, I don't think there will be open cheque-book this close season for them to exploit. 


Finally, this poor league placing wont affect how Kenny Dalglish is viewed by Liverpool fans, an easy target for the 'chelpers' considering his reputation, I'm sure his reputation before he took over in January 2011, will remain and this wont have any affect on how Dalglish is viewed. He will still be revered, will still have been an integral part in the success of the club, and will always be the King.

Social Media Police

As I articulated during my two-hour examination to end my university career, social media is changing the way the world works. To be fair, you don't need a degree to work that out, but just about everyone has a Facebook or Twitter account. 


A quote which I'd revised was something on the lines of:

"If someone had a bad experience in years gone by, they'd go home and tell ten people. Now if someone has a bad experience they can go home and tell thousands"

It couldn't be more true, and that's why businesses and sports teams are so conscious about what people (especially staff) are saying about them or others on these sites. Joey Barton has been in hot water for his tweeting, as has Ryan Babel and various other footballers. Similarly, some of the public have been arrested for things said on social media. So it's a touchy world, a world which doesn't really have any rules.

Barton during his spell at Newcastle

My personal gripe with this 'policing' of social media is that is it a personal page, for expressing views which that person holds. It's not really any different to speaking to a group of people in the street or discussing something in the pub with friends I don't think. Essentially if you are friends with someone on Facebook you are subscribing to what they say and are interested in what they've got to say. You may not agree, but you are a consumer of that view. Equally, if you follow Joey Barton on Twitter, you know what you are going to get. If you don't like what he has got to say, why are you following him? Follow someone you want to hear from.


So then why are we finding people getting fined/suspended for what they write on a personal site? It happens in companies where employees can get into trouble for posting something about the people they work for. What's the difference between them being annoyed about something their employees have done and a customer being unhappy with the service they have received? Both could go home and express their feelings online, but only one would end up in any trouble. 

What is even more crazy is that I'm told, according to guidelines, other people can be held accountable for something someone else has said, on their personal account. A club or captain could be held as partly responsible for something one of their players has said on a website, despite having nothing to do with it. As I mentioned before, these accounts are personal and individual and who is anyone to stop someone saying whatever they want, about whatever they want? Nevermind roping someone else in who has nothing to do with it.


As a captain of a side, there is no way I can police my team from expressing their views. If they want to say something on their personal site, then who am I to challenge that? Equally if I am meant to be responsible for this, how am I meant to actually enforce it? I can ask them not to say something but I can't be round everyone's house stopping them saying whatever they like can I? 


It is impossible to regulate what is said on personal sites and if you did, you'd be trying to stop free-speech essentially. From a companies point of view, if people are going home and slagging you off online, maybe you should take a look what you are doing as a business and try to correct what is wrong, and then people wont be able to go home and complain to 1,000's of people online. 


* This blog is no way intended to pick out any person/company/team/league body/etc but only to highlight the problems with policing social media, and the debate around free speech on personal sites. 

Where's the passion? (Not with the fans)

It's amazed me to see the lack of enthusiasm for the Olympic games in today's yougov poll which showed more than 50% of people weren't bothered about the Olympics being in our country this year. Half of the London population aren't interested either, the city of the games and it's only 100 days until it get underway.


Why is there such a lack of interest? Why do people not care that the one of the biggest sporting events in the world is coming to our country? I understand it's tough at the moment, people are unemployed etc and generally morale is fairly low, but shouldn't an event like this bring back some enthusiasm and passion to people? Other countries are in a mess too, but I'm sure they'd kill to have the Olympics in their country.


If nothing else, it might give us the first steps towards recovering from the recession, and even though billions have been spent on the games, no Olympics games has recorded a loss since Montreal in 1976. In 1984 Los Angeles made a profit of $225m, and that was in 1984! Added to that, it gives the UK a shop window to sell itself to tourists, holidaymakers and people from all over the world, who may be visiting for the games, or watching on TV. It's well known that tourism in Sydney and Barcelona, increased significantly in the years after their Olympic games.

Jack Rodwell in his GB shirt.

That will mean if anyone is to come out of this recession first, it could well be us. Jobs will be created in the future, there will be a profit made by the 2012 games, there will be affordable housing in part of London, and we get to see some of the world's greatest athletes on show. Tickets have been made affordable for certain events, and the sport I thought would be the most popular (football) still has tickets left for games.


We haven't been successful in bringing the World Cup to this country, yet we have the Olympics. But still people are negative about it. Get out of your head out of your glum arses and embrace it! You probably won't see the games again in this country, so don't be so negative. The Olympics covers so many different sports, there must be one sport in that lot that takes your fancy!? Surely!? I'm not saying go and buy a ticket, but be a bit more upbeat, watch it on the TV and if someone asks you if you are interested in the Olympics this year, then say yes! Even if your not interested in sport that much, you must realise that this can be a benefit to the country?


On a side note, the FA have confirmed today why they are killing the famous, enigmatic FA Cup. Years of tradition and history that has been embraced by fans up and down the country is being stripped away from the real fans. I understand money makes the game go round, and if switching the semi-finals to Wembley wasn't enough, the fact they are giving only 25,000 tickets each to Liverpool and Chelsea is a joke. That's 50,000 to the fans, tell me where the other 40,000 tickets are going? Almost half of the ground won't be filled with football fans. 

A familiar sight at Wembely, 50,000 tickets for none fans.

They may be making a quick buck now, but it will force the real fans away. The value to corporate sponsors won't be as high when the real fans walk away from the famous competition. Tickets start at £45 up to £115 for the cup final, and despite having attended every FA Cup game this season I am not guaranteed a ticket. I've done everything Liverpool wanted people to do to get a ticket for the final, but the measly allocation from the FA has meant that season ticket holders will get first crack (if they have the same games as me) and then the rest will enter a ballot. It's barmy, and as I say, people will lose the love for the FA Cup, and it will de-value the competition in the long run.


Yet another cock up from the FA!

Kenny's Rafalution

Dalglish's expression similar to many frustrated Liverpool fans.

Having finally calmed down from yesterday's embarrassing defeat to Wigan and throwing away a 2-0 lead at Loftus Road on Wednesday night, I took some time to consider what is going on at Liverpool FC. Before people start to level the 'do you actually go to the games?' question, I've been to plenty this year, and seen plenty more on TV. This is my dissection of Liverpool's season, which baring potentially two games in the FA Cup, is over.

When Liverpool last lifted the league title at the end of 1989/90 season, Wigan finished 3 points above the drop zone in Division 3 (League 1). They finished 18th, one place below Swansea, and two places above Fulham, who avoided the drop to Division 4 by 1 point. Bolton also played in the same division that year, finishing in the play-offs which were won by Notts County. Fulham, Wigan and Bolton have all beaten Liverpool this year, while The Swans took a very credible point from Anfield which could have easily been three. Furthermore, Liverpool's Carling Cup final opponents Cardiff City were relegated to Division 4 mustering 50 points from 46 games, yet took Liverpool all the way to penalties at Wembley. The same season Wigan played their first game in the Premier League, Liverpool lifted the Champions League trophy in Istanbul, you get what I'm trying to say.

My timeline on social media has seen an influx of people having a pop at Kenny Dalglish, and you can understand why considering the results. But there have been various reasons why Liverpool are languishing this season. When Dalglish took over the Anfield hot seat, the club was a wreck. The fans were angry with performances on the field, which were uninspiring and incredibly boring, there was a new ownership in place which had yet to settle down, and everyone was just getting over the Hick and Gillette fiasco. What the club needed was to get to settle down and get some structure back to what was a club without a trophy since 2006. The new owners said all the right things, and got the fans on board with what was going on. Fans wanted signings, and Dalglish was handed over £100m to build the team he wanted. Things looked optimistic in August, new signings and we were playing attractive football.

Charlie Adam hasn't looked great since his move.

The obvious criticism is the players Kenny has brought in, Henderson, Adam, Carroll, Downing (at times) have not been far from good enough to pull on the Liverpool shirt. Aquilani cost £20m and hasn't been given a chance, yet he looks like he can play the ball around in the same sort of way Xabi Alonso did. 

The stats show that Liverpool have one of, if not the worst conversion rate of chances created to goals. Which would suggest that scoring goals has been the problem, and Liverpool do have one of the lowest goal tallies among the top flight. However, look at the games we've drawn at home, Sunderland, Norwich, Blackburn, Man Utd and Man City. If you keep a clean sheet, you win 1-0. Given, you'd expect Utd or City to score, but should the other three teams be scoring at Anfield? If them three teams went to Old Trafford, you'd expect a clean sheet. Individual errors in the defensive third have been crucial to giving goals away, and that's not just the back four, it's the four in front of them too. People letting men run past them and into the box, not closing down the cross, not winning the ball in the air first time, the list could go on.

The loss of Lucas Leiva has also not helped the mistakes noted above. As shown against Man City, he does that job all the way across the midfield line, that Jay Spearing doesn't seem to have. Spearing works incredibly hard, but he doesn't get outside the width of the box as well as Lucas does. His positioning is slightly off in comparison with Lucas too, there has been gaping holes in front of the back four far too often this year. 

Add up the points you'd expect at home, and things might be looking a bit brighter in the quest for the 4th place. 2 points each against Sunderland, Swansea, Stoke, Norwich and Blackburn and 3 against Wigan, I make it 13 points. Add 13 points to what we've got now and it makes 55, the same as Spurs. That's without asking anything major, just beat the teams down the bottom at home, surely that should be nailed on?

Sterling: If his goal scoring is as prolific as his sperm, he's one to watch. (Two girls pregnant at 17, if you didn't know!)

While players have picked and chosen which games they were going to bother with this year, the Carling Cup run, and subsequent FA Cup run has seen players look uninterested, with half an eye on the up coming cup tie.  The fact Liverpool have won the Carling Cup, and got some silverware in the bag, is a good thing, something that was badly needed, and as Kenny keeps saying, an improvement on previous seasons. The fact he hasn't gone trophy-less after spending a lot of money will help him buy some time, papering over the poor league performances, for now. So realistically, this season is over. Surely it's time to bring in players Dalglish identified in the youth set up during his years there. Shelvey, Sterling, Adorjan, Ecclestone, Suso and Adam Morgan all look like good prospects, and might as well get a crack while there isn't much to play for in the Premiership. 

The Carling Cup has certainly bought King Kenny some time.

Let's get one thing straight here, I'm suggesting the following, and something that's open to debate, not my opinion, just a theoretical possibility! So, based on league performances, and without a Carling Cup which nobody else is too bothered about, Kenny would be looking straight down the barrel. hard to say for someone who is undoubtedly a club legend, and will remain so, but true. It's hard to imagine, after giving the club the club would the new owners sack King Kenny?  Surely that would rile the fans and turn the situation back to chaos, which reigned supreme when Hicks and Gillett had the club. Then we are back to square one again! 

So is it time for Kenny to say he's taken the club as far as he can, through the rebuilding stage, and leave the rest to someone else? Given the type of bloke he seems to be, personally I can't see him stepping down after just 18 months. He's spent a lot of money and I'm sure he'd want to prove himself right with those players. If he did step down, who would you bring in? Mourinho wouldn't leave Real for Liverpool, despite wanting to return to England, no Champions League football being a key factor. We've seen what happens with someone who may be a good coach but has no real persona (see Hodgeson) so who could you bring in? The fans would want someone who would continue the progress and has the right persona for LFC. 

One man has made it clear he wants to return to the Premier League, he also has the respect of LFC fans and players. His altercations with the previous ownership lead to his lack of belief which undoubtedly passed on to his players and affected performances. It also wouldn't rock the boat too much...Rafa anyone?

Rafa with Big Ears, looking very much like Nasser Hussain!