Chicken Kievs, Spag Bol and leftover Korma

When it had been a while since the last big supermarket shop, and we were only left with odds and ends of various assorted food stuffs in the cupboards, we'd often get a dinner which my Mum would describe as a 'mish-mash'. Sometimes this heralded a feast of epic proportions, dining tapas style on a selection of varied tastes, each more delectable than the last. Other times you were forced to eat the crappy food that was last in the cupboard for a very good reason. This column is what I'd call a mish-mash...hopefully of the good tapas kind. Now, my friends, eat...

Chelsea have appointed their new manager and have gone down the tried and tested 'pick the young good looking guy from Porto who just won something in Europe' route. Andre Villas Boas is younger than some of Chelsea's key veteran players and is clearly going to face a challenge to impose himself and his views on a squad with seemingly over-inflated ego's and a somewhat entrenched mindset. It won't be easy, but I think it could well prove to be a sensible and shrewd appointment by Abramovich and co. The key factor for me is for Roman and his trigger happy cohorts to decide right from the get-go that AVB (yeh you know me) is his man for the next few years no matter what.

Chelsea have tasted significant success in recent years, but every permanent manager there has had to deal with interference from on high in some capacity. It's fair enough and understandable - it's his toy, he bought it, and he is well entitled to run it whichever way he bloody well likes. I believe that he has perhaps come to realise that hiring and firing is not the route to sustainable, dynasty building type success - for real and continual success to be delivered to a club I think continuity is a decisive factor. By picking a young promising manager and then stepping aside to leave it all up to him - even if he makes some big calls that you might not agree with - that could well be the missing piece that has kept Chelsea back from true domination.

Whether he turns out to be more Andre the Giant or Andre the Seal could depend on the quality of players that he brings in - as mentioned above, many of Chelsea's senior players are getting on now and will need to be replaced or at least supported by some new younger recruits over the next year or so. One superstar that is linked in the tabloids is latest Brazilian striking sensation, the mohican-sporting Neymar of Santos.

19 year old Neymar will be leading the line for Brazil in the Copa America which starts tomorrow - a competition which I've always tended to get quite into, partly as it doesn't usually have any weak teams in it. There is often a high technical standard of play, plus of course there tends to be a healthy helping of aggro as well which always livens up a game between two teams you are not too familiar with. Lack of familiarity won't be a problem when watching a lot of these games though, all of the biggest stars are turning out including Leo and Carlitos for the hosts. Argentina must surely go into the tournament as favourites at home - their striking options are phenomenal and, as a slight digression, make a mockery of FIFA's latest ranking which puts England in fourth. Fourth! Whatevs, that is like totes ridic. Anyway...if you get a chance to watch any of the Copa America then do it, tell 'em I sent you, you won't regret it. I'll be watching to see first hand what Neymar can do, and also hope to see Messi deliver for Argentina some of his Barca Brilliance to strengthen the ever growing legend.

The other big footballing event this Summer is the Women's World Cup in Germany. The hosts are also favourites in this one, having won the last two tournaments, and when you consider that their opening game was watched by over 70'000 fans you have to expect they will do well. Clearly this branch of the sport is growing rapidly in terms of stature and interest. I've watched a few games in the past, and I won't say I've enjoyed them all, but there have definitely been some times that you can easily get just as engrossed as in any match between two teams without the lovely lady lumps, (check it out). I think the sexism thing needs to be cast aside - it is not right to talk about whether a female player is fit since it is constantly used as a way to disparage girls that they know nothing about football 'cos they think David Beckham has nice legs (he does); so it would be hypocritical to judge female players on their looks. Like I say I've seen a few games and at times the technique, vision, ferocity is all genuinely impressive. This is a fact though...the goalkeepers are shite.

Speaking of D-Beck, and drawing this hodge podge mish mash of a meal to a close nicely, today marks the anniversary of arguably his lowest point - the sending off against Argentina. Beckham was goaded by Diego Simeone, who presumably to this day lives in a castle atop a spooky cliff, sits in a big chair stroking a cat, wears a cape and does all manner of typical bad guy things. He petulantly lashed out a leg, bringing Diego crashing to the ground and, with the potentially harsh red card that followed, bringing England's hopes of progression crashing out too. The backlash and vitriol that followed was clearly over the top, but perhaps helped to shape Beckham into the player he became. Think about it - the freekick against Greece was all the more impactful given the full circle style journey that England's then captain had been on in those three years - and the penalty in Sapporo that sunk Argentina, Simeone and all, would have had none of the redemptive electricity that made it such a stand-out moment in the Three Lions' recent history. Furthermore there is no way Beckham's sending off did any more than accelerate our exit from that tournament by one round - we would have been destroyed by Bergkamp's brilliant Oranje just a few days later. What a tournament that was, France 98, and it was going on 13 years ago today. I'm getting old.

Now, what do you want for pudding...there's half an apricot yoghurt, some angel delight or some broken biscuits?

Child's Play

Following England’s rather dismal U21 European Championship performance, if you can call it that, there has been an interesting debate developing in the mailbox of the ever-excellent Football365.

Sparked by the all too familiar technical shortcomings that were evidenced by Stuart Pearce’s young side, many in the mailbox have been suggesting problems that lie right at the very root of football in England. Getting straight to the point, what the debate centres on is why we don’t produce any technical players at the highest level.

The hypothesis goes like so: In England, we play competitive football from a very young age, so results 'matter' even when you are about 6. We play on huge pitches, which require strength (to kick the ball far) and speed (to run around in the vast acres of space). Therefore, coaches favour the kids who shoot up first (in height I mean, not premature smackheads), who are bigger, stronger and therefore at a younger age able to bully their way past smaller peers and score goals, win matches and make life worth living.

The sensitive aspect which has lent this particular debate it’s spice and passion was with the accusation that all coaches of English kids teams are, in no particular order: chavs, failed footballers, living vicariously through their kids, angry, ignorant, only doing it to pick their own son, and so on. This (rightfully in my opinion) raised the ire of many blokes who wrote in to defend their kind, displaying a justifiable indignation about being stereotyped with these negative connotations. Fair play to them as well; there is no way anyone should consider it an easy job or disparage all of those who do it. It’s largely thankless, causes no end of difficulty and grief in terms of having to drop or leave out well-meaning kids, it costs you your Sunday morning plus one night a week – so I think by and large those people in England who do run amateur kids teams should be given fair credit.

That being said, there are a lot of the bad coaches out there. If you’ve ever been to an English football club or playing fields on a Sunday morning, with multiple games being played, you’ll doubtless have encountered the negative stereotype once or twice – the guy screaming at an 8 year old who lost the ball, or squaring up to a referee for an offside call in an u11’s match, or apparently oblivious to the fact that perhaps F and C bombs aren’t the nicest of language to expose your girls u7 team to.

For me part of the solution lies in making coaching qualifications more accessible. It’s an oft-quoted statistic that the UK has something in the region of 20% (if that) the number of registered qualified coaches when compared to the likes of Spain, France, Germany or Portugal. I’ve looked into registering for it myself – I’ve had to manage a few football teams form time to time and will without doubt run an amateur team when I return to England some day – and it is not cheap. Nor is it particularly accommodating, so you need to stump up a fair bit of cash and arrange for time off work in most cases, two fairly significant hurdles that I’m not surprised have a deterring effect.

If more people in the UK had access to FA run, affordable, convenient coaching courses, there would be a greater proportion of coaches out there with a bit of credible knowledge and official education. This would give them the tools with which to adapt their coaching strategy - having a greater appreciation for the technical abilities of their players and the strategic side to the game.

Secondly, a reform is clearly needed in the way we make kids play football. As mentioned above, from a ridiculously young age, all emphasis is put on winning. I don't happen to necessarily subscribe to the notion of not keeping score or things like that, but when kids do start playing in matches, let's tone down the life-or-death element. Clearly it's more fun to win, and most people who play competitive sport will naturally have that edge within them that wants to win...but if all managers, coaches, parents adopt the same approach and make it more about playing good football than winning at all costs, that mentality would filter down to the kids. Start it later - let them spend the first few years working on their touch, skill, ability to look up, and feeling comfortable with the ball before you throw them into actual matches.

My vested interest in this particular debate comes from personal experience. Throughout youth football, I was never the tallest or strongest player. What I did have, if I may say so, was a decent touch, a bit of Le Tissier inspired skill, but above all an understanding of the game. It used to drive me mad to see fat cloggers getting picked ahead of me, because they could smash into a tackle and kick the ball far, but they could read a game about as well as they could read a book (sorry, generalising there, calm). I still play football, and love it, and will until my body completely packs up hopefully many years from now. But I know for a fact there are many players like myself who, frustrated at never getting the chance their talent deserved, held back by physical limitations that should not matter and can easily be overcome, turned their back on football in early teens and have now not played for years.

The fact that 3 of the best three players in the world right now are tiny, and that the best team (Spain/Barcelona...same thing) play tiki-taka genius football is surely evidence enough for the FA to make some changes. It won't happen straight away, but subtle changes should hopefully pave the way for future skillful midgets to be properly appreciated. Like I wasn't. Bastards.

What a State

Over here in Australia, and in New South Wales in particular, the most popular sport in Winter is Rugby League. Victorians go nuts for the Aussie Rules, while no-one knows what the hell they’re up to out West or in the Northern Territories. For Queensland and NSW however, and Sydney in particular, League is King. Sydney is home to the majority of the teams in the NRL – where I live in Manly we have a team, the Sea Eagles. It’s quite unique for me to support a team that seems to be quite decent, although universally hated. Even club rugby, whilst passionately followed, takes a back seat at this time of the year however, for the annual State of Origin series.

For the uninitiated, the State of Origin is a 3 game series played every Winter, between Queensland and New South Wales. Club allegiances are irrelevant, players can be selected by either state provided that is where they played their first senior rugby league. This week saw Game 2, in which the NSW Blues tied the series 1-1 with an impressive win over the dominant Maroons, who have won the past 5 series in a record breaking spell of supremacy. The atmosphere at Origin is excellent, last night in Sydney’s Olympic Stadium 82’000 fans created an impressive wall of colour and sound which went a long way to motivating the Blues to level things up.

The format is excellent and people over here really go nuts for it, and I’ve found it impossible not to get swept up in it all. It got me thinking about whether this would work in football.

Obviously international football basically does this already – and for years this was always seen as the pinnacle of the game. It probably still is, certainly there is no bigger event than the World Cup; but the Champions League has become I’d say by far the highest standard of football. Latter stages of the Champions League generally tend to showcase the best players and teams in the World – Barcelona or Manchester United would do very well indeed in international football without a doubt.

So, countries are already taken care of...maybe counties? Counties in England are too small, and too many, to make this a viable method. There really is only one sensible way to create an English ‘State of Origin’...classic, good old, North v South.

Gritty jobless alcoholic hard men vs poncy stuck-up shandy drinking rah-rahs.

The rolling hills and dales of the Lakes vs the hustle and bustle of the Square Mile.

Working class v Middle class.

Whatever images it conjures up, I reckon it would be a format that could really generate a lot of interest. Of course this is never going to happen - with the money involved, managers will not want their prize assets going off for an exhibition match like this which could risk injury etc - witness the tug of war that often arises when international weeks roll around. Ignoring that, let's pretend for a minute that this format actually went ahead...who would play? The criteria for selection is where you first played football, and I'll draw the line just above Leicester - Ashby-de-la-Zouch to be precise. So Birmingham based players are eligible for the South, anyone above that plays for the North. Based on the most recent England squads, here's my first stab at an eleven for the Northern Monkeys and the Southern Fairies:

Monkeys (4-4-2):

GK: J Hart

RB: M Richards

CB: G Cahill

CB: P Jagielka

LB: L Baines

RW: A Lennon

CM: S Gerrard

CM: J Henderson

LW: S Downing

ST: W Rooney

ST: A Carroll

Fairies (4-1-3-2):

GK: R Green

RB: G Johnson

CB: R Ferdinand

CB: J Terry

LB: A Cole

DM: S Parker

AM: J Wilshere

AM: F Lampard

AM: A Young

ST: T Walcott

ST: D Bent

Both teams look strong - The South probably have more experience in defence but they'll need that facing the attacking Monkeys led by Rooney and Carroll. The South have set Scott Parker up as a defensive screen, to allow the dynamism and pace of Wilshere, Young and Walcott free rein, with Lampard able to arrive late and Bent leading the line. This side do lack in width somewhat, so they would need Johnson and Cole to overlap on the wings as much as possible. This would free up space for the touchline hugging wingers of the North, and Andy Carroll would be happy about that. North wins the battle of keepers, Rob Green has never been the same since the trauma of Rustenburg, whilst Hart looks set to be the number 1 for England for many years.

All in all, I can't call it, but being a Fairy myself I'll plump for their attackers to be too much for a youthful Monkey back line which lacks protection from it's all action midfield. I think it would be a brilliant experiment for the Premier League to try, guarantee that it would get people interested and stoke up the classic rivalry. It might even be a good thing for players to put club issues aside and unite behind a single cause, one which is not burdened with the pressure of international competition or the memory of years of failure - two weights that hang so heavily on the Three Lions. So what do you think? Who would you select? Who would win? And most importantly, what are you:

Monkey or Fairy?

I'm talkin bout money money

For the last 8 months, I've played at working in the finance industry. It being entirely new to me, I've been doing the right thing and trying to learn the ins and outs of this foreign world.

I rented both Wall Street and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (half-decent and crap respectively); inspired I threw out my belts in favour of red braces, and bought a giant brick of a mobile phone. I slick my hair back now and I pretend to pay attention to the financial press by hiding my copy of FourFourTwo or WomensWeekly behind an oversized Financial Review.

With this new found cashmoney devotion of mine it was with interest (pun intended) that I turned to an article sent to me from the Financial Times, from a friend with far greater intellect and financial understanding than me. The article is entitled 'Crunch time for football clubs as costs grow' and concerns the latest annual football finance review from Deloitte.

It should come as no surprise to anyone reading this that wages in the Premier League are on the up. Manchester City have singlehandedly contributed to this no end end - Yaya Toure makes even Gordon Gekko look small-fry. Obviously a mitigating factor to even those clubs without billionaire benefactors is the increased revenue that Premier League clubs are earning from the improved television rights package - however despite this increase in income that amounts to £6m per club, Deloitte estimates that wages have risen and will continue to rise at a rate of around 10% per year.

This paints a pretty bleak picture - not every club can bring in the money that United and Arsenal in particular do; not every club has an owner that can provide the money that Messrs Abramovich and Mansour have proven themselves willing to part with. How are the lesser lights of the Premier League supposed to cope with this increasingly unrealistic expectation of wages to turnover ratio?

Even to my feeble financial mind it is clear that if a business is costing more money to run that it is able to generate, things cannot end well. Football is surely not immune - Portsmouth proved that even Premier League clubs are not invincible - although the fact that they got off so lightly (in my biased opinion) perhaps indicates why football clubs are willing to keep up with the Jones' even when the Jones' make a crazy amount more than you do. Worst case scenario, drop down to the Championship for a year or two, pay off your non-football creditors to the tune of a penny in the pound if at all, and regroup to get back on the gravy train.

The Championship, dwelling ground of Portsmouth and many other clubs who have known the feeling of kicking it up in the promised land, is the ill-fated arena for the financial armageddon, that I believe the current spending trends will surely result in.

Deloitte's report highlighted two pertinent facts regarding the finances of Championship clubs. One: wages now make up on average 88% of revenue. Eighty-eight percent. That is ludicrous. For every £100 that a club takes in, say, a family of four going to a match, £88 of it goes straight into the pockets of their players. Scary.

Two: From the 2012/13 season, the income for Championship clubs from TV revenue will drop by 25%. So they will be earning less money than they currently do, meaning the ratio will increase further.

The knock-on of this is likely to be increased ticket prices for fans, which at Championship level does not hold the same vicelike grip as the upper echelon Premier League clubs have over their own faithful. Clubs will turn fans off and see them spending their time and money elsewhere, further damaging the revenue stream. The 'product' is not as high quality so people have less qualms about giving it a miss. So what can they do?

Recently, Sralun Sugar had a crack at solving the financial state of football in a BBC documentary in which he came up with basically nothing new. I was a bit disappointed in that show, hoping to gain some unique insight from a clearly knowledgeable businessman, but it did not really dish up anything other than was obvious. There was one indisputable fact presented in the show that I had to agree with though.

The way football clubs are currently run in England is not going to work. This cannot go on without some serious casualties, maybe it will take a mega club to disappear before all clubs realize, we simply can't pay these wages. Perhaps we need to take the hit for a few years, allow the players to go abroad in search of the biggest pay packets - who knows it might even improve the development of our young domestic talent.

If football in England does implode and eat itself, and a few giants collapse, it may not be the worst thing to ever happen. The way things are going, can it even be avoided?

Paul and the Plastic Trumpets

You've heard of 'rose-tinted spectacles'. It's a phrase that is used to refer to the way that, with the passing of time and the effect of nostalgia, looking back on times gone by is done in such a way that glorifies the particular memory.

I'm sure you are just like me, there are plenty of times in your life that you look back on as being particularly brilliant, which at the time you were perhaps not so mad on. Asked now about my exchange trips to Germany, I've caught myself talking about how fun they were, how much I learnt, how much I enjoyed Germany and meeting German people, would love the opportunity again, etc etc. At the time, dear me, I freaking well hated it. Lonely, difficult, harsh, unfamiliar and generally not what I wanted to be doing. Nostalgia kicks in and you think how good it was.

The reason I mention this, is because I realised recently that it does not always happen that way. Exactly one year ago today I set off on the trip of a lifetime, to Cape Town, South Africa for the World Cup. We had tickets to 5 games, we had various activities planned, and we were going to be there.

Now, don't get me wrong.

I had an absolutely fantastic trip, and many experiences that I will never ever forget. The atmosphere was incredible and the sheer thrill of actually being there was something I will always be grateful for and would recommend to anyone perhaps contemplating it. Do it.

But, here's the thing. With hindsight, and even to be fair at the time, one thing for me is sadly and undeniably true:

That was not a very good World Cup.

France 98, Japorea 02, for me both classic tournaments full of thrilling drama and breathtaking spectacle. SA2010 was sorely lacking in all of this.

I've tried to think about precisely why that was, and here is my list of things that ruined it:

• A weak host nation team. No-one can doubt the enthusiasm of the Bafana fans, but their team were sadly out of their depth and departed all too early, leaving the tournament without that crucial presence and engagement from those at home.
• No superstar. The big name players by and large played below their best - Messi, and Ronaldo never shone like they can, but were not huge flops - Rooney, Ribery, Torres and countless others failed to make much of an impression. Even the Spaniards who topped most player of the tournament lists were not at their imperious Barca best. If the tournament had one outstanding superstar that might have made it more memorable perhaps - Real (very fat now) Ronaldo in 02 for example defines that tournament with the level he was playing at then. The star of 2010 was a psychic octopus.
• The tactical approach of most sides. So many games were incredibly cagey and guarded, no-one (Germany aside) seemed to let loose and let the scoring of goals be their main objective. Unfortunately that made for many dour and frustrating games.
• Season. Think of a World Cup, you think of stadiums bathed in sunshine, fans packing city squares and enjoying the great weather, sitting outside in front of giant screens, barbeques, beer gardens, and so on. This tournament was played in winter which had the effect of most people attending the games being wrapped up in warm winter coats, removing colour from the stadiums, and it just does not look as good.
• This is obviously a subjective one, and apologies to anyone who does not share the allegiance (an allegiance which I might add is currently flimsy due to this very reason)...England were atrocious. A bright opening spell against USA. A decent half against Slovenia. 15 good minutes against Germany. Thanks for coming, losers. It adds so much to a tournament from a selfish point of view when England do well, and last summer they did nothing well. It still hurts.
• Finally, and this played more of a part than you might initially think...that god-damn vuvuzela. From first hand experience I can absolutely vouch for this - the vuvuzela destroys the atmosphere at a football match. At England Algeria, the massed hordes of England fans did their level best to get chants and songs going, only to be drowned out every time by that swarm of bees that by the end of the trip had us viewing anyone with a vuvuzela with murderous intent. Good riddance to it.

So there you have it. Harsh? Unfair? It's taken a year for this view to fully form, I know at the time I wrote much about the tournament as it was progressing and did mention the cagey approach, but it was always with a sense of denial - it'll get better, it's actually not that bad...so maybe my rose-tinted spectacles are just working the wrong way round?

Let me know what you think, and I'll see you in Brazil...

(Gina wants me to stick a question mark on that end sentence there. We'll see, we'll see...)

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy" (Plato)

The first thing I thought about all this FIFA stuff was: I’m not touching that with a barge pole.

I don’t have any delusions of grandeur about this blog, I know it is not reaching out to an audience of millions (yet) – but at the same time, when legal proceedings and allegations roll around, there is always the peril for the blogger of getting held to account for what you write. Plenty of people have been pulled up for things they wrote innocently in the spirit of free speech, only to find they have stepped over the line and that blue-haired bespectacled lawyer from The Simpsons is paying them a visit.

But in all clear conscience where would I be if I failed to write what I truly thought?

The fact that Sepp Blatter got cleared of the allegations against him personally, winning an unopposed election by a landslide; and then came out with that bizarre, deluded press conference, just further exacerbates my impression of him. He resembles (in my opinion) a slippery, slimy little eel who is motivated purely by self-interest. He’s sat at the top of the untouchable FIFA tree for far, far too long, and yet again has strolled through another election unopposed.

As the leader of an organisation, it is your job to know about things that go on. OK, the head of a company can’t tell what every single employee does on a daily basis, but endemic corruption throughout an Executive Committee? Sorry Sepp, that’s your problem mate. Actually, remove the mate, I despise that man and what he represents.
His notion that 'FIFA is football' is so self-absorbed and deluded that it makes my blood boil. Football is a lot more than the money grabbing, underhand, tax-exempt, unaccountable gravy train that FIFA has now become.

This may sound futile, but one of the first reasons I started to dislike Blatter was his presence in World Cup Finals. When you are presenting the trophy, nobody, literally not one person anywhere, has any interest in you being there. It’s not your trophy to present. GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. Last year when Spain captain Iker Casillas lifted the trophy, Blatter and Jacob Zuma were falling over themselves to get in the shot. That in itself speaks of the role he believes he plays in the whole thing.

OK, rant over, this is getting us nowhere – the inconvenient truths are these:

One, FIFA in it’s current state has no compelling reason to change. The people involved are on to a winner, so why rock the boat.

Two, the reach and influence they have over football is so strong that everyone pretty much will continue to go along with it. If you’re not in you’re out and out means no money, no profile, no chance. Just look at the comments after David Bernstein spoke out in front of his fellow FIFA members, delegates from the esteemed likes of Benin and Cyprus were falling over themselves to criticise England and be seen to stand by Jabba. They need to be in FIFA and they need to be in the good books of the dictator, sorry 'elected leader'.

Three, the main reason the FA and English media, and (yes, accepted), me personally, have decided to rail so much against this obviously corrupt joke of a governing body is that the decision for WC 2018 did not go our way. It’s funny what you’ll turn a blind eye to if you get your own way.

It’s a shame to admit it but it’s true, if England had won that (as we now know) farce of a bidding process, would the voices of discontent ring so loud? We've got our own problems closer to home to, but there might be a glimmer of hope. Blatter has spoken already of the need to improve FIFA, and a possible reform to the World Cup election system, but that is not the source of the hope. 15 other member nations decided not to vote for him...if he is the only choice, we vote for no-one. Find out who they are, build on the movement, and who knows.

Right, in closing, anything in the above that casts unfair aspersions on people is either a) my own personal opinion or b) pure speculation and allegation, or c) I was only joking and didn't mean it, please don't close my site Mr Fifa Man, Sir. Nothing there that I want to get in legal trouble for. Phew.