Bleacher Report - Articles by David Ward

Kenyon & Blatter Are Wrong: Champions League Ruins English Football

David Ward — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:02:43 -0400

Several months ago Sepp Blatter railed against the influx of foreign players which was ruining the English game, and proposed a “6+5” rule in response. Yesterday Peter Kenyon responded, "We don't support Blatter's plans and I don't think there is any appetite for it across Europe."

In that respect, he’s probably right. But Kenyon continued to pinpoint what he sees as the problem, “Other teams in England should be knocking on our door: teams like Tottenham, Newcastle, Villa, Everton. It's more about them getting their houses in order rather than us coming down to their level.”

But what is the real problem here? Is English football suffering because there are too many foreign players now? And is the league uncompetitive because the clubs immediately below the big four are run by incompetent administrators?

No, on both counts.

Lets deal with Blatter first. He claimed in June, “The best English players are coming from the less strong teams, which is weakening the English national team...the best teams are preparing the national team players for England's opponents.”

But if foreign players are truly to blame for the lack of success of the England team, why did England only win one World Cup in the years before 1995 when the Premier influx of foreign players began?

The progress of the national team in World Cups and European Championships in the years since 1995 has been barely different to that over the entire post war era. Graham Taylor failed to qualify for the World Cup in 1994 with a domestic league containing a much higher proportion of English players.

It has been advanced in favour of the plan that it would stop the big four buying up all the best foreign players, and bring about a level playing field. But this is rubbish. It would just artificially inflate the values of the better English players while the same clubs bought up a scarcer resource. Small clubs would be left in the same position, but with worse players than before.

The arguments simply don’t stand up to any scrutiny at all. And with the opposition of the EU Commission, the whole thing is academic anyway.

Even Culture Secretary Andy Burnham noted today that he would happily argue the case at the EU, but there isn’t much point when the Premier League doesn’t support the idea.

So what about Peter Kenyon’s claim that it’s the fault of the clubs playing catch up? Unfortunately the close season experience of the clubs he names shows this is a fallacy.

Tottenham and Villa are finding it difficult to hold on to the best players, while Newcastle can’t seem to convince anyone to join them—even if they had the money. Everton are having to sell Andrew Johnson to buy more players.

No. The real problem for English, and European, football is the Champions League.

As Kenyon also noted, "If you look across Europe, other major leagues are dominated by one, two, or three teams, so it's too easy to say this is a Premier League issue. What's important is the way we distribute our TV revenues.”

The top four clubs earned £13.9 million, £26 million, £26.4 million, and £28.9 million from Europe, respectively, last year. Fifth placed Tottenham earned £2 million.

Given the reasonably equitable (in football terms) collective bargaining system for domestic revenue in the Premier League, this is a huge distortion.

How can a consistently fifth placed team expect to compete with this disparity of funding? Equally, Peter Kenyon knows full well that it took Roman Abramovich’s injection of cash to propel Chelsea into a perennial top four status.

And even now they find it difficult to run the club on a normal business model.

Blatter can come up with all sorts of hair brained schemes to rectify the number of foreigners in the Premier League. But he has to ask himself why the players want to go to Premier League clubs in the first place.

The simple truth is that, since the reorganization of the European Cup to favour the top clubs in Europe, the best players will always gravitate towards them. British clubs have simply capitalised on this and the strength of its economy to attract investors able to propel them forward in this race between European giants.

Brian Clough once asked "Who thought Derby County could be turned into League Champions”. It was considered an achievement then. It would be impossible now.

Pattinson Not to Blame for English Cricket Shortcomings

David Ward — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:56:15 -0400

Among the hand-wringing and blame about the loss of the Headingley test, two comments from England’s captain and star player revealed more than many others.

“It wasn’t his fault,” consoled Michael Vaughan in response to clamour focussed on Darren Pattinson’s surprise inclusion in the side.

“I felt sorry for Patto,” Kevin Pietersen chipped in. “He didn’t bowl badly at all.”

Much ink has been spilt on this drama, and although Pattinson did not fare any better or worse than some of those whose names aren’t currently crossing the selectors desk, it seems likely he will be out of the frame for Birmingham.

But is it Pattinson whose selection has thrown the cat among the pidgeons? It seems difficult to level this charge when he was a straight replacement for another swing bowler.

What many have overlooked here is the problem Flintoff’s selection brings to the side. As good a player as he is, although mercurial, he doesn’t make enough runs to justify selection as a batsman or take enough wickets to be a strike bowler.

This puts pressure on the bowlers or the batsmen, sometimes both in the same test, to make up in an area where there is now one less out-and-out player.

Similarly with the perennial wicketkeeping debate. Ambrose is not a test match number six, and he makes England’s tail look woefully long in the event of a collapse.

Broad meanwhile isn’t enough wickets, and is threatened with the axe—despite averaging 40 in test cricket.

But with a re-examination of priorities, especially with the batting order, many of these problems could be put behind England.

Unfortunately there is no ready batsmen to come into the side and bolster the batting. Dropping Vaughan for Shah can’t work and, despite Bell's inconsistency, Ramprakash’s eternity to get his hundred centuries shows what pressure does to him.

So the top five should remain broadly similar, although Pietersen should be good enough to bat at three as Ponting does for Australia.

If fit, Sidebottom should play in Birmingham to offer accuracy and variation, while Anderson can be England’s swing bowler. Panesar as spinner is still an automatic selection despite the need to learn more variation in pace and deliveries.

But England should use Flintoff and Broad to plug gaps rather than create them. Broad should use his current form as a sign to move up the order to six, and bowl less. Bowling less overs will also let him reach that 90 mph mark more often, with the steepling bounce other Englandseamers currently lack.

Flintoff should bat seven, and be used as a rotation bowler later in the innings when the ball reverses to frustrate batsmen and maybe get a break through. He has never taken huge hauls, but he can get crucial wickets.

Rejigging the order gives England a more stable batting lineup, but provides enough bowlers to take wickets and prevent Broad and Flintoff being overbowled.

But with a week of storms predicted the one thing England need to do this time is win the toss for once!

This article’s England line up (in order of batting): Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Vaughan, Bell, Broad, Flintoff, Ambrose, Anderson, Sidebottom, Panesar

England can beat South Africa, if they locate the off stump

David Ward — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:54:21 -0400

Much hilarity was to be had at the author’s expense just after the lunchtime session on Friday when James Anderson picked up Neil Mackenzie swinging at a wide one, directly after yours truly had confidently stated “He’ll never get him out bowling it there.”

But so much of cricket is about doing the basics right. The old adage about Glenn Mcgrath’s success was his natural line and length was to hit the top of off stump. And it is off stump that is England’s problem.

Do they even know where it is?

As Duncan Fletcher (whose stock seems to be rising by the day) noted in the Guardian on Monday, “Bowlers can be tempted into thinking that when a batsman plays and misses he is bowling the right line. But often he is bowling just too wide for the batsman to hit it.”

South Africa’s batting at Lords and in their more difficult sessions at Headingley were superb examples of batting. But Smith & Mackenzie, and de Villiers & Prince, were able to grind out such long innings waiting for the bad balls because so many of the deliveries they faced were not wicket taking balls.

If bowlers do not force the batsmen to play a shot, there is little chance of getting him out other than a moment of madness.

One of the features of modern television cricket coverage is the endless search for new graphics. But the analysis of where South Africa’s deliveries reached the batsmen makes an interesting comparison with England.

Irrespective of the yard of pace advantage, and late swing they can impart, South Africa’s bowlers bowled almost entirely at a nagging line and length just on and outside off stump. Even the best batsmen struggle with deliveries in what Geoffrey Boycott would call "the corridor of uncertainty." And when this is combined with pace and late movement, it can be lethal.

But it isn’t just England’s bowlers who need to programme their Tom Tom. Their batsmen proved themselves wholly incapable of knowing where their off stump is.

At Headingley a brief look at the scorecard reveals a large number of "c Smith/Boucher"—edges to slip or keeper. Strauss edged outside the off stump in both innings, while Flintoff played two drives on the back foot he couldn’t control.

Despite his red bull fuelled shot frenzy in the previous four balls, in his second innings Pietersen was out in his fifth delivery with an unsure defensive prod outside off stump.

Batting at any level, but especially at the highest, is about the certainty of being in line created by good footwork and reading the trajectory of the ball. The sad reality is that England at present could never bat for two days, as South Africa did, on any surface.

Which England batsmen would you pick to repeat Mackenzie’s nine hour vigil at the crease?

All this brings questions about the coaching of Moores. Leaving aside series won or lost, which players have actually improved during the last year? Anderson, possibly, but there can’t be many more.

Indeed there are worry signs that some may be going backwards. And the reported rift with Vaughan (still England’s best captain, and a good player out of touch), is another worry.

So can England win at least one of the next two tests? No one is pretending this it will be easy, but then nobody expected South Africa to be a walk over. England have talented players, especially in the bowling department, and once Sidebottom returns they will be even stronger.

But they need to rediscover the basics. Bowlers need to make the South Africans play, and miss, while batsmen have to get in line and choose their shots more carefully.

Cricket is so often a game of rhythm and confidence, and once you start doing the basics right again everything slots into place.

If they play with confidence and intelligence they can get back into this series.

Cristiano Ronaldo Will Stay At United For Now, But Who Wins In This Saga?

David Ward — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:00:01 -0400

For what its worth I think Ronaldo will stay at United for now. His provocative statements and demands to be allowed to leave the club have dried up in recent weeks.

It is also hard to believe an operator as shrewd as Ferguson would allow himself to be quoted as expecting the player to stay, were he not certain of this outcome. The potential for embarrassment would be huge.

United do not seem to have stepped up the search for a striker either, which given the expected departure of Louis Saha would be remiss should they expect Ronaldo to leave. The Berbatov deal appears to be stalling, despite reported confidence from the United boardroom.

Despite the modern wisdom that players can force their employers hand by demanding a move, and thereby reducing their potential value, Ronaldo has so far found himself unable to do so. A sign which must be reassuring for fans of any club nervously eyeing their star player, despite Sepp Blatter’s concern for the human rights of Premier League footballers.

Perhaps the biggest irony is that, despite the protests accompanying their arrival, the club has been able to resist the siren call of Madrid’s millions because of its private ownership under the Glazers. Imagine Sir Alex Ferguson and David Gill announcing to a packed room of shareholders their intention to allow the clubs most valuable asset to “rot in the reserves.” I’d like to be a fly on the wall for that meeting.

But one thing the last few months have emphasised is that Ronaldo’s long term future lies outside Old Trafford. It has been obvious for at least two seasons that this would be the case.

Ronaldo is different to, say Rooney, who grew up in North West England and sees himself at the biggest club he can play for. Growing up in Portugal, it was the white shirt of Real Madrid he dreamed of playing in—not the red shirt of United. And surely there is nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps the biggest reason he is unlikely to last more than one more season has been the reaction of United fans to the saga. This is entirely different from the situation after Euro 2004.

Many of United’s faithful have an antipathy to the England team. His actions in the match against England, and the subsequent press hysteria, did nothing to dampen United fans’ enthusiasm to see him return. Recently the mood on the message boards, and in the pubs, has been one of anger that one player thinks himself above the club.

All of this begs the question whether the biggest loser out of all of this might be Ronaldo himself. Aside from the protracted saga hardly covering him in glory, few players leave Manchester United to go onto bigger success.

Ruud van Nistelrooy being perhaps the only recent exception. Once his form begins to slide, or injuries bite, will managers be as keen to sign a player who has shown himself to be such a disloyal and disruptive influence?

Cristiano Ronaldo would be unwise to adopt the attitude of moving clubs his Brazilian namesake took. The initial similarities are quite striking. At Barcelonain 96/7, Ronaldo scored 47 goals in 49 appearances—including 30 league goals and a goal in the European Cup Winners Cup final.

The next year he went to Inter Milan, where he helped spur them onto the Uefa Cup in 98, before feeling his knee buckle in 99. His comeback match in 2000 lasted only seven minutes.

On the back of a World Cup victory and winning World Player of the Year in 2002, he signed for Real Madrid for 39 million euros in the close season. But despite threatening to regain his previous form in some good performances, injuries and lifestyle conspired against him. Nowhere is this more apparent than the 7.5 million euro value applied to his transfer to AC Milan in 2007.

For now Cristiano can bask in the glory of being the only Ronaldo. But he would do well to remember when he was the junior of two, and how quickly things can change.