Edin Dzeko - A Striker Worthy Of The Hype

Today was my first day of full-time work, and I am absolutely knackered. Many of my readers have suggested that the blog is fantastic because I had so much spare time to focus on it, and once I started working new material wouldn’t be able to be published as frequently. Taking this into account, even though I would much rather put my feet up and lay in bed right now, I am making a superhuman effort to keep my readers happy. I hope this piece is as good as the previous ones I have been able to post.

Being a massive Liverpool FC fan, the little criticism I have received about the blog (dearly appreciated by the way) is related to my sole focus on matters relating to the Anfield Club. Therefore, this piece is going to be based on and take a closer look at the latest Manchester City Signing, Edin Dzeko.

Player Name: Edin Dzeko

Age: 24

Place of Birth: Sarajevo

Club: Manchester City

Height: 6’ 3” (1.91m)

Nationality: Bosnia & Herzegovina

Position: Forward/Striker

It may be a surprise to few, but Dzeko actually began his football career playing in midfield. Unsurprisingly, his height and at the time poor technical ability didn’t bring him much success in the role. A player who has previously stated AC Milan and Andriy Shevchenko being his favourite club and player (unconfirmed), was on the radar for many top European clubs. In the end, it was the Eastlands club who prized him away from Wolfsburg for a fee of £27m, on a four-and-a-half year deal. Edin Dzeko was born in Sarajevo, and faced a very traumatic childhood, unordinary for any modern day top-level footballer I know. He was brought up in a war surrounded environment. When he was the age of 6, his home was destroyed, forcing him and his relatives (about fifteen of them) to live in a small house with his grandparents. Many of his admirers have suggested this upbringing provided with him a mental toughness that is one of his greatest attributes. "I was very afraid every day," Dzeko has said of his upbringing. "We were always having to hide when shots rang out or bombs fell. You could get shot at any time. I cried a lot in those days. "A lot of footballers start by kicking a ball in the street. For me, that was impossible."

Edin Dzeko possesses very good statistics for a front man since joining Wolfsburg in 2007.

2007/2008 – Wolfsburg

Games 28(11) Goals 8 Assists 6

2008/2009 – Wolfsburg

Games 33(3) Goals 30 Assists 6

2009/2010 – Wolfsburg

Games 42(1) Goals 28 Assists 9

2010/2011 – Wolfsburg/Man City

Games 21 Goals 12 Assists 4

After signing for Wolfsburg for an initial fee of €4 million, Dzeko proved his worth and beyond by a succession of performances while alerted the football media around the world of his quality. His exceptional performances in the Bundesliga also earned him personal accolades in 2008/2009, the year he helped Wolfsburg win the title. He was awarded  the Bundesliga Players’ Footballer of the Year, and if previous media attention had been nothing more than hype, this award and shock title win had all clubs around Europe monitoring his every move. Even with little experience at the top-level, he has also become a national hero, captaining the nation on a few occasions and becoming the first UNICEF ambassador for Bosnia. Not only that, but his three and a half season with Wolfsburg saw him earn legendary status as he became the highest scorer in the clubs history (78) goals, surpassing Diego Kliowicz who scored 57 goals.

Strengths: Powerful and strong, he has the talent to score from almost any situation and has great movement as well as physical prowess.

Style: Dominant, powerful, and agile.                                            

So moving on to City, like with any new signing for the Eastlanders, many question the players craving for money rather than their focus on football goals as to the reason for the transfer. I believe with Dzeko it is different. In his debut game against Wolves over the weekend, it was visibly clear that he just fits in. He has this swagger about him that oozes class. It is not easy coming to the premiership and doing so well in your first game, adapting so well to the physical and fast-paced nature of the league. Nor are City used to playing with two strikers, albeit Tevez prefers to drop deeper than a normal striker would. Dzeko developed a near-telepathic partnership with Grafite at Wolfsburg which flourished for both club and individual. Maybe Mancini is aware of that and is ready to compromise his “defensive approach” to games to get the best out of Dzeko and to win more games.

Let’s be honest, the title is in the hands of United, it will take something special for them to mess it up, but if they did, the likes of Man City, Arsenal and Spurs would be hot on their heels. Arsenal and Spurs may not have the courage or spending power to match city and go and buy a £25m+ centre forward in the January transfer window and that’s exactly what separates Manchester City’s title challenge to their rivals. United may have the luxury of not having lost a game and having “sufficient” back up in Hernandez to Rooney and Berbatov, however, City have the luxury to call on a number of quality in all areas of the pitch. It will be interesting when Balotelli is fit how Mancini plans to incorporate him, Dzeko and Tevez into his plans. On paper it’s nothing less than a frightening combination. I know many clubs are sceptical about buying in January, but I am certain Edin Dzeko provides another dimension to Manchester City, and I am glad to see him in the premiership. As a neutral, football manager fan, FIFA lover, I have been waiting for so long to see him in action week in and week out.

Many argue the title can’t be bought but if it could.. City may have just gone and purchased it for £27m with postal delivery in May.

Truth Or Flair Verdict: Edin Dzeko will be a massive hit for Manchester City

Glen Johnson - an 'attacking' full-back

Modern Day Full-Back Flop

Initially I was going to work on a piece based on the quality and hype surrounding Wayne Rooney and whether or not the label ‘world-class’ should be associated with a player who crumbled miserably under the pressure at the grandest of stages in South Africa. However, Mustapha Ali Carter threatened to create a blog specifically on the demise of Liverpool FC and warned me to leave his dear Rooney alone. Having bared enough pain from LFC this season already, risking a blog created by a Manchester United fan on the problems at the Kop was one gamble I wasn’t willing to take.

Football journalism has tonnes of writing space dedicated to prolific goal scorers, the speedster wingers, the dazzling dribblers, and generally the more glamorous attacking players of the game get more media attention than most. In recent times, full-backs have contributed to the attacking aspect of football more than they used to 15, 20 years ago. Originally, I was going to focus my attention on the ‘modern day full-back’ and compare, contrast full-backs from around the globe (the idea was given to me by Mateusz Nale). However, I decided to construct an article on Glen Johnson and his inability to defend or live up to his label of an ‘attacking full-back’.  

Being a life-long Liverpool fan, albeit the fee was extremely inflated I was confident Glen Johnson would repay his value by glowing attacking performances on the field. That was not to be the case so I decided to browse his overall football career and will try to support my opinions with some statistical data. He is a product of the famous West Ham youth academy, and was given an opportunity in the first team by Harry Redknapp (who later signed him on loan at Portsmouth). After 15 appearances for the Hammers, he began the first signing under the reign of Abramovic for a fee of £6m in 2003. For an attacking full-back, during his Chelsea career he only managed 4 goals and 2 assists in 59 starts and 11 substitute appearances. He only managed 18 shots during his spell in West London. Nothing extravagant to suggest he was an attacking full-back. He fared a bit better at Portsmouth where he managed 4 goals and 13 assists in 98 starts for the club and the single substitute appearance. He also managed to fire 89 shots on goal. Despite Portsmouth finishing 14th in the league, Johnson was selected at right-back in the PFA Team of the Year for 2008-09. His screaming left-foot volley against Hull on November 22 also won Match of the Day's Goal of the Season. How often have we seen goals like that since?

Personal accolades for his attacking full-back displays earned him a £17m move to Anfield in the summer of 2009, after having already cemented his place as England’s first choice right-back. I maybe wrong and I would appreciate someone correcting me if I am, but that made him the second most expensive right-back in the world after Daniel Alves. Anyway, in his debut season for the club, he stacked up 28 starts and two substitute appearances which yielded a very poor return of 3 goals and 3 assists. Now I may be wrong, but if I were too spend £17m on a full-back for his attacking ability, I would expect better contribution to the attacking aspect of my team than those stats. Even this season, he has only managed 1 goal and 1 assists from 17 starts. I would happily accept arguments in favour of spending that sort of money if Johnson added more solidity to the back along with retaining his ability to go forward, but that has not been the case. If anything, his inability to defend and questionable decision making is now more apparent to football fans and pundits. Too often he is caught out of position or is easily passed by the attacking opposition. It is not only at club level where he has struggled, but internationally his lack of defensive capability has exposed England on more than one occasion. Alvero Arbeloa cost the club £3m (almost a sixth of Johnsons fee) in January 2007, and he may have only provided 2 goals (one of them being a great curling effort against West Brom) with 5 assists, but he was defensively much more sound and has moved on to Real Madrid since then. Did Liverpool really need to spend £17m on a right-back when other areas of the pitch needed strengthening i.e. wingers and centre-forward position?

The most worrying aspect of his disappointing time at Anfield from my view is he doesn’t seem to possess the determined mentality to improve. This was evident last week following criticism from Paul Merson on Gillette Soccer Saturday. The former Arsenal man said: "He [Hodgson] didn't have the luxury of a budget to spend £18 million on Glen Johnson, who can't defend for toffee, he's had to buy players from Fulham that he knew before. I don't think it's the players hanging their head in shame - I don't think they're good enough. Who would take their players if they were to go on sale tomorrow? Glen Johnson wouldn't go anywhere for 18 million quid." Johnson disrespectfully responded on the social networking site Twitter, writing: "Comments from alcoholic drug abusers are not going to upset me and who is Paul Merson to judge players. He was average at the best of times, the only reason he is on that show is coz he gambled all his money away. The clown.” His comments showed a total lack of respect and professionalism. Being criticised for not performing is a part of the game and something footballers have to deal with as part of the package. Getting personal and abusing ex players who have achieved more in the game than Johnson is ever likely to, especially on a social networking site, is absolutely absurd. You wouldn’t expect that from a young and inexperienced footballer, let alone a full England international who has been in the top division for the past 9 years. I would have to agree with Paul Merson, who would buy Glen Johnson now for £18m? If you don’t want to hear criticism about yourself then perform – it’s in your hands, you’re in control of it – simple as that. Also, in defence of Paul Merson, he isn’t the only soul on the planet who thinks Johnsons performances have been below satisfactory. Matt Le Tissier also slated him, “Glen Johnson has not been good at all this season, and I've seen a few of the Liverpool games and I've not been impressed by him. There are just so many mistakes and such amateurish mistakes if you like.” Even Hodgson had a pop at him earlier in the season, saying “he isn’t performing like one of the best right-backs in the country”. Is his attitude really to respond to anyone who rightly criticises his performances in a personal and abusive manner?

After his performance against Blackburn away from home, where he was all over the place and was at fault for two of the goals (at least), I was hoping he would perform better against Blackpool under a Liverpool legend. Still he underperformed, and was at fault for not picking up DJ Campbell for the second Blackpool goal. To be fair to him, if he struggles with defensive duties on the right side of the defence, he had no chance playing left-back. He might not even get his original position back in the team following good performances from Martin Kelly. He might have to knock on Kenny’s door and ask to be played on the right wing or start looking for a new club – transfer window still has two weeks left. Something for Kenny Dalglish to ponder... 

England 'number one Test team in the world'

Following the recent triumph in retaining the Ashes by the England Cricket team down under, I was unsure whether I should post an article congratulating and applauding the success of English cricket. The usual increasingly annoying media frenzy commenced after any English sporting success. It was a remarkable achievement in the context that the England team hadn’t won a test series in Australia for 24 years, so I decided to construct a piece on England’s success but I am not going to congratulate or applaud them just yet. This country has a genuine problem of promoting and celebrating mediocrity. I am not taking anything away from England’s triumph in the Ashes, it was a brilliant result for them and it shows they have made long strides as a unit but in my opinion, they have a long way to go to match the hype created by the Media.  A good example of this is Alastair Cook has been rewarded with freedom of the City of London for scoring 766 runs in the Ashes series. So bloody what? People were calling for his head a few months ago, and all of a sudden he is thought to have achieved significant enough status to earn the key to the city – bollocks. I would have like to have seen him make 766 runs in a 5 match series against Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, or even Dale Steyn and Zaheer Khan. The likes of Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Wasim Akram and Shane Warne are given accolades and god-like statuses in their respective nations because they have performed continuously against ALL opposition for over 10, 15 years.  

I have read in the media comments from Andy Flower suggesting they are targeting and well on course for achieving the number one spot in Test Cricket. It's realistic, it's achievable," said Flower. Michael Vaughan (an ex ashes winning captain) emphatically suggested England will become the number one team in the world. "The next six or seven years could be England's most dominant period of all time," he said. I don’t believe that is true and I will provide reasons as to why I think England are no more than a very good side, and why becoming the number one cricketing test nation is miles away.

ICC Test Rankings - 7 Jan 2011
Team	Matches	Points	Rating
India	42	5357	128
South Africa	36	4228	117
England	45	5165	115
Sri Lanka	27	2951	109
Australia	43	4583	107
Pakistan	26	2275	88
West Indies	25	2128	85
New Zealand	29	2318	80
Bangladesh	19	131	7

Notice the disparities in the number of fixtures played between the test nations. Of course you would expect the system to be calculated in a way which doesn’t allow the number of fixtures to influence the rankings too heavily, but as I have mentioned before, playing more games gives you a better chance to perform better as the players are accustomed to the format more than other teams may be. Anyways I don’t want to touch on that particular topic too much. English cricket at the moment seems to be going through a rather honeymoon-ish purple patch. So I looked over their results over the past three years in Test Cricket and found some interesting statistical evidence.

England Test Match Record since Jan 2008:

P 41 W 20 D 12 L 9

This is the England’s Test Cricket team overall record over the last three years. It is good viewing with almost a 50% win percentage and just over a 20% loss ratio. However, the more intriguing aspect of this is when we breakdown those matches in terms of games played against the bottom three ranked opposition (West Indies, New Zealand and Bangladesh).

England Test Match Record since Jan 2008 against three bottom ranked teams:

P 17 W 10 D 5 L 2

This tells us over 41% of England’s matches over the last three years were against the three bottom ranked sides in the ICC rankings table. With 10 wins in 17 games against these opposition, it takes the gloss off the record against the other test playing nations - leaving them with 10 wins out of 24 games (42% win percentage) and more importantly 7 defeats ( 29% loss percentage) compared to the 2 defeats against the bottom three teams ( 12% loss percentage).

It is only fair if we are going to consider England’s application as a future number one team, then we should compare them to the two sides above them in the ICC rankings – India and South Africa.

India Test Match Record since Jan 2008:

P 35 W 18 D 12 L 5

India Test Match Record since Jan 2008 against three bottom ranked teams:

P 8 W 4 D 4 L 0

Comparing these stats to England’s, India also boast a win percentage just over 50% but have a substantially better loss record of just around 14% in comparison to England’s 20%. Also, India have played the bottom three ranked teams on nine fewer occasions than England and haven’t lost to them, maintaining a 50% win ratio. Now looking at South Africa’s record over the last three years...

South Africa Test Match Record since Jan 2008:

P 29 W 15 D 6 L 8

South Africa Test Match Record since Jan 2008 against three bottom ranked teams:

P 7 W 6 D 1 L 0

Again South Africa holds a overall winning percentage similar to England and India of just over 50%. However, there loss ratio is greater than India and England at just over 27%. Saying that, they have played the bottom three ranked teams on ten less times than England and one less than India, maintaining a win percentage of 86% (considerably higher than both India and England) and were undefeated in those 7 matches.

This provides an interesting insight into the ICC rankings and England’s rise to stardom over the last couple of years. The rankings table can misguide those unaware of the cricketing results around the world in recent times, as well as the lack of quality opposition faced by England in comparison to the teams above them in the rankings.

As good as England’s performances were down under, the Australian team were very average at the best of times. Their batting lacked form, momentum, substance, their bowlers were unable to stick to bowling plans and field, and there was too much dark cloud over team selection before and during every test match. Seriously, like I mentioned in a previous post, if it hadn’t been for the DRS the series would not have been very entertaining viewing – it was that one sided. The Australian side is a shadow of the team that tormented world cricket for the last decade with the huge voids left by the likes of Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Justin Langer, Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist unable to be filled. One thing I do believe England are the best at in the world, is their pre-match/tour preparations and attention to detail. They practice at a very high intensity and set themselves high standards in terms of discipline and focus. That has to be credited to the management team and Andy Flower in particular. Having said that, I don’t think many sides around the world would have had a problem dealing with the Australian team the way they performed in the series.

From an English perspective it can be argued that you can only defeat what is put in front of you, and I completely agree with that. Nevertheless, having witnessed the team revel in what has been a gradual rise which can also be deemed as a prolonged honeymoon period for the cricket team, there needs to be an instant realisation by everyone including the media that there are much tougher challenges ahead for Andrew Strauss and his men than a weak and dismantled Australian cricket team. Another reason I believe the number one ranking spot may be beyond them is because of the over emphasis put on an ashes series. Every time I watch a series with England participating, all the talk seems to be building up to a series against the Aussies. What would the response be of the English cricketers if they were asked whether they would rather win the ashes or win the ICC world cup in March? I am sure the likes of David Gower, Atherton and Botham along with many others see retaining of the ashes a bigger success than winning the world cup for the first time. They need to treat each series equally and try to focus less on their rivalry with the Australians in order to look at the bigger picture.

The England Cricket team face tough tasks against Sri Lanka and India on home soil this summer, whether they have the credentials to be the best team in the world remains to be seen.. sterner tests lie ahead. 

Rafael Benitez vs Roy Hodgson – First 6 months at LFC

When Rafa Benitez left the club in June last year after 6 years in charge, many Liverpool supporters were in the agreement that Liverpool needed an experienced head to steady the ship at Anfield. Seeing the team decline during what had been a unexpectedly poor season after finishing runners-up in the league the season before was very painful viewing. Not just missing out on the Champions league, but finishing 7^th behind Spurs, Man City and surprisingly Aston Villa was totally unacceptable and change had to be enforced.  After the likes of Didier Deschamps distanced themselves from the vacant managerial position at Liverpool, there was only one front-runner for the job, Roy Hodgson. Yes, the great Kenny Dalglish had put his name forward for the job, but in many regards most of us knew the job was always going to be given to Hodgson. He had a lot going for him, international managerial experience, club experience, and  he had also just been named Manager of the Year by the League Managers Association (LMA) after guiding an “average” Fulham team to the Europa League final (something Senor Benitez failed to do). From my view, a major factor of his appointment had been the involvement of the British Media. They finally had their wish come true of an Englishman given the opportunity to manage a BIG club. I can’t help but think that a vastly media favourite Roy Hodgson had been brought in to take away negative publicity and criticism of the team following a dire season. With the whole saga going on with the owners, it needed someone like Roy to come in during a difficult time and just stabilise the club. I was sceptical at the appointment but I understood the reasons behind it and it was only fair that we gave him a chance. We all know how that ended... but nevertheless having seen over past couple of weeks cries from some LFC supporters to have Benitez back, I decided to conduct a comparison between the two.

Rafael Benitez

A lot has been written about Roy’s signings, so let us first look at the ins and outs of the summer when Benitez took over.

2004/2005 (Summer transfer window) Ins

Djibril Cisse £14M

Josemi £2M

Antonio Nunez

Xabi Alonso £10.7M

Luis Garcia £6M

Total Spending = £32.7M

2004/2005 (Summer transfer window) Outs

Markus Babbel Free

Michael Owen £8.5M + Antonio Nunez

Danny Murphy £2.5M

*Emile Heskey, Bruno Cheyrou and Abel Xavier departed before Benitez arrived

Total Income = £11M

So Benitez wasted no time in splashing the cash on his arrival on Merseyside, with his net spending for the summer transfer window coming to a total of £22.7m. Analysing his deals more closely, the first thing that should be pointed out is Rafa was unable to keep Owen at the club. Owen albeit has washed away since then, he was the star striker at the club back then. More astonishingly he was allowed to go to Real Madrid for a fee of only £8.5m. Owen was one of the most prolific goal scorers around Europe, surely his value was higher than what Real Madrid paid (especially considering they paid £15m  for Jonathan Woodgate a week later). The departure of Danny Murphy was also a surprise to many, he was one of the better players at Liverpool and possessed creativity more than others. Cisse wasn’t Rafas signing but he came to the club with bags of media hype and potential ability, didn’t really live up to it (had a injury-ridden lacklustre time at the club). Garcia was a hit with the fans, moments of flair left most of us drooling, but too many times that flair deserted him, the inconsistency was frustrating. Antonio Nunez was a flop – simple. I can’t remember much of Josemi’s performances, but at a cost of £2m, I certainly don’t remember him being as bad as Konchesky. Alonso could be deemed as the marquee signing of not only that season but Benitez’s overall time at the club – great acquisition and haven’t been able to replace him (major contributing factor towards the teams decline).

Benitez Premier League record up to Jan 3^rd 2005

P 22 W 11 D 4 L 7

Away record

P11 W 3 D 3 L 5

So in his first six months at the realm there was one noticeable home defeat to Birmingham City, and away defeats to Everton, Man Utd, Bolton and Middlesbrough. Roy also lost away to Everton and Utd. Rafa had his captain and main man Steven Gerrard missing untill November due to an ankle injury he had sustained in a league match against Manchester United in September. Other injuries didn’t help the cause, but still it was a poor away record and not the best start to his managerial campaign. His early post-match interviews didn’t give the fans much confidence or  insight to his thoughts. I remember him over using phrases such as ‘we had a good mentality’ despite underperforming. Also constantly referring to fitness levels of players as the reason behind to his regular tinkering with the team gave the media something to chew on. The initial switch from man-marking to zonal-marking didn’t seem to be settling in with the players, and was a constantly debated topic by football pundits and the media. However, later on it became second nature to the team and led to some great defensive stats over the years, but in the first six months it wasn’t appreciated by many football followers. Proves something that doesn’t work straight away could mould into something later on given the time to nourish.

Now to analyse Roy Hodgson’s first six months at LFC...

2010/2011 (Summer transfer window) Ins

Brad Jones £2.3M

Paul Konchesky £3M

Fabio Aurelio Free Agent

Raul Meireles £11.5M

Joe Cole Free Agent

Milan Jovanovic  Free

Danny Wilson £2M

Jonjo Shelvey £1.7M

Christian Poulsen £4.5M

Total Spending = £25M

2010/2011 (Summer transfer window) Outs

Diego Cavalieri £1.2M

Albert Riera £5M

Yossi Benayoun £7M

Javier Mascherano £17.25M

Total Income =  £30.45M

Unlike Benitez, Roy didn’t splash out the cash straight away. He took a much more cautious approach as his employers didn’t have much money available for transfers and were looking to end their reign as LFC owners, so they were never going to invest heavily even if they wanted to do so. He actually brought more money (£5.45m) into the club than he spent. It should be noted Jonjo Shelvey, Danny Wilson and Milan Jovanovic were all deals done before Hodgson came in. With the new home grown players rule coming into force and a lack of British based players at the club, I assume Brad Jones was brought in to fill the home-grown quota. It was instantly noticeable Roy was adamant to get rid of “dead wood” within the club, this was seen by shipping out a lot of loan players on loan. To pick the bones out of rest of the signings, Poulsen and Konchesky have been utter rubbish so far, they were brought in after we were left founding after the departures of Aquilani (the £20m replacement for Alonso) and Insua. I could criticise the pair of them all day long, so I will just leave it at that.  Letting go of Benayoun (arguable most creative player after Gerrard) was a mistake, but I think he departed before Roy came in and admittedly said Benitez was the main reason he chose to reside in Chelsea. Albert Riera was in the same boat I believe, a good technical player that needed another dimension  to his game to succeed at the highest level. I share the opinion of Phil Thompson on Javier Mascherano, the club did so much for him and he threw it back in their faces, so in my eyes he was never a part of Liverpool football club. Joe Cole and Mereiles both were very good signings for the club, but have failed to live up to their previous ability. I was very excited about the prospect of Mereiles more than Joe I must admit, but time should be given to both. Ironically the one thing that probably went against Hodgson than most when it came to the transfer window was who he didn’t purchase – a much needed centre forward.

Hodgson Premier League Record up to 5^th January 2011

P 20 W 7 D 4 L 9

Away Record

P 10 W 1 D 2 L 7

Albeit his tenure in charge of the hot seat at Anfield started with a tough fixture list, his team were expected to do better than they did. Very poor defeats at home to Northampton (carling cup 3^rd round), Blackpool and Wolves were very difficult for already doubtful supporters to take. A poor personal away record rubbed off on to the current team, with only one away win to date. He kept arguing he inherited a poor squad, that may be the case but his summer signings didn’t offer much if anything at all to support his cause. For the first time as a Liverpool fan I saw Paul Konchesky being jeered off by supporters, rightly so – he has been shockingly bad. Poulsen hasn’t been able to get used to the pace of the premiership and it really is difficult to point out what he offers to the team apart from age. Hodgson could argue, had it not been for Gerrard getting injured on international duty, results may have been different but Benitez endured the same problem in his first 6 months. The football hasn’t been great, there has been no fluidity or structure to the performances. Too many times, we have gone to win the game too late on and by then we are already trailing. Defensively, we have leaked goals left, right and centre. The squad looked too dejected on the best of occasions and it’s the manager’s job to lift the players and get them playing to the standard they are capable of.

Final Verdict

I am by no means saying Roy Hodgson didn’t deserve to be sacked or a change shouldn’t have been imminent. My point is any manager needs time to succeed, Rafa was lucky in that sense and Roy was unlucky. Benitez probably understands the concept of needing time more than anyone right now, having been relieved of his duties as Inter after 6 months. He was given plenty of time at LFC to mould the club in to what he wanted to achieve. A perfect example of this as mentioned before is the zonal-marking he implemented when he first came in. In any case, Roy had inherited a team that finished 7^th the season before below the likes or Spurs and City, whereas, Benitez inherited a team that finished in the top 4 (Spurs and City finishing 14^th and 16^th), therefore had less competition to their status in the top 4. They were in the Champions league, and that always has a positive impact on the fans, although Benitez was helped by moments of sensational magic by Gerrard to help the club remain in the competition and eventually go on and win it. Those moments of magic have eluded Roy this year, even though they have topped their Europa League group, without any scares or having to risk the big-names of the side.  

It isn’t correct to say Benitez is a better manager than Roy or it was never as bad as this under Rafa. It may well have been if Gerrard didn’t save the team against Olympiakos in the 86^th minute and David Moores was more ruthless by sacking Benitez (fairly or unfairly). In the end, football is played for the fans, and we haven’t had a lot to shout about over recent years, unfortunately the frustration and wrath of that was taken out on Hodgson. In my opinion right man at the wrong time and possibly at the wrong club... 

My Problem with the ICC (International Cricket Council)

The International Cricket Council (ICC) is the international governing body of cricket. The ICC has 105 members: 10 Full Members that play official Test matches, 35 Associate Members, and 60 Affiliate Members.

The ICC is responsible for the organisation and governance of cricket's major international tournaments, most notably the cricket world cup. The ICC does not control bilateral fixtures between member countries (which include all Test matches), it does not govern domestic cricket in member countries, and it does not make the laws of the game, which remain under the control of the Marylebone Cricket Club. I argue why the hell not?

Those who don’t follow cricket as closely or at all argue that cricket is boring and complicated. They may be right in their own way; cricket is a very complex sport. I and some friends used to joke at University that if we were to sit down and outline to a complete novice (in terms of cricket knowledge) the rules of the game, it would take well over a week and barely the basics would have been covered. I have been a dedicated follower of the sport for the past 10 years or so and even I am sometimes perplexed by the complexity of the sport on and off the field.

My first issue with the ICC is the organisation of fixtures amongst the 10 test playing nations. If they are the international governing body, then surely they must stamp some authority and demand a greater authority in the arrangement of fixtures. Too often I am sat in front of Sky Sports News hearing about a series containing New Zealand, West Indies or Pakistan and thinking crikey, I haven’t seen or heard about them in a while. Cricket is not at the same scale as Football where there are 208 national associations affiliated with FIFA (the international football governing body). Anyone with any sense of cricket knows that the sport prides itself on its oldest and best format which is Test Cricket. If there are only 10 test playing nations, then why can’t the ICC sit down with the individual national governing bodies and devise a fixture list which allows all the participating members to play an equal number of matches.

Pakistan and Bangladesh, two test playing nations who have failed to play on a regular basis in the last 18 months

Some may argue it is a petty subject to touch on but my reply to them would be to look at the bigger picture. If there are vast differences in the number of matches played amongst the full test status nations, some teams would be at an advantage because they will have more games under their belts. It is a widely renowned sports concept; you only get better by playing. We have seen what playing against better opposition more frequently can do for a nation, and there is no better case than Bangladesh of this.  However, gaps of quality will become more transparent between test nations the more unequal the fixture list is. National governing bodies possessing full control has to change if a level playing field is to be achieved. It is unfair on the talent and hard-work of some test playing nations if there national governing bodies lack the administrative structure or revenue to organise more regular fixtures. Hence, the ICC should demand more power and monitor the provision of international fixtures.

My second issue with the ICC is concerning Decision Review System (DRS). This is a new technology based system enforced recently in SOME games of cricket. During a Test match, each team is given two challenges per innings. A fielding team may use the system to dispute a "not out" call and a batting team may do so to dispute an "out" call. The fielding team captain or the batsman being dismissed invokes the challenge by signalling a "T" with the arms. Once the challenge is invoked, acknowledged, and agreed, the Third Umpire reviews the play. 

Overall the majority have reacted in a positive manner to the new system, but some critics undermine the authority of on-field umpires. And it has come to my knowledge the cricketing board of India, (BCCI) is not in favour of using the system. My opinion is very simple on the matter. I believe the Decision Review System is the best addition to test cricket in recent history. I know Michael Holding is not a big fan of it because he says the system should be used for the “howlers” and not for tactical use. However, my point is that in an era where t20 has attracted a larger fan base around the world quicker than any format has in the past, and with still so many cricket lovers strongly adamant Test Cricket is the pinnacle of sport, then this is one area where test cricket can have an advantage over the fast-paced big-hitting bash. The system would not work or should not be brought into the shortest format of the game because the t20 format is so fast-paced and everything happens to be chaos and drama, that bad/wrong decisions can be forgotten or moved on from quicker than in test cricket and hence those decisions will be under the scrutiny much less in the media. In test cricket, bowlers toil for 90 overs day in an attempt to get the opposition out, and the last thing they want is a bad lbw decision going against them. It is more scrutinised in test cricket because this type of format doesn’t consist of all the fours and sixes or the dancers. There is nothing to divert your attention away from the decision. I understand Michael Holdings point about the use of the DRS being tactical rather than trying to obtain the correct decision, but so what? The amount of drama caused in the recent Ashes series by the DRS was entertaining viewing! It made the series more exciting, and had the system not been in place, the series might have been less compelling and more one sided than it already was. Let’s be honest, this recent Ashes series wasn’t the greatest (not anywhere near as good in comparison to the previous couple), but seeing Ricky Ponting showing descent towards the umpire, watching Ian Bell remain at the crease having “supposedly” hit the ball and then be given “not out” was very entertaining and enthralling television.

Michael Hussey correctly referring a decision to the Third Umpire during the recently contested Ashes Series

This finally brings me on to the problem I have with the ICC about the DRS. It was used so brilliantly in the Ashes, and added to the package. So where was it when I turned over to the New Zealand vs Pakistan series? It really didn’t make any sense to me. Having witnessed it work so well just across the Tasman Sea over a 5 match series, why couldn’t it be implemented in a two match series? It gave me the impression that maybe greater importance was given to the Ashes series, but surely that is morally incorrect to undervalue another two test playing nations. Or maybe the respective national governing bodies didn’t want the DRS in place. Whatever the reason, I again thought back to whether this would happen in football or not. Let us take the four teams out of the top 10 football nations. It would be like having goal-line technology in a game between Spain and Brazil and not having it implemented between England and Portugal. I don’t think that would happen, do you? I am making the point because there were two stand out decisions in the match, both involving the same player, Brendon McCullum. In the first instance, he was given not out after missing an attempt to hook a leg-side delivery, replays showing the ball actually came off his glove and went through to the keeper. The second instance, similar deliver with the same shot but different outcome. He was given out, but this time the replays showed, he hadn’t touched the ball and the ball actually came of his hip and flew straight into the keeper’s hands. At the time, on commentary Ian Smith said the game is a great leveller and albeit he is a fan of the DRS technology, its one the reasons why people may argue its case in the game. However, looking at the match situation, Brendon McCullum emotion reaction to the decision straight away suggested that he knew he didn’t hit the ball and had the DRS had been in place, he could have reviewed it. The correct decision would have been given, preventing a major batting collapse for New Zealand and maybe down the line saving the match for them. Instead they ended up losing. There should be some law or enforcement in place by the ICC to either have the DRS system in place for all test matches or for no test matches.

If the ICC are to be respected more greatly by players, fans and the media., they need to stamp more authority on the game and become more heavily involved. They can begin by building stronger communication links between national governing bodies and oversee the provision of the complete international fixture list.