After several months of high anticipation, the Stanford Super Series was nothing more than a big let down, and in fact, the only thing that the week was good for, was for reigniting the fire in West Indies' cricket and discovering some new talent, opening batsman/wicket keeper Andre Fletcher for one. The pitch was poor, the outfield was poor, the floodlights were poor, and England's commitment was poor (in comparison to the Super Stars anyway)!
The build up for the England team was all about cash, cash, and even more cash. What would the team do with the winnings, etc, etc, etc! But the Super Stars were serious about the cricket, and their hard work prior to the tournament meant that they had earned the right to win more than their English counterparts! The Super Stars had been in a training camp for 6 weeks prior to the tournament, with curfews and hard work the order of every day, in a bid to get them focused and prepared for winning the biggest (financial) prize in cricket! England, on the other hand, turned up two days before their first game and wondered why they couldn't perform. The Super Stars were sharper, fitter and in better form, and were good value for the old saying, you get out what you put in.
There were also big question marks over Mr Stanford himself. His facilities were less than perfect, and he caused some controversy by posing with some of the players WAG's during England's opening game.
All in all, it didn't live up to its hype, and will have to go some to improve in time for the next tournament!
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
What's all this fuss about a director of football...
The Director of Football seems to have become the most talked about role at a football club in the last couple of weeks. The fallout from the Spurs clear out on Saturday evening, manager, assistant manager, fitness coach, and director of football was a big shock - no-one expected such ruthlessness from chairman Daniel Levy, but it has done the trick, with Spurs back to winning ways under Harry Redknapp.
Yet Redknapp has been assured there will be no director of football at White Hart Lane whilst he is manager. So what is this director of football role? In all, it is a glorified way of entitling the chief scout, and it is predominantly used in Europe, where the job of manager has a limited time, but the director of football remains a constant to maintain consistency at the club. The director of football would then be responsible for recruiting the players that they thought would work at the football club, and then the manager would coach the players he was given. Managers and players come and go, yet the director of football maintains the long term vision of the club with their recruitments.
The problem with the director of football, or chief scout, in this country seems to be deep-rooted with who makes the key decisions of which players to sign. Manchester United and Arsenal, two teams that have had many years of success in the modern footballing era, do not have such a role. They have managers who pride themselves in finding new talent and then the managing director, David Gill, or Peter Kenyon, or David Dean are such examples, who would then complete the deals for the players their managers want. Can you expect a manager to work with players he hasn't bought, or doesn't want? That is all part of the short job life of a European manager. It is the manager who is brought in to work with the players, not the other way around.
The clash between Dennis Wise (DOF) and Kevin Keegan (M) at Newcastle has been widely publicised, with players being recruited by Wise who Keegan didn't want. Hence bad press and now fan revolt over Keegan quitting. Not a healthy state for a club already in difficulty.
Some clubs do have success with the director of football role. One example would be Reading, for whom former goalkeeper Nick Hammond fills this role, and Steve Coppell as manager. Reading have had some success in recent seasons, and there has been no bad press with regards to the director of football's position at Reading.
If the DOF and manager communicate and work together, then this position can work at a club. But a manager needs to be in charge of the players he works with, and the manager needs to work with players who he wants to work with and who will make the team successful. If a DOF is going to be in charge of recruitment, then he can recommend signings to the manager, or the manager can assign the DOF to research a particular player or find suitable players (as the manager would instruct a scout), but the final decision should belong to the manager. The manager will coach, the manager will effectively manage the players, so should be the manager who chooses the players they will work with.
Unfortunately, the way of the director of football implies the manager is more important than the players. One well known phrase springs to mind: too many cooks spoil the broth!
Yet Redknapp has been assured there will be no director of football at White Hart Lane whilst he is manager. So what is this director of football role? In all, it is a glorified way of entitling the chief scout, and it is predominantly used in Europe, where the job of manager has a limited time, but the director of football remains a constant to maintain consistency at the club. The director of football would then be responsible for recruiting the players that they thought would work at the football club, and then the manager would coach the players he was given. Managers and players come and go, yet the director of football maintains the long term vision of the club with their recruitments.
The problem with the director of football, or chief scout, in this country seems to be deep-rooted with who makes the key decisions of which players to sign. Manchester United and Arsenal, two teams that have had many years of success in the modern footballing era, do not have such a role. They have managers who pride themselves in finding new talent and then the managing director, David Gill, or Peter Kenyon, or David Dean are such examples, who would then complete the deals for the players their managers want. Can you expect a manager to work with players he hasn't bought, or doesn't want? That is all part of the short job life of a European manager. It is the manager who is brought in to work with the players, not the other way around.
The clash between Dennis Wise (DOF) and Kevin Keegan (M) at Newcastle has been widely publicised, with players being recruited by Wise who Keegan didn't want. Hence bad press and now fan revolt over Keegan quitting. Not a healthy state for a club already in difficulty.
Some clubs do have success with the director of football role. One example would be Reading, for whom former goalkeeper Nick Hammond fills this role, and Steve Coppell as manager. Reading have had some success in recent seasons, and there has been no bad press with regards to the director of football's position at Reading.
If the DOF and manager communicate and work together, then this position can work at a club. But a manager needs to be in charge of the players he works with, and the manager needs to work with players who he wants to work with and who will make the team successful. If a DOF is going to be in charge of recruitment, then he can recommend signings to the manager, or the manager can assign the DOF to research a particular player or find suitable players (as the manager would instruct a scout), but the final decision should belong to the manager. The manager will coach, the manager will effectively manage the players, so should be the manager who chooses the players they will work with.
Unfortunately, the way of the director of football implies the manager is more important than the players. One well known phrase springs to mind: too many cooks spoil the broth!
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Rio signs new 5 year deal at Man Utd
Rio Ferdinand has been having the season of his life. He has been captain of United on numerous occasions, and has now had the glorious honour of captaining his country - a proud moment for any footballer. And with only two years remaining on his current contract, United brought forward their plans for a new contract with Rio and have reportedly offered him a five year deal, till Rio is 34, at £130,000 a week. There is no question that Rio has been a phenominal presence in the United defence this season, and in fact, for past seasons as well. This time last year, Rio missed both legs of the Champions League semi final against AC Milan, and United lost. This season, he has not only hobbled on to the field to play with a bruised foot, and but he has also played with numerous stiches in a foot as well. United know how vital he is to their success. Vidic and Ferdinand have been the mainstays of the United team this season, creating a solid base from which the team can go forward. This could argued that this is where the other challengers to United's crown have suffered, with multiple pairings of centre halfs creating an unstable spine to their side. But the one question that Rio's new contract will raise is, is he worth £130,000 a week? Or is any footballer worth £130,000?
Since missing the infamous drugs test and the ensuing punishment, Rio has gone from strength to strength, playing with confidence, swagger, and even trying his hand in goal for United. £130,000 may seem over the top, but in a market where money talks, if a club is not prepared to pay the big bucks, then someone else will. The financial backing, along with success on and off the field for United, means they are an attractive proposition to footballers. Remember that a sporting career is not a long one, and even with so many options after a career is over, players do have to plan for the future. One Wayne Rooney already has an extensive property portfolio, an investment for later in life, and players will want to maximise their potential during their short careers.
Is £130,000 too much to pay for one weeks wages for one footballer. Rio Ferdinand is at the top of his game right now, and if you want the best, you have to pay the best.
One question this reported contract offer does bring up, is how much will contracts be in the future? Or how much will someone like Cristiano Ronaldo be able to demand upon his next contract renewal? Will this be the beginning of the first £1/4 million a week footballer? It could well be.
Since missing the infamous drugs test and the ensuing punishment, Rio has gone from strength to strength, playing with confidence, swagger, and even trying his hand in goal for United. £130,000 may seem over the top, but in a market where money talks, if a club is not prepared to pay the big bucks, then someone else will. The financial backing, along with success on and off the field for United, means they are an attractive proposition to footballers. Remember that a sporting career is not a long one, and even with so many options after a career is over, players do have to plan for the future. One Wayne Rooney already has an extensive property portfolio, an investment for later in life, and players will want to maximise their potential during their short careers.
Is £130,000 too much to pay for one weeks wages for one footballer. Rio Ferdinand is at the top of his game right now, and if you want the best, you have to pay the best.
One question this reported contract offer does bring up, is how much will contracts be in the future? Or how much will someone like Cristiano Ronaldo be able to demand upon his next contract renewal? Will this be the beginning of the first £1/4 million a week footballer? It could well be.
Sunday, 3 February 2008
Utter rubbish, and that's being kind!
Wales haven't beaten England at Twickenham for 20 years, or something like that, so I suppose they had to at somepoint, but for England to capitulate in the way they did yesterday showed that they are a long way from World Cup finalists!
England were 19-6 up at one point in the second half, and somehow kicked(!) away 20 unanswered points. How? Combination of poor tactics and poor selection, and a little bit of bad luck on the injury front. As it happens, Vainakolo performed rather well when he came on for Strettle, but with the amount of territory and possession we had in the first half, we should have been out of sight.
Ashton now has some selection dilemma's. He is forced in to at least four changes to his 22 man squad following the injuries sustained by Moody, Rees, Strettle and Tindall. Tindall will miss the rest of the 6 nations, whilst the other 3 will definately miss next Sunday's Italian battle. Who will come in as openside, as his first and second choice are out now. Ben Woods played at 7 for the Saxons on Friday night, which could mean a quick promotion for the Falcons back-rower, but there is also Michael Lipman and Magnus Lund who can do a job for England, along with forgotten man Andy Hazell from Gloucester and uncapped Saracens flanker Dave Seymour. Options there for Ashton, and it seems Vainakolo will be pushed in to his first England start, but who will come in at centre. Matthew Tait? Dan Hipkiss? And what of the other changes that could be made - for a team that showed little cohesion, we need to get a squad of players together now who will be playing together for the next four years. The experience of players like Shaw and Regan and Gomarsall didn't exactly help on Saturday - let's get the new guys in and get them learning as soon as possible, and that means Ashton selecting a new squad on Monday morning and getting England building for four years time. Look at France - a clean slate, new sqaud, and they looked really promising against Scotland today. Why can't England do that!?!?!
It's also a shame England missed out on getting Gatland and Edwards - what a team that would have been - big things can now be expected from Wales, maybe not straight away though. I mean, a victory over a poor England side wasn't that hard was it?!?!?! Gatland has a tactical nous and great experience of winning, unlike most of this England side!
I would definately rather watch club rugby over international rugby given yesterdays performance. England have a long, long way to go!
England were 19-6 up at one point in the second half, and somehow kicked(!) away 20 unanswered points. How? Combination of poor tactics and poor selection, and a little bit of bad luck on the injury front. As it happens, Vainakolo performed rather well when he came on for Strettle, but with the amount of territory and possession we had in the first half, we should have been out of sight.
Ashton now has some selection dilemma's. He is forced in to at least four changes to his 22 man squad following the injuries sustained by Moody, Rees, Strettle and Tindall. Tindall will miss the rest of the 6 nations, whilst the other 3 will definately miss next Sunday's Italian battle. Who will come in as openside, as his first and second choice are out now. Ben Woods played at 7 for the Saxons on Friday night, which could mean a quick promotion for the Falcons back-rower, but there is also Michael Lipman and Magnus Lund who can do a job for England, along with forgotten man Andy Hazell from Gloucester and uncapped Saracens flanker Dave Seymour. Options there for Ashton, and it seems Vainakolo will be pushed in to his first England start, but who will come in at centre. Matthew Tait? Dan Hipkiss? And what of the other changes that could be made - for a team that showed little cohesion, we need to get a squad of players together now who will be playing together for the next four years. The experience of players like Shaw and Regan and Gomarsall didn't exactly help on Saturday - let's get the new guys in and get them learning as soon as possible, and that means Ashton selecting a new squad on Monday morning and getting England building for four years time. Look at France - a clean slate, new sqaud, and they looked really promising against Scotland today. Why can't England do that!?!?!
It's also a shame England missed out on getting Gatland and Edwards - what a team that would have been - big things can now be expected from Wales, maybe not straight away though. I mean, a victory over a poor England side wasn't that hard was it?!?!?! Gatland has a tactical nous and great experience of winning, unlike most of this England side!
I would definately rather watch club rugby over international rugby given yesterdays performance. England have a long, long way to go!
Monday, 21 January 2008
England's Six Nations squad
The problem with England getting to the world cup final, was that it misled people in to believing that selecting certain players and playing a certain way had been a success. The one dimensional attitude England showed in France last October was supposedly only going to be a one-off. It was a back to basics side, to get us far enough in the competition to avoid embarrassment, following the turmoil of the previous 3 and a half years. Ashton did what he could in the time he had, and the RFU should have said to him afterwards, "Well done Brian, you did what you could in the time available. Here is a new 4 year contract to the end of the next world cup. Get this team playing good rugby and winning." Instead, he has a one year rolling contract, so for the sake of his career, it is win now or lose your job in 12 months. Ashton picks a squad which he hopes will give him a win, but doesn't look towards the future enough, or ironically, at the teams that are winning at the moment.
There are three English teams in the Heineken Cup quarter finals (the group stages concluded this weekend). They are Saracens, London Irish and Gloucester, in that order as seeds one, two and three. These three teams represent four players in Ashton's 32 man England squad. Thirteen players come from Leicester and Wasps, and a further four from Harlequins and Bristol, all four teams which failed to progress from the group stages to the quarter finals of the Heineken Cup. A further 11 players came from clubs who play in the European Challenge Cup, the second tier European rugby cub. It is a fairly obvious statement to say that the form sides progress from the Heineken Cup pool stages. Why are the English players these teams have not in the England squad? If they are the form players, why are they not performing for England?
Wasps are 8th in the Guinness Premiership, and they provide a quarter of England's squad for the Six Nations. The Wasps pack, which provides six players to the England squad, got destroyed by the Munster pack on Saturday, which provides a large contingent of the Irish pack. Good omens? The top two sides in the Premiership provide only 6 players to the squad and the fourth place side provides none.
Mark Regan is 35, or thereabouts now. He will be 39 come the next world cup. Will he still be playing then, at anywhere near international standard? Simon Shaw is 34 now, so will be 38 at the next world cup. Andy Gomarsall will be 34 this year. Will he still be around in four years time? Why not pick for the future? There is no better time than now. Give the new players the biggest opportunity to gain the most experience they can before the next world cup. I am not doubting that Regan, Shaw and Gomarsall will give their all, I am sure they will, but for the sake of the future of English rugby, we need to be blooding new and upcoming internationals so that they get as much exposure to international rugby as is possible.
There is no point arguing about players being away at the world cup, tough Heineken Cup groups, injuries, suspensions, blaming the ref (Dallaglio was very subtle in his moan on Saturday). This is not about that. This is about form players and form teams. This is about giving players experience, playing players so that they can do they job in four years time, playing players who have a winning habit with them at the moment. I don't need to name players, everyone will have their own choices. I don't want to pick the squad, but I want the coaching team to pick a squad that looks forward. But a negative board offering a one year contract to a coach, who wants to keep his job, will pick for the here and now. Woodward was given years to succeed. We need to get back to that position and pick an elite squad to take us through the next four, and for some of them, eight years.
Come on England! BE POSITIVE!!!!!
There are three English teams in the Heineken Cup quarter finals (the group stages concluded this weekend). They are Saracens, London Irish and Gloucester, in that order as seeds one, two and three. These three teams represent four players in Ashton's 32 man England squad. Thirteen players come from Leicester and Wasps, and a further four from Harlequins and Bristol, all four teams which failed to progress from the group stages to the quarter finals of the Heineken Cup. A further 11 players came from clubs who play in the European Challenge Cup, the second tier European rugby cub. It is a fairly obvious statement to say that the form sides progress from the Heineken Cup pool stages. Why are the English players these teams have not in the England squad? If they are the form players, why are they not performing for England?
Wasps are 8th in the Guinness Premiership, and they provide a quarter of England's squad for the Six Nations. The Wasps pack, which provides six players to the England squad, got destroyed by the Munster pack on Saturday, which provides a large contingent of the Irish pack. Good omens? The top two sides in the Premiership provide only 6 players to the squad and the fourth place side provides none.
Mark Regan is 35, or thereabouts now. He will be 39 come the next world cup. Will he still be playing then, at anywhere near international standard? Simon Shaw is 34 now, so will be 38 at the next world cup. Andy Gomarsall will be 34 this year. Will he still be around in four years time? Why not pick for the future? There is no better time than now. Give the new players the biggest opportunity to gain the most experience they can before the next world cup. I am not doubting that Regan, Shaw and Gomarsall will give their all, I am sure they will, but for the sake of the future of English rugby, we need to be blooding new and upcoming internationals so that they get as much exposure to international rugby as is possible.
There is no point arguing about players being away at the world cup, tough Heineken Cup groups, injuries, suspensions, blaming the ref (Dallaglio was very subtle in his moan on Saturday). This is not about that. This is about form players and form teams. This is about giving players experience, playing players so that they can do they job in four years time, playing players who have a winning habit with them at the moment. I don't need to name players, everyone will have their own choices. I don't want to pick the squad, but I want the coaching team to pick a squad that looks forward. But a negative board offering a one year contract to a coach, who wants to keep his job, will pick for the here and now. Woodward was given years to succeed. We need to get back to that position and pick an elite squad to take us through the next four, and for some of them, eight years.
Come on England! BE POSITIVE!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)