Watching England in a World Cup Final is Never Easy

Wow. Oh wow. What a day of sport! Whatever you were watching, whether it be the Men's Singles Final at Wimbledon, the British Grand Prix, England against Samoa in the netball or the ICC One Day International World Cup Final, it was an absolute treat.

Roger Federer got to Championship Point, only to get pegged back by a resurgent Novak Djokovic. An incredibly tactical match from Djokovic, full in the knowledge that he couldn't break Federer's serve early on, deciding to race through the second and fourth sets after early breaks for Federer. Winning the fifth set in the first example of the final set tie break to take place in the Wimbledon Final. In marked contrast to the Women's Final yesterday, this match lasted nearly five hours and both players looked absolutely knackered by the end. Unfortunately for Federer, who miscued a number of shots throughout the afternoon, it was this tendency that resulted in his final shot heading into the sky and Djokovic winning the final set tie break.

Slightly less stressful was the British Grand Prix, with Hamilton taking the lead from Mercedes teammate Valteri Bottas early on and retaining to take his record sixth Silverstone win. Typically, for this season, the action wasn't at the front with Vettel plowing into the back of Max Verstappen in the braking zone with maybe a hint that the Dutchman dabbed his brakes a tad early but the stewards thought otherwise, giving the Ferrari a time penalty for causing a collision. Elsewhere, it was a great day for Charles Leclerc who, while unable to prevent a Mercedes one-two, made it to the podium after an incredible race, especially against Verstappen in the early stages.

With another England team playing in a World Cup Final, England's netball team had to take a backseat as their thrashing of Samoa to top their World Cup group stage going completely unnoticed by major news outlets. What will be a concern for the Roses will be Layla Guscoth's snapping of her Achilles tendon that has ended her tournament. Thankfully, Tracey Neville was able to blood in some of the more inexperienced members of her squad in the match today so the eleven remaining players will all have had enough game time come the knockouts.

Which brings me onto why I'm writing this. Without a visual, it will be difficult to describe how close this afternoon's match against New Zealand became. However, I'm going to try. In my opinion, it came down to three balls. Two are from England's innings and the last is the final ball of the match. New Zealand achieved 241-8 in their innings and made

Ball 1: Eng 220-7 Overs 48.4 England need 22 runs from nine balls

Neesham bowls to Stokes. Stokes tonks it and Trent Boult manages to get himself between the ball and the ground and he takes the catch! Except, as he steadies himself after the take, he steps back onto the boundary rope, gifting England the six runs they so desperately needed.

Ball 2: Eng 233-8 Overs 49.4 England need nine runs from three balls

Possibly one of the most insane moments in high level sport history. Akin to an equaliser from a goalkeeper in the dying moments of a Football World Cup Final, or a 70-yard drop goal from a Prop in the Rugby equivalent. Boult to Stokes, who gives it a smack to mid-wicket and runs for a single. With England simply needing runs, he comes back for a second. As he's diving over the line, the ball comes in from the field, hits his bat and runs away for four runs! Giving England six runs that they sorely needed. Lady luck was smiling on this team after that.

Ball 3: New Zealand Super Over chasing 15 needing two runs off one ball

After Jofra Archer threw a wide ealry on in the over, everyone thought it would be over, however, New Zealand didn't get the runs quite right and they needed two off the final ball to win. Guptill flicks Archer to deep mid-wicket but, as he's coming back for that winning second run, the ball comes flying in from Jason Roy, caught by Jos Buttler and mashed against the wicket. Guptill fails to get the winning second run and England win the World Cup simply by virtue of making more boundaries during the regular match.

It's never easy watching England play, but it's especially difficult in a Final. Congratulations to the team and to New Zealand who contributed to the drama of the day. Very proud of our England. Cricket's Come Home!

After #TheMatch, What Is The Future Of Golf?

I tuned in on Friday night to watch The Match, a winner-takes-all match between Tiger Woods and Phil Mickleson in a matchplay event for $9 million that finished under the floodlights in Shadow Creek, Las Vegas. The idea was that two of golf's icons would face-off in an epic challenge for the first time and draw in a crowd via pay-per-view that would help to apy for the winner's purse. To add to the spectacle, each player would be able to bet against each other with the winnings going to a charity of their choice.

Considering that the players are 10 years out of their prime, there were no real spectators, short of a 'select few' and corporate sponsors, the ppv fees were extortionate for those in the States (Sky Sports Golf got the rights late on Thursday so I was able to watch it without paying extra) and taht the Ryder Cup was demonstrably more enjoyable, this Match turned out to be nothing but a daft, self-serving and self-congratulating affair that contrived to entertain only the sponsors who showed that they are still able to make people dance when they throw money at them. In my opinion, it was a sad showing so late in such illustrious men's careers. Congratulations to Phil Mickleson for winning it at the 22nd hole.

So, if that's not the future of golf, then what is? There are no two men who have had more of an impact on the sport than Tiger and Mickleson, surely? I would agree, and there are many who took up the sport between 1998 and 2008 that would have done so because of these two. However, we're ten years on from then and the sport has moved on too.

Consider the success of the Ryder Cup, then consider its format - a matchplay even that combines team play on the first two days with singles play on the last. It's more aggressive and more fascinating as the pendulum swings one way on day one and then the other on day two. These players play for pride, not for money.

So. why not a tournament that is for money? A tournament with format similar to the Ryder Cup but with teams of golfers that are contracted to play for that team and can be traded individually, like in other sports. In the three years between Ryder Cup and Solheim Cup matches, the teams would compete in a league structure to determine the winner. In the meantime, the strokeplay majors and masters can still be competed in and the team matchplay would wrap itself around the current calendar.

It allows players to chose between being involved in both or one individually. Ten teams of twelve 'squad-members' would play three matches a year over three years which is unlikely to stretch the calendar. If more teams want to join, then you can structure a two-tier league system with relegation and promotion.

The format is tried and tested with audiences, it's not taxing on the calendar and it'll draw in crowds at a time when golf is ready to try new approaches.

I've Spent Too Much Time Defending Cricket - Steve Smith Proves That

I love sport in general, as you may have gathered. Top level sport is a dream to get to watch live. I really enjoy a day at the Test, but so many people say to me, "that's really boring, why would you want to do that?" And I point them in the direction of Pakistan at Lord's in 2010, England in Centurion, earlier, in 2009 and several more. Both excellent matches with high level cricket played out over five days. England v SA in Centurion was a real snatch-a-draw-from-the-jaws-of-defeat game. Its exciting, dynamic, unpredictable and that's without even mentioning the days long drinking marathon you can achieve if you go to the ground.

I do the same with Golf - Miracle at Medinah. And with tennis - Federer-Nadal 2008 Wimbledon final and Isner-Mahut at Wimbledon in 2010.

But this is it for me. I fell so incredibly let down by Australia captain Steve Smith that I feel there's no point defending a sport against its 'boring' tag if, to make it more exciting, people are cheating. And wilfully, knowingly cheating at that.

The reason I picked the two tests that I did was because I know that various amounts of unsporting play went on. In the Pakistan test match at Lord's, two bowlers and the captain were embroiled in a spot-fixing scandal to bowl no balls in specific overs.

In SA, the England team were accused of ball-tampering but the complaint went no further.

In both situations, those present either admitted responsibility and were rightly prosecuted and sentenced or the complaint wasn't taken further so no wrongdoing was found.

In the case of Steve Smith, this is different. He knew that his bowler had planned on cheating to gain an advantage with a degrading ball. He knew they were planning on cheating and did nothing. Not only did he do nothing, but he initially suggested that he wouldn't step down from his role as Australian Captain (initially, because as I've been writing this a notification has come up telling me that he has stepped down. But for me the damage is done).

Yes, you've won the Ashes. Yes, you've been pivotal in an Aussie cricket revival that one can compare to the rugby revival in the same country. There will always be a place in cricketing history for Steve Smith - as a cheat and a liar.

There's no excuse. What makes it worse was that he seemed to suggest that he could carry on as captain after admitting cheating.

I'm looking forward to going to Edgbaston in August. I might go to Lord's later on in the year. I hope that I see no unsportsmanlike play, it just wouldn't be cricket.

Nasri Ban Makes Mockery Of Anti-Doping Regulations

OK, so there are things that I care more about than Samir Nasri and his IV-administered electrolytes. Things like what Hillary Benn had for lunch or whether or not my neighbour likes carrots. However, the procedure is not what's caught my eye. The fact that he had it in 2016 and the anti-doping agencies are only now suspending him - that's what's got my goat.

In fact, it's not even the anti-doping agencies that have suspended him, it's UEFA. What have they been doing all this time? Each other?

Now, there are strict rules in place to ensure that no clean athlete gets (for the lack of a better word) convicted, but surely it doesn't take 18 months to prove it one way or the other.

The other thing that bugs me is that he now has a six month suspension. Are you aware he has been without a club for the last three weeks? More to the point, he continued to play for Sevilla (on loan from Man City) long after he got caught.

Look at other athletes that went through the same thing, they ended up getting immediately suspended and then the investigation happened. What was different this time?

It's pathetic. All of it. The system is broken. And if the system is broken, then anyone could slip through the net. Nasri only got caught because the clinic where he received his chronic lack of performance enhancing drugs tweeted about it!

Is Gatland Still The Best Man For The Lions?

Well, I would not be writing this if I thought he was, but let's at least ask the question.

Last time around, in 2013, the Brisith and Irish Lions toured Australia under Warren Gatland. Six months previously, Wales had humiliated England in a 30-3 defeat that destroyed England's hopes of a Grand Slam and saw Wales climb above their defeated foe to claim the Six Nations trophy on points difference. This saw Gatland pick 14 Welshmen over 12 Englishmen over the course of the series . This makes sense, the Welsh played well and, whilst the English had a decent tournament, they were eventually undone. Although I still believe that Chris Robshaw was left our unfairly that summer as he had had a fantastic tournament individually but did go missing a bit in the final Wales match. Gatland's choices came off, the Lions won the series 2-1 and came home heroes, as the first winning Lions tour since 1997 in South Africa. A strong showing all-round really.

Which brings us on to this year, this summer, this tour. Up against possibly the greatest team to have graced a rugby pitch (although, statistically, the current England team are just as good) in New Zealand, the Lions really need to be at the very peak of their game. So, why pick so many playes from Wales? Even Scotland had a better Six Nations Championship than Wales. In fact, Wales had their worst Six Nations for six years. England had an impressive Championship. Not only that, but the squad that Eddie Jones had assembled equalled the longest test-winning streak in history and incorporated a Grand Slam and a further Six Nations into that streak. So why, oh why are there more Welsh players in the Lions than there are English? To a man, England have been the better performers over the last two years since the World Cup.

The team sheets are missing, in my opinion, George Ford, Mike Brown, Dylan Hartley, Alex Dunbar and Huw Jones. They are swelled by the presence of Kristian Dacey (4 caps), Corey Hill (6 caps) and Gareth Davis. All of whom could have easily had an Englishman called up as cover instead.

I do think that I'm being harsh, but it echoes Sir Clive's unforgivable mistake of calling up 20 English players in 2005, with only ten coming from Grand Slam-winning Wales. Look what happened there, in New Zealand. It was a whitewash and the Lions were humiliated. Gatland, do not let that happen again!

The Test For Russia

The summer before a World Cup is incredibly important for those players who are on the cusp of their international team. Choosing whether to stay at their current club or potentially move to a lesser club in the hope of more playing time to get into the World Cup squad is a very difficult decision. What happens if the team you're currently at plays well without you? What if the team you move to performs badly even though you played well? What if everyone else in similar situations have absolute blinders of a season and yet you could still be picked because, overall, the club you have bled for over the previous ten months came out on the top of the pile?

It's a huge dilemma, and one that I'm happy to not ba a part of. I wouldn't know which way to go. However, one thing I know for certain is that I will not be going to Russia next summer. I'd actually love to go at some point but it will certainly be much too expensive for someone on my budget to go for a World Cup.

Which brings us round to this summer and the Confederations Cup. It's become a sort of dress rehearsal for the World Cup in that it's held in the same country and tests the infrastructure for the upcoming showpiece on a lower scale. The premise is that the holders of the each of the six FIFA Confederation regional championships along with the host nation and the current World Champions totalling eight teams. This year, we get to see Portugal (UEFA), Australia (AFC), Chile (CONMEBOL), Mexico (CONCACAF), New Zealand (OFC), Cameroon (CAF), Germany (World Champions) and Russia (Host Nations) battle it out in the single most pointless contest in international football.

Apart from being a yard stick, against which the success of the following year's World Cup can be based, the competition serves no real purpose for the teams taking part. I stress that this is my opinion and that no team (except, perhaps, England if we were to win it because we love celebrating mediocrity) would openly celebrate winning the Confederations Cup. It's more likely that the team would celebrate the win for the tournament that got them there in the first place.

No, what makes this year's important, and, therefore, why I have decided to write about it, is because it's taking place in Russia. This really is a stern test for the host nation. Not least because of all the problems that their 'fans' caused in France last year. I have to say, the incidents last summer seemed a lot more publicised than they had been at other events. I don't know whether that was down to the rise of social media reporting or the availability of cameras to document events or simply because there were more incidents, but it seemed that nearly every group match involved an incident with Russian football thugs. I use the word thug because hooligans implies drunk and disorderly. They're not that at all.

That's not the only part about the thugs that could be the issue. Russia is the largest country to have hosted the World Cup (not that it's ever going to be beaten as it's the largest country in the world. This means that the infrastructure in place for teams, coaches and fans need to be near-perfect. The Confederations Cup will test that infrastructure. However, the 1,500 mile trip from Kaliningrad to Yekaterinburg next summer is less than the 2,300 mile journey enjoyed by teams travelling from Detroit to Los Angeles and San Francisco in 1994. I suppose we should be thankful that there are no matches being played near the Bering Strait. Although, at least that would mean a short journey home for the US when they get knocked out (assuming they qualify).

So, who's likely to win the 2017 Confederations Cup? Well, can I be honest with you? I don't really care, just like in 2005, 2009 and 2013. I'm more interested in what goes on next year, and who gets on that plane to Russia. England will qualify and I believe we have a team that can play well together and succeed at a major tournament but will it be the team that goes?

Arsenal - The Wenger Dilemma

So, as you can probably guess from my previous entries, I am an Arsenal fan. Partisan as I try to be with other clubs while writing, I will almost always end up with one foot firmly stuck in the Arsenal camp. This does mean that some of my articles can have a certain bias towards Arsenal but I try not to get too bogged down in it (especially when I'm writing about Formula One).

The fanbase for Arsenal is split right now, more than ever. Those who believe Wenger should leave on his own terms and those who believe that he should leave now. I find it very hard to identify with either camp for the simple reason that they both make good points. On the one hand, Wenger has had enough time at the club, precious little over the last thirteen years to show for it and he should step aside and let a new person take over the reins and on the other, he's the most successful post-war manager Arsenal has ever had and should be treated with respect as such and his time will come when he says it has.

If you were to say to a Tottenham fan, or a Liverpool fan, or even a Man Utd fan right now that we coule offer them eternal Champions League group stage football, reasonable shots at the title, the odd cup run and a sustainable financial base, they would jump at it. So why are Arsenal supporters asking for Wenger Out? It seems almost inconceivable that consistency is reviled rather than revered.

The answer is simple really, because we're so consistent, we know when the bad spells are going to hit and when our season does down the proverbial toilet. This is end of February/early March. It's so incredible predictable that it's painful. Year on year Arsenal crash out of the Champions League, then have a poor run of form in the Premier League that ends their title race followed by a tame cup exit (although 2014 and 2015 were exceptions). It's so incredibly difficult to run against that that it's easy to lose hope by November, when Arsenal are top of the league.

And therin lies the Wenger Dilemma. Would you rather have the security of knowing that your team will always make the top four and be financially secure, or would you rather have a new manager who might not bring the consistency but at least might be able to motivate the players through March and into April in a higher league position? Moyes and van Gaal failed to emulate Ferguson, what's to say that Arsenal won't suffer the same fate?

In truth, right now Arsenal are in sixth after an abhorrent run of form and are unlikely to hit the top four. But then we said that back in 2012 when, at one point during a North London Derby, Tottenham were thirteen points ahead. Then we went on a winning streak (that started with a 5-2 victory in said derby) that meant Arsenal finished above Tottenham. Consistently frustrating.