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!
Monday, 19 June 2017
Sunday, 18 June 2017
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?
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?
Sunday, 26 March 2017
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.
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.
Friday, 2 December 2016
Nico Rosberg - Racer, Gentleman, Champion
2016 Formula One World Champion Nico Rosberg's decision to retire is a surprise, there's no doubt about it. However, it's almost certainly the right one. So why was it made?
Lewis Hamilton
Nico won nine races to Lewis' ten this season. Lewis' engine failure in Malaysia could easily be pointed to as the reason Nico won the Championship. As a result, this season will always have a whiff of 'what if?' Nico will always know that he is a great racing driver and World Champion, but his race to race ability is not quite at the level Hamilton runs at. To try and beat Lewis again would probably be a fool's errand, especially with the rule changes next year that will most likely favour a man who's sole purpose is speed. Lewis will always have the edge and I'm sure that Nico does not want to go through next year with the added pressure of retaining his Championship as well as beating his teammate.
Family
In his statement, Nico mentioned how much pressure he had put on his young family this year. He has a small child and he had, effectively, asked his wife to look after their daughter for the entire year as he chased down what seemed to be an impossible dream. He has extra incentive to step back now. He knows that he has made more than enough money to live a comfortable life without Formula One and now he has the chance to concentrate on his wife and daughter, to be a husband and father. As classy as he always has been, he views that as a higher calling than anything else could be. He has asked so much of his family he is now in a position to give it back and then some.
World Champion
"Derice, a gold medal is a wonderful thing. But if you're not enough without one, you'll never be enough with one." Words immortalised by John Candy in Cool Runnings. Fernando Alonso, Sebastian Vettel, Lewis Hamilton. The World Champions who have never looked like they're enough with just the one (or two/four/three respectively). You can argue that it adds to the hunger of the racing driver but you can also argue that it's a bit pathetic. Rosberg now has one Championship. He was complete beforehand so he has hit the pinnacle of all he has ever know. To retire and leave may look like giving up the fight but he will leave knowing that he was the best racing driver on the planet at the point he called time on his career.
Nico Rosberg will be sorely missed in the paddock, mainly by his own engineers who regularly praise how technically brilliant he is and how excellent his feedback can be. The sport will be poorer for losing Jenson Button, Felipe Massa and Rosberg in one year but with new, young, fresh racing drivers like Max Verstappen stepping into the gaps, next season will be one to watch!
Lewis Hamilton
Nico won nine races to Lewis' ten this season. Lewis' engine failure in Malaysia could easily be pointed to as the reason Nico won the Championship. As a result, this season will always have a whiff of 'what if?' Nico will always know that he is a great racing driver and World Champion, but his race to race ability is not quite at the level Hamilton runs at. To try and beat Lewis again would probably be a fool's errand, especially with the rule changes next year that will most likely favour a man who's sole purpose is speed. Lewis will always have the edge and I'm sure that Nico does not want to go through next year with the added pressure of retaining his Championship as well as beating his teammate.
Family
In his statement, Nico mentioned how much pressure he had put on his young family this year. He has a small child and he had, effectively, asked his wife to look after their daughter for the entire year as he chased down what seemed to be an impossible dream. He has extra incentive to step back now. He knows that he has made more than enough money to live a comfortable life without Formula One and now he has the chance to concentrate on his wife and daughter, to be a husband and father. As classy as he always has been, he views that as a higher calling than anything else could be. He has asked so much of his family he is now in a position to give it back and then some.
World Champion
"Derice, a gold medal is a wonderful thing. But if you're not enough without one, you'll never be enough with one." Words immortalised by John Candy in Cool Runnings. Fernando Alonso, Sebastian Vettel, Lewis Hamilton. The World Champions who have never looked like they're enough with just the one (or two/four/three respectively). You can argue that it adds to the hunger of the racing driver but you can also argue that it's a bit pathetic. Rosberg now has one Championship. He was complete beforehand so he has hit the pinnacle of all he has ever know. To retire and leave may look like giving up the fight but he will leave knowing that he was the best racing driver on the planet at the point he called time on his career.
Nico Rosberg will be sorely missed in the paddock, mainly by his own engineers who regularly praise how technically brilliant he is and how excellent his feedback can be. The sport will be poorer for losing Jenson Button, Felipe Massa and Rosberg in one year but with new, young, fresh racing drivers like Max Verstappen stepping into the gaps, next season will be one to watch!
Wednesday, 31 August 2016
Re-Signings - For Or Against?
So there we go, the summer transfer window for 2016 is now officially shut and what have we learned? That managers at the Etihad Stadium are wasteful, that Jose Mourinho has more money than sense and that, despite a record of £90m spent over the summer, Arsenal fans are completely unsatisfied with Arsene Wenger. Confusing isn't it?
Two transfers have caught my eye. One that had been in the works for a while and one that picked up momentum during transfer deadline day and was officially announced moments before the window callously shut. Those of Paul Pogba and David Luiz. I am determined to make an argument for and against both of these signings, let me know what you think.
Pogba - For
One of the best midfielders in Europe last season and instrumental in France reaching the Euro 2016 Final on home soil. He embodies everything you want in a midfielder. Happy to sit back and challenge for the ball when your team doesn't have it and will be the marauding attacker when you do. At only 23 he has already played in both a Champion's League Final and a European Championship Final. He has won Serie A four times, in the team of the year twice and made it to the FIFPro World XI in 2015. The calibre of Paul Pogba is undoubted. He is a quality signing for Manchester United and will go on to greater wonders with one of the most famous clubs in the world. And at 23, he can only improve.
Pogba - Against
Eighty-nine million pounds. Let's just sit with that for a second. For a player who has won nothing at European or international level. Yes, he made it to the CL and Euro 2016 finals but he didn't win them. He's no Patrick Vieira. He's not a figurehead that people can rally around. He is, at best, a very good squad player. He can't hold a candle to the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi or Gareth Bale. In July, a Liverpool fan with far too much time on his (or her) hands showed the statistical similarities between Pogba and the most wildly average player to ever pull on an England shirt James Milner. The link is at the bottom of the page and it's hilarious. I'll admit, this is my opinion, but Man U have so chronically overpaid for Pogba, they really are going to struggle to justify it after a couple of barren months.
Luiz - For
Since David Luiz has left Chelsea, he has won Ligue 1 twice, played in a home World Cup Semi-Final and has been named in the Ligue 1 Team Of The Year twice. He is generally acknowledged as one of the best defenders in Europe. Chelsea sold him to Paris Saint Germain for £50m and has re-signed him now for £34m, making a £16m profit, No-one has made that much of a profit since Tottenham sold Robbie Keane to Liverpool in 2008. It's a shrewd move, Luiz has the Premier League experience now tempered with a couple of seasons with a team in Europe and Antonio Conte is no fool. He would have done his calculations and checked the statistics before agreeing to re-sign David Luiz.
Luiz - Against
Any monkey with money can win Ligue 1. No, seriously. Even Radamel Falcao flourished in France. Put him in a proper league (like, say, two seasons in the Premier League) and he is found out quicker than an elephant playing hide and seek in the desert. Sure, David Luiz has won a few leagues here and there and even a Champion's League at Chelsea but he could not be more past it. Look at his performance in the World Cup Semi against Germany. They lost 7-1. And Luiz could not have played worse! The mediocre performances of the strikers in France only flattered his ability as a defender. He's slow, struggles to read the game and can't step up in the big games. Why Chelsea re-signed him is beyond me. He will have only gone soft in France and he will be brutally exposed by even the most Bendtner of strikers now he's back in the Premier League.
What do you think of your team's transfer dealings over the summer? Let me know in the comments.
http://www.101greatgoals.com/top-stories/see-james-milners-liverpool-stats-stack-man-united-target-paul-pogba/
Two transfers have caught my eye. One that had been in the works for a while and one that picked up momentum during transfer deadline day and was officially announced moments before the window callously shut. Those of Paul Pogba and David Luiz. I am determined to make an argument for and against both of these signings, let me know what you think.
Pogba - For
One of the best midfielders in Europe last season and instrumental in France reaching the Euro 2016 Final on home soil. He embodies everything you want in a midfielder. Happy to sit back and challenge for the ball when your team doesn't have it and will be the marauding attacker when you do. At only 23 he has already played in both a Champion's League Final and a European Championship Final. He has won Serie A four times, in the team of the year twice and made it to the FIFPro World XI in 2015. The calibre of Paul Pogba is undoubted. He is a quality signing for Manchester United and will go on to greater wonders with one of the most famous clubs in the world. And at 23, he can only improve.
Pogba - Against
Eighty-nine million pounds. Let's just sit with that for a second. For a player who has won nothing at European or international level. Yes, he made it to the CL and Euro 2016 finals but he didn't win them. He's no Patrick Vieira. He's not a figurehead that people can rally around. He is, at best, a very good squad player. He can't hold a candle to the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi or Gareth Bale. In July, a Liverpool fan with far too much time on his (or her) hands showed the statistical similarities between Pogba and the most wildly average player to ever pull on an England shirt James Milner. The link is at the bottom of the page and it's hilarious. I'll admit, this is my opinion, but Man U have so chronically overpaid for Pogba, they really are going to struggle to justify it after a couple of barren months.
Luiz - For
Since David Luiz has left Chelsea, he has won Ligue 1 twice, played in a home World Cup Semi-Final and has been named in the Ligue 1 Team Of The Year twice. He is generally acknowledged as one of the best defenders in Europe. Chelsea sold him to Paris Saint Germain for £50m and has re-signed him now for £34m, making a £16m profit, No-one has made that much of a profit since Tottenham sold Robbie Keane to Liverpool in 2008. It's a shrewd move, Luiz has the Premier League experience now tempered with a couple of seasons with a team in Europe and Antonio Conte is no fool. He would have done his calculations and checked the statistics before agreeing to re-sign David Luiz.
Luiz - Against
Any monkey with money can win Ligue 1. No, seriously. Even Radamel Falcao flourished in France. Put him in a proper league (like, say, two seasons in the Premier League) and he is found out quicker than an elephant playing hide and seek in the desert. Sure, David Luiz has won a few leagues here and there and even a Champion's League at Chelsea but he could not be more past it. Look at his performance in the World Cup Semi against Germany. They lost 7-1. And Luiz could not have played worse! The mediocre performances of the strikers in France only flattered his ability as a defender. He's slow, struggles to read the game and can't step up in the big games. Why Chelsea re-signed him is beyond me. He will have only gone soft in France and he will be brutally exposed by even the most Bendtner of strikers now he's back in the Premier League.
What do you think of your team's transfer dealings over the summer? Let me know in the comments.
http://www.101greatgoals.com/top-stories/see-james-milners-liverpool-stats-stack-man-united-target-paul-pogba/
Monday, 20 June 2016
Brexit - A Premier League Story
Since the dawn of time, great international players have come to play in the English Premier League. George Best, Cristiano Ronaldo, Mesut Ozil, Luis Suarez, Pre-Chelsea Fernando Torres. England is known for having the best league in the world and the reason I believe Ronaldo to be better than Messi. Ronaldo has proven he can do it on a rainy Tuesday in Stoke, I think. So, with such a wealth of international, and in particular European, talent on display, what would a post-Brexit Premier League look like?
The answer is that it would probably not look that much different. At least not for the next couple of years. However, seeing as both sides of the campaign like to use the 'worst case scenario scare the shit out of everyone' tactic, I will do the same. Why? Because it's fun.
The main battlefield for the campaigns has been immigration so that's where I'll start. In England, if a Premier League club wishes to by an overseas player, they can buy one of two types of player. European or non-European. The distinction is simple, European players do not require a work permit but non-European players do (we'll use E and nE from now on). If we leave the EU and restrict all immigration as far as the eye can see, as the Leave campaign say is possible, then every E will need a work permit, just like nE. This is incredibly problematic because the requirements for a work permit in football are very strict. The player needs to be "internationally established at the highest level" and someone "whose employment will make a significant contribution to their sport at the highest level." On this basis, no young nE will ever be able to join a Premier League team. But that's not so bad, there are plenty of young E's knocking around right?
But, if we leave, those young E's will have to get work permits to join a Premier League club. Suddenly not so rosy. Young players with the calibre of Cristiano Ronaldo and pre-Chelsea Cesc Fabregas who were not 'internationally established' when they signed for Manchester United and Arsenal respectively could never have joined in the first place. We'd be handing that quality of talent straight to other European nations.
Premier League teams would have to start fielding young players from their own academies, which would mean more James Milner's and more Jordan Henderson's prancing around and losing the ball in every team. No one wants to see that. You could argue that it helps to develop home-grown talent. It doesn't. Anyone who's good gets to play, whether you're British, E or nE. If the player is not good, he doesn't play. It's as simple as that.
However, even if the immigration was waived for footballers as they provide entertainment and are economically beneficial, how do we know we'll be able to afford them in a post-Brexit world? If, as Remain claim, our economy would tank if we left the EU then surely the value of the pound will go with it. In that scenario, we would be unable to pay the top players the wages they demand. Prices across the country would go up thanks to inflation and Adnan Januzaj would be available for a steal at £45m. Suddenly, the British transfer record would be smashed by consecutive purchases over the course of one transfer window and the overall spending by Premier League teams would crash past the £2bn mark well before the August deadline. Mainly spent on mediocre but necessary signings like Andros Townsend, Micah Richards and Joleon Lescott. In a worst case scenario, the £100m mark is broken for the first time with Manchester United willing to 'splash out' on Dele Alli because of one good season, making a mockery of the transfer record because Real Madrid had offered Tottenham just €95m, which, because of the new exchange rate, is roughly the same.
I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. It's the most watched sport on the world, nothing tangible will change, it'll just mean more paperwork for the clubs, that's all. Comment about your opinions of how the Premier League will look post-Brexit.
Friday, 10 June 2016
Euro 2016 - Prologue
So, here we go again! The European Championships are back. This time in France. The hosts kick off their campaign against Romania on Friday so I thought I'd do my daily tournament blog again and start it all here, the day it all starts. I'm not going to go through the teams one by one but I will go through the groups. Starting with A.
Group A (Albania, France, Romania, Switzerland)
France, as hosts, start the tournament on Friday evening with a match against Romania. I have actually seen both of these nations play each other before. It was at the Olympic Stadium in Stratford and they were playing rugby but I'm sure the experience will be broadly similar. I'm picking France as my team to win this summer. If you're confident enough to not bother taking a player like Karim Benzema then you know you have an incredibly strong squad. There's not a dud name on that squad list. Romania are looking in good shape, having qualified from a group that included 2004 winners Greece and group winners Northern Ireland. Austria (ranked 10th in the world thanks to FIFA's insane coefficient system, one place above England), qualified top of a group that included heavy-hitters Russia and Sweden so they've got a good chance at progressing past the group stage. Finally, neighbours Switzerland round off the group. Switzerland could only come runners up in their qualifying group after England's 100% record. The Swiss are in a tough group but should progress.
To qualify: France and Switzerland
Group B (England, Russia, Wales, Slovakia)
This is a tough group, make no mistake. England qualified for the tournament with a 100% record. Impressive when you consider there was a strong Swiss team in their group. Less impressive when you see that the remaining teams were Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania and San Marino. Hardly European powerhouses. Nonetheless, they became only the sixth nation to achieve that feat. The main problem facing England are themselves. Although many of the squad play Champions League football, none of them play for a non-Premier League team. They lack experience of other leagues that makes other teams so potent. Russia are always dangerous, their squad is pretty strong but the same problem occurs with them as with England, only one of their squad plies his trade outside of Russia. Wales have had an outstanding qualifying run. They deserve to be at this tournament. Only time will tell how much of an impact Gareth Bale will have on proceedings. He is the best weapon in their arsenal (lol), but he is not the only one. They are in France because of an impressive collective team effort. Slovakia should be commended too, they came runners up in a qualifying group that included Spain and Ukraine. They deserve this opportunity as much as Wales do.
To qualify: England and Wales
Group C (Germany, Ukraine, Poland, Northern Ireland)
The world champions have something to prove. For too long, Spain had been the kings of Europe, then the world, then Europe again. Now it's Germany's turn to shine. Unfortunately, the team got off to a rocky start in 2016 by losing to England, beating Italy, losing to Slovakia and finally beating Hungary a few days ago. A mixed bag that does not set them up well for the Championships. They should still qualify from an incredibly simple group. Ukraine are here by virtue of a playoff win against Slovenia, Poland came second in the same qualifying group as Germany and Northern Ireland qualified from a group with only one top-20 FIFA ranked team in it, Hungary. Poland do have the qualifiers' top scorer in their ranks in Levandowski so they do have considerable attacking firepower up front so expect them to be dangerous going forward but porous at the back.
To qualify: Germany and Poland
Group D (Croatia, Czech Republic, Spain, Turkey)
Impressive list of holiday destinations aside, this is a tough group. Spain should qualify, but the way they were torn apart in their opening match against The Netherlands in 2014 asks questions of the current crop of Spain players. Ironically, I think their main attacking threat comes from Hector Bellerin (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?). His pace makes him both potent going forward and dangerous for pacy attacking players in defense. Croatia are always a danger, qualifying from the same group as Italy. The Czech Republic topped their qualifying group with Turkey as runners up so they know each other pretty well. It will be an interesting match up with difficulty predicting the outcome of the group as there are some strong teams with none having to get here by way of a playoff berth.
To qualify: Spain and Czech Republic
Group E (Belgium, Italy, Ireland, Sweden)
Why Belgium are ranked second in the world is beyond me. It's a real struggle to understand the FIFA coefficient system. Quarter-finalists in Brazil, couldn't beat Wales in qualifying and a mixed bag in the friendlies leading up to the Championships and they're ranked second? Nah, that doesn't sit well with me. Anyway, it's a tough group to qualify from. Ireland will give it everything, with memories of their 2002 heroics in Japan and South Korea still very much in people's minds with Roy Keane as assistant manager of the current side. Italy are Italy and should qualify and do well. Although they have lost a lot of the shine that made them World Champions in 2006. Sweden have Zlatan. Need I say more? Yes, they won't qualify.
To qualify: Italy and Belgium
Group F (Austria, Hungary, Iceland, Portugal)
Not really a tough group. Portugal, led by Cristiano Ronaldo, should prove victorious. Austria qualified top of a group that included Russia and Sweden so I wouldn't write them off. Especially when you consider that they didn't lose on their way to qualifying. Iceland also qualified from a tough group, beating World Cup semi-finalists The Netherlands twice en-route to a runners-up finish. Hungary had to settle for a playoff berth but beat Norway to book their place at France 2016.
To qualify: Portugal and Austria
It'll be a tough call to predict, but I think France will come out on top. I believe that the team and the country need the win after the last few years. I read an article recently that commented on how France was divided before the World Cup in 1998 right down religious, political and societal lines and I can't help but see that those issues have reared their ugly head again. Nobody likes the French. They're an arrogant and self-serving group of xenophobes who spend most of their Tuesday to Wednesday, 9-4 with a two hour break for lunch, working lives on strike but the country is hurting. Extremist groups are there in the foreground everywhere you look. I'll be cheering on England (because Greece didn't qualify) but I hope that France do well. It won't heal the pain of the last few years, but it will help.
Group A (Albania, France, Romania, Switzerland)
France, as hosts, start the tournament on Friday evening with a match against Romania. I have actually seen both of these nations play each other before. It was at the Olympic Stadium in Stratford and they were playing rugby but I'm sure the experience will be broadly similar. I'm picking France as my team to win this summer. If you're confident enough to not bother taking a player like Karim Benzema then you know you have an incredibly strong squad. There's not a dud name on that squad list. Romania are looking in good shape, having qualified from a group that included 2004 winners Greece and group winners Northern Ireland. Austria (ranked 10th in the world thanks to FIFA's insane coefficient system, one place above England), qualified top of a group that included heavy-hitters Russia and Sweden so they've got a good chance at progressing past the group stage. Finally, neighbours Switzerland round off the group. Switzerland could only come runners up in their qualifying group after England's 100% record. The Swiss are in a tough group but should progress.
To qualify: France and Switzerland
Group B (England, Russia, Wales, Slovakia)
This is a tough group, make no mistake. England qualified for the tournament with a 100% record. Impressive when you consider there was a strong Swiss team in their group. Less impressive when you see that the remaining teams were Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania and San Marino. Hardly European powerhouses. Nonetheless, they became only the sixth nation to achieve that feat. The main problem facing England are themselves. Although many of the squad play Champions League football, none of them play for a non-Premier League team. They lack experience of other leagues that makes other teams so potent. Russia are always dangerous, their squad is pretty strong but the same problem occurs with them as with England, only one of their squad plies his trade outside of Russia. Wales have had an outstanding qualifying run. They deserve to be at this tournament. Only time will tell how much of an impact Gareth Bale will have on proceedings. He is the best weapon in their arsenal (lol), but he is not the only one. They are in France because of an impressive collective team effort. Slovakia should be commended too, they came runners up in a qualifying group that included Spain and Ukraine. They deserve this opportunity as much as Wales do.
To qualify: England and Wales
Group C (Germany, Ukraine, Poland, Northern Ireland)
The world champions have something to prove. For too long, Spain had been the kings of Europe, then the world, then Europe again. Now it's Germany's turn to shine. Unfortunately, the team got off to a rocky start in 2016 by losing to England, beating Italy, losing to Slovakia and finally beating Hungary a few days ago. A mixed bag that does not set them up well for the Championships. They should still qualify from an incredibly simple group. Ukraine are here by virtue of a playoff win against Slovenia, Poland came second in the same qualifying group as Germany and Northern Ireland qualified from a group with only one top-20 FIFA ranked team in it, Hungary. Poland do have the qualifiers' top scorer in their ranks in Levandowski so they do have considerable attacking firepower up front so expect them to be dangerous going forward but porous at the back.
To qualify: Germany and Poland
Group D (Croatia, Czech Republic, Spain, Turkey)
Impressive list of holiday destinations aside, this is a tough group. Spain should qualify, but the way they were torn apart in their opening match against The Netherlands in 2014 asks questions of the current crop of Spain players. Ironically, I think their main attacking threat comes from Hector Bellerin (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?). His pace makes him both potent going forward and dangerous for pacy attacking players in defense. Croatia are always a danger, qualifying from the same group as Italy. The Czech Republic topped their qualifying group with Turkey as runners up so they know each other pretty well. It will be an interesting match up with difficulty predicting the outcome of the group as there are some strong teams with none having to get here by way of a playoff berth.
To qualify: Spain and Czech Republic
Group E (Belgium, Italy, Ireland, Sweden)
Why Belgium are ranked second in the world is beyond me. It's a real struggle to understand the FIFA coefficient system. Quarter-finalists in Brazil, couldn't beat Wales in qualifying and a mixed bag in the friendlies leading up to the Championships and they're ranked second? Nah, that doesn't sit well with me. Anyway, it's a tough group to qualify from. Ireland will give it everything, with memories of their 2002 heroics in Japan and South Korea still very much in people's minds with Roy Keane as assistant manager of the current side. Italy are Italy and should qualify and do well. Although they have lost a lot of the shine that made them World Champions in 2006. Sweden have Zlatan. Need I say more? Yes, they won't qualify.
To qualify: Italy and Belgium
Group F (Austria, Hungary, Iceland, Portugal)
Not really a tough group. Portugal, led by Cristiano Ronaldo, should prove victorious. Austria qualified top of a group that included Russia and Sweden so I wouldn't write them off. Especially when you consider that they didn't lose on their way to qualifying. Iceland also qualified from a tough group, beating World Cup semi-finalists The Netherlands twice en-route to a runners-up finish. Hungary had to settle for a playoff berth but beat Norway to book their place at France 2016.
To qualify: Portugal and Austria
It'll be a tough call to predict, but I think France will come out on top. I believe that the team and the country need the win after the last few years. I read an article recently that commented on how France was divided before the World Cup in 1998 right down religious, political and societal lines and I can't help but see that those issues have reared their ugly head again. Nobody likes the French. They're an arrogant and self-serving group of xenophobes who spend most of their Tuesday to Wednesday, 9-4 with a two hour break for lunch, working lives on strike but the country is hurting. Extremist groups are there in the foreground everywhere you look. I'll be cheering on England (because Greece didn't qualify) but I hope that France do well. It won't heal the pain of the last few years, but it will help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)