Euro 2012 - The Draw

OK, so, just seen the draw for the group stages of Euro 2012 to be held in Poland and Ukraine. I will list the groups, and a little guess as to how I see it all panning out.

Group A

Poland (host)

One of the easier groups, I think. None of the major, major teams. However, the Russians are good, Greece are past winners, and the Czechs have a reputation of being tough. And, of course, Poland. One of the hosts. Never easy taking on the hosts! I peg the Poland v Russia game as the tastiest one. No love lost between those two nations!

Group B

Netherlands

Denmark

Germany

Portugal

Interesting group, this. The Germans are multiple world and European champions, and have an excellent young squad at the moment. Portugal are always dangerous, and the Dutch are the current beaten world cup finalists. The only ones who dont flag up anything major are the Danes. And they won the thing back in 88! Game to watch: Germany v Netherlands. The Germans dont like the Dutch. And the feeling is easily mutual!

Group C

Spain (World Champions)

Italy

 Ireland

Croatia

This, in the Euro Championships, could be considered the group of death. Spain are the World Champs, Italy are Italy, Croatia are on the rise, and the Irish are just not easy. Game to watch: Spain v Italy!

Group D

 Ukraine (host)

Sweden

France

England

Not the group of death. England should escape this group. Should. The match to watch will be the tie up between England and France. Whilst there is not much of a footballing rivalry, any chance to get one over the French is always welcome! I expect England and France to escape. Who will win the group, I dont know.

So, those are the groups. And who is going to win.

Well, heart says England (I AM English!) But the head says look no further than the likes of Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands.

I like the Euro's, in many ways, it is a bigger test than the World Cup. In the World Cup, there is usually a Group of Death. And the rest are not so bad. Relatively easy work for the big name teams to get out. However, at the Euro's, none of the groups are easy. They are either tough (like Englands) or Very tough, like Spains!

Good luck to all! But mostly England. We'll need it!

Armistice Day

Very soon, it will be November 11th. Armistice Day. A day of remembrance, for those who have fallen in conflict defending those that they loved.

A day during which people wear a poppy to honour their actions, honour their memories, and honour those who continue to serve today, carrying on their legacy. 

The poppy came about from the red flowers found growing on the fields of Flanders. An area soaked in the blood of the fallen during World War 1. During a time of remembrance, the public wear then on lapels. Also, many sports organisations get them stitched onto shirts. 

They have featured on football shirts of teams in Englands Premier League, as well as on England and Australia national team rugby shirts (amongst others).

They have also been stitched on to England's national football teams shirt, and sold to raise money for The Royal British Legion. A charity that raises money to pay for the care of wounded soldiers, as well as helping the families for those soldiers who dont return.

So, last weekend, the FA allowed teams playing in England the right to stitch a poppy on to their shirts.

And England asked for permission to place a poppy on the England shirt for the friendly game against Spain played on November 11, Armistice Day. 

FIFA declined to allow England to do so. It is part of their rules that teams cannot place symbols which are commercial (sponsorship), religious, or political in nature. They said that to allow England would open the doors to further such demands, and end up with symbols on all sorts of shirts, representing all sorts of events.

Whilst FIFA can protest about protecting the neutrality of Football, they are on a hiding to nothing over this. Whatever happens, FIFA looks bad (Not that they do that themselves anyway!).

Lets look at the rules. So, we cannot place commercial logo's on a shirt (other than kit manufacturer). Well, the Royal British Legion is a charity. Religious logos. Royal British Legion looks after injured soldiers and their families, no matter what religion. Political logos. Well, they will take donations from any political hue! And politicians of all colours wear poppies. So, it aint political.

Is it England specific? No. The Scots and Welsh also wear poppies (its a British thing). The poppy is not exclusive to The UK, either. Poppies play a (small) part in Veterans day in the US. Poppies are also worn in New Zealand, Australia, as well as many other Commonwealth nations. The Poppy factory in London exports all over the world.

I understand FIFA's fear, that this could open the door to all sorts of claims, but surely, given that Armistice day (and related) is a multi-national thing, there is space to allow it. Maybe even allow every nation to have 1 day to honour something. Just one. 

Besides, FIFA place patches on shirts to promote their own campaigns. Such as the "Fair Play" campaign, as well as UEFA's "Respect" campaign.

Why not allow nations to Respect those who gave their all for the rest of us?

Liverpool, you are on your own!

This week has seen the Premier League potentially paint itself in a GOOD light! Believe it or not. 2 money related issues have cropped up, only for many of the current League management to step up, and decry them. The first was an attempt by Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, to spark the debate over TV rights.

To be fair, he was not pushing for ALL TV rights to be altered, but his idea was to skew the agreement to allow the bigger clubs a larger share. His argument was that overseas, when people tune in to watch the Premier League, they wanted to watch Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea. Not Bolton, Wigan, Fulham, or Blackburn.

His argument on the surface does seem to hold water. In Spain, TV rights are negotiated by the clubs, not collectively. This has allowed Barcelona and Real to really rake in the money. However, it has come at the expense of the rest of the Spanish league, with the other clubs having a far smaller cut.

However, many have already come out against such an idea. Sir Alex Ferguson came out, actually, BEFORE all this. His angle was that the overseas TV deal was too small, and the Premier League was worth much more. However, because it is all about the league, the fairness aspect does work. At the moment.

Also, Geoff Mesher of the accountancy firm Grant Thornton has also come out against this idea. His point is that in Spain, Barcelona and Real earn 12 times more than the lowest club in La Liga. But really, in La Liga, there is only 2 teams that are in with a shout of winning.

It is Geoff Meshers belief that the current system affords more parity in England, making the Premier League a lot more competitive. Whilst many say that in England there are only a few teams that can win, its a group of 6 from which the winner will spring from. Also, the competitive edge comes from the fact that a lot of the lower clubs can and do take points off the top clubs.

This makes it a lot more exciting, and ultimately HELPS the Premier League brand, and helps the clubs to profit all together.

The second thing that has risen recently, a report from Richard Bevan, the chief executive of the League Managers Association has come out to say that there is a strong willingness on the part of the foreign owners of Premier League clubs to scrap promotion and relegation and turn the league over to a franchise system.

On the face of it, it is a positive move. Many of the foreign owners want to protect their ownership of a Premier League club, and the money it brings in for them. Not being from England, they are not really "in tune" with the way the fabric of Football in England is cut.

As it stands, 9 of Englands top flight are foreign-owned, with a 10th having a majority of its shares owned overseas.

As it is right now:

Manchester United - The Glazer family - USA

Aston Villa - Randy Lerner - USA

Blackburn Rovers - The Venky's Group - India

Chelsea - Roman Abramovich - Russia

Fulham - Mohammed Al Fayed - Egypt

Liverpool - Fenway Sports Group - USA

Manchester City - Sheikh Mansour - Abu Dhabi

Sunderland - Ellis Short - USA

QPR - Tony Fernandes - Malaysia

Arsenal - Stan Kroenke - USA (He currently holds a controlling 66.76% interest in the club)

So, at the moment, half the league is under foreign ownership. However, in order for any changes to be pushed through in the league, you need 75% to vote for it. So, if another 5 clubs go into foreign hands, then changes could happen.

I can understand it. With Americans making up the largest single group, they are coming from the US sports market which does actually run a franchise system, and the concept of promotion and relegation is an alien concept. By switching to a franchise system, they can lock the Premier league, and guarantee the revenue streams that come from it.

However, many have already come out and slammed it. Sir Alex Ferguson has already rained fire on it. And when Sir Alex speaks, many listen! Given his history in the league! He basically said that the link with the lower leagues is very, very important. And that is true. In the current Championship, 18 of the 20 have played in the Premier League.

Barnsley, Birmingham City, Blackpool, Burnley, Coventry City, Crystal Palace, Derby County, Hull City, Ipswich Town, Leeds United, Leicester City, Middlesbrough, Nottingham Forest, Portsmouth, Reading, Southampton, Watford, and West Ham. And out of these 18 clubs, Birmingham, West Ham, Leeds, and Nottingham are all clubs that, in terms of size, would easily fit in the Premier League again.

It also is not limited to the Championship. You also have Charlton, Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday, Oldham Athletic, and Swindon Town who have also graced the Premier League. And both Sheffield clubs could easily hold a place in the Premier League, given the fanbase that both clubs have.

And to slam the door on all of these clubs really does strike at the heart of the fabric of the English game. 

Also, Dave Whelan, the chairman of Wigan has said that should such a system come forward, he would pull Wigan from the Premier League, and look at moving back to the Championship.

The franchise system does pose big problems for England. For example, the clubs who are currently knocking on the door would not be able to get in. Also, you could argue that some of the clubs currently in are not in a position to survive in the league. 

The league is at 20. There are 23 other clubs who have been there, of which 6 or 8 who could, in terms of size, hold their own.

Will this idea ever fly?

No. The public would never allow it. The public who support the current Premier League clubs would not want to see it turn into exactly the same all the time. The clubs lower down want the prospect of a doorway into the "Promised Land" to be open to them.

The prospect of a franchise system is totally alien to the public in England. It is totally unwanted. 

And the good thing is that with all the forces lining up totally opposed to such a move, the ultimate one is the FA. It is built into the Premier League that any changes to the leagues structure has to be OK'd with the FA. And the FA has said they could not ever back such an idea.

As Mr Whelan said "Its the most stupid decision in my life." 

And I agree.

We are there!

So, the qualifications are done. The initial 12 places are decided for Euro 2012. Poland and Ukraine are there as co-hosts, and joined by Germany, Russia, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Greece, Denmark, Spain, Sweden and England as various group winners. The final 4 slots will be granted to the winners of the playoff games. Ireland take on Estonia, Turkey take on Croatia, Bosnia play Portugal, and the runners up in Englands group Montenegro have to get past the Czech Republic.

The Dutch blew through their group, as well as Germany. England ended up in one of the easiest groups, and yes, qualified with relative ease. However, England did not gallop over the line, more of limping over wheezing at the end.

But qualify they did. However, people are not celebrating. We are talking about "The Rooney Incident." If you did not see the final game, well...

England went into the game against Montenegro 3 points clear of Montenegro, with Montenegro having a game in hand. So, just a point would see England safe. In the first half, England where in charge, and doing well. England did go out to a 2-0 lead. 

However, as is Englands way, they made life hard for themselves. Going into half time, Montenegro grabbed a goal back. However, Englands case was not helped by Rooney.

Getting marked heavily meant Rooney did not have the freedom he wanted. This led to frustrations, and in a moment of insanity, Rooney kicked out.

No idea why.

This led to him getting a straight red.However, Rooney realised he had screwed up, and did not complain.

So, England spent the second half with 10, and Montenegro grabbed a second. 

So, England got the point they needed, but it could have been much more.

And now, UEFA has announced that Rooney will serve a 3 match ban for his actions. This rules him out of Englands group stage games at Euro 2012. As to the reasoning, we will find out when UEFA release a full written reasoning behind their decision.

And so, rather than celebrating, the English are now debating Rooney. Should we take him to Euro 2012? Given that he cannot play in Englands opening group games. Rooney is a proven scorer, and probably Englands most dangerous player. He is the one all the others watch. If something happens from England, Rooney WILL be involved!

So. do we take him? Many people say no. He was an idiot for kicking out. And, unless the FA's appeal is successful given how he has shown remorse, he wont be able to play in Englands group games. so, if he goes, he will take a slot in the squad, and we have to HOPE that England progress far enough (out of the groups!) oh actually clear his suspension, and get him back on the field! And there is no guarantee in that.

However, many others say that we have to. England really should have too much to NOT get out of the groups, and by getting into the pointy end of the Championships, having Rooney there would be a bonus, given the type of player he is.

Problem for me is that it is not that easy.

1) If Englands appeal is successful, and we see his ban reduced to 1, then its a no-brainer. He goes.

2) If the ban is not reduced, but because of the appeal it is upped to 4 (which is possible) then he does NOT go. the only time we would get to use him would be the semi's and the final. And keeping him there for 4 games, unused, seems daft.

3) If the appeal is unsuccessful, but no extra punishments are handed out, then we have a quandary. However, it is not a thing to be decided now. Given how important Rooney is to England, his name is pretty much written in stone on the team list. However, with his suspension at 3 games, it hands the other candidates a chisel!

As long as Rooney keeps going with his form for United, his name will still be linked with England come the time to finalize the squad. HOWEVER, with Rooney's position under threat, it is now up to the other strikers to step up.

With Rooney in form, it is almost impossible to blast him out of the squad. However, Capello has said that it is unlikely that Rooney will be used much in the friendlies. This allows him to try alternatives. It also gives Englands "other choices" the chance to really stake a claim. If, during the course of the season, some of the other strikers available go on a tear, then it will jeopardize Rooneys slot. 

Should England take Rooney? Well, this decision is not one for now. BUT the door has not just been opened for the others, but blown right off its hinges!

we are Number One!

So, for a good few years now, England has been making headway in the world of Test Cricket. It is not as flashy or as exciting as the one day game with its World Cup which is a highly sought after trophy, or the new shorter cousin of twenty20 Cricket. 

However, it is the full 5 day Test match which is seen as the pinnacle. Being number one in the Test rankings is pretty much the bee-all and end-all of Cricket. 

And England are now number one! A good run of Tests has seen England steadily make headway up the rankings lists. Whilst the run has not been a total blaze of glory, it has seen England reverse some historic runs against. For example, the one Test series that all in England want to win is the Ashes against Australia.

Back in 2005 England managed to cap a climb up a tough mountain with a hard fought victory in the 2005 Ashes series 2-1. Unfortunately, the following 2006-2007 campaign saw Australia thump England to take the series in a 5-0 whitewash.

However, England continued to improve by reclaiming the Ashes back once more in England with a tough 2-1 victory. What then marked England as a team in the ascendancy was the fact that England managed to hold on to the Ashes in the following series by defeating Australia IN Australia 3-1.

Wind the clock on to 2011. India had claimed the 2011 World Cup with a remarkable victory, especially with the final being played in India. India, riding high on top of the tree as the World Champions and ranked number 1 in the Test rankings.

However, India arrived in England straight from a tough Test series in the West Indies. Also, India did not prepare properly for their series. Very few warm up matches where scheduled, and not a lot of time was allowed for proper practice to get used to the conditions in England. After all, they had just stepped off the plane from a long tour in the West Indies, which features dry pitches, and warm weather. And in England, well, not so much...

Well, this lack of preparation has hurt India. I wont go into detail, too much, but suffice to say, England has taken the top spot. The first Test saw England defeat India by a handsome 319 run margin. The second Test was something of a blowout. Defeating India by an innings and 242 runs. 

for those who dont know, in Test cricket, over the 5 days, both teams have to bat twice (2 innings each). Now, usually one team bats until they decide to stop, or they have all been bowled out. Then its the other guys turn. Then back again, and so on. 

However, should the first team post a truly massive score, and then limit the other side to a dismal first score themselves, such that they fall far short of the initial score, they can force the other team to bat on. In other words, they declare that "our first score is so big, we think you will need 2 goes to reach it!"

Unfortunately for India, England mounted a gigantic score of 710 declared, and skittled India for 224 in their first innings. Then, forced to follow on, India posted a slightly better score of 244. The combined total fell far short of Englands, and England did not need their second innings.

This has given England the points they need to rise to the top of the tree.

And, as we speak, England have posted 591 for 6 in the third Test, in their first innings, but rain has stopped play! Surprise there.

However, what prompted me to write this was a comment from the British Prime Minister, David Cameron.

During a phone call with President Obama, Cameron could not resist a prideful boast and declared England to be the best Cricketing nation! Which is right.

However, Obama retorted that its like saying America is number one at Baseball, and gave the game to the world!

One tiny problem with that...

Thats Japan with the World Baseball Classic trophy. Which they have won. Twice. 

Can anyone "own" a colour?

Well, we shall see. We just had the RFU unveil the new secondary kit for the England Rugby team. Now, usually, England play in all white. White shirt, and shorts. They did play with adding a bit of red for a while, but have since scaled back on that.

But does England "own" white? Well, no. However, New Zealand does stake a claim to black. After all, they are known as the "All blacks." Mainly because England played in all white, and they went and used a colour that was totally opposite. 

However, controversy has arisen. England has decided to unveil a new secondary kit that is very, very different to the regular white kit. Its all black! 

Given that New Zealand is pretty much known as a colour, black is synonymous with New Zealand in world Rugby. 

However, there is no rule saying that you cannot "own" or copyright a colour in world Rugby. After all, Wales play in red. As do Tonga. Both France and Scotland play in blue. Fiji plays in white (OK, with black shorts!) the same as England. Many nations share colours. Not only that, but New Zealand do not have a monopoly on black. Both Germany and Belgium have played in predominantly black shirts.

England wanted to use a kit that looked mean, and was totally opposite to the regular all white. This meant bringing in an all black kit. And it does look sharp!

As a courtesy (there was no legal requirement to do this) the RFU did contact the NZRFU and say "we are thinking about using an all black kit as a secondary kit, are you OK with that?" And the NZRFU came back and said "no problem." They had no issue with it since this was Englands secondary kit. The only time it is going to get used is if England are the second team, and there is a kit clash. 

At the upcoming World Cup, Englands first game is as the second team, and going up against Argentina. They play in sky blue and white hoops, and white shorts. OK, it is not the same, but it is very similar to Englands all white kit. So, it makes sense to use a secondary kit to stand out. 

Also, New Zealand understood that there was no way on earth that they would have to give up the all black kit against England. Both teams primary kit are polar opposites.

However, Jonah Lomu has come out and said that it is all wrong that England are doing this. That all black is New Zealands colours only. I am sorry Jonah, but New Zealand does not "own" the colour black. England are not ditching the traditional all white as the primary kit.

And New Zealand does have its own alternative.

Which is white!

Moto GP

So, Moto GP, the worlds premier bike race, Formula 1 on 2 wheels grinds its way along! But is it all smooth sailing? No. October the 2nd sees the Moto GP circus arrive here in Japan, ready for the Japanese leg of the series, to be held at the Motegi circuit which is north of Tokyo.

This is where the problem is. The circuit is in Japan. On the same side as Fukushima. Therefore, it must be dangerous. Now, originally the race was scheduled to go ahead in April. However, given the Tohoku Disaster in March, the decision was made to delay the event. 

Now, with Tohoku basically back up and running apart from the areas hit by the Tsunami, and life in Japan heading back to normal, the Japanese need events like the Japanese Grand Prix. And Moto GP race. These are all ways of showing to people inside Japan, and out, that life in Japan really is OK.

Unfortunately, several Moto GP riders have decided to pull out on the grounds of safety. The likes of Jorge Lorenzo and Casey Stoner have already announced that they will not be attending. 

However, Moto GP's biggest name, Valentino Rossi has announced he is disappointed that "the right decision was not made," and may also rule himself out of the event. 

All I can say is.

You are all COWARDS! 

Shame on you.

The only people with ANY health risks at the moment are the poor workers AT Fukushima. For the rest of us, the potential for any kind of health problem is so minutely small, that there really is no worries. OK, I MAY get half the radiation a patient gets undergoing a chest x-ray, but given I had a trip to hospital, and several x-rays done there, an extra half is not a worry. It is something the body can deal with.

Besides, that amount would be something I would collect after a full year here. The Moto GP guys will only be here a few days. They will be exposed to more radiation on the flight here, than whilst they are actually IN Japan.

It seems like sympathy for Japan is very fashionable. But, just like fashion, it melts in the wind the moment something crops up.

However, British rider Cal Crutchlow and his team has announced that they WILL be attending the race.

Therefore, for any and all Moto GP riders who decide to skip the Japanese leg, shame on you. I hope you all have miserable seasons. You are all cowards. Please, do your research. Then you will realise that that the chances of you getting some kind of problem here in Japan is way smaller than when you fly anywhere in the world on vacation!

And Mr Crutchlow, I hope you win.Good luck to you sir.