A Big Week For Manchester United

What a love-in it's been at Old Trafford this week!
 
On Sunday Nemanja Vidic lifted Manchester United's 19th League Trophy, the twelfth of manager Sir Alex Ferguson's amazing reign at the club. And to heighten the party feel yet further, goalkeeper Edwin Van Der Sar was made captain for the day in tribute to his final home game before he retires. A nice touch, and with the title already secured a week earlier, why not? Even the opposition, Blackpool, helped to make the occasion a special one, gifting United with 3 second half goals to hand them a 4-2 victory. 
 
United's 19th championship is also the one that edges them ahead of Liverpool in amount of league titles won, making the Red Devils the most successful club in English football history. Ferguson set himself the task of taking United above Liverpool when he first joined the club in 1986, promising to "knock them (Liverpool) of their perch". Job done on that front then, for now.
 
Continuing the celebratory theme, on Tuesday Old Trafford hosted Gary Neville's testimonial. The class of 1992 were re-united for one last hurrah to celebrate the career of a true Manchester United great. Seeing Neville accompanied by brother Phil, Giggs, Scholes, Butt and of course David Beckham on the Old Trafford pitch once more really rolled back the years. It was a class act and a lovely touch for a man whose love for United is greater than almost any other player who has played for them either before or since.
 
There wasn't even a whiff of any injunction chat at the Theatre of Dreams either, unlike earlier in the day when Fergie had tried to ban journalist Rob Harris from Fridays Champions League Final press conference for daring to utter the words "Ryan Giggs". Harris asked Ferguson how important Giggs was to United's chances of beating Barcelona at Wembley on Saturday and Fergie immediately asked his aide to ban him from Friday's press conference. Sadly for Fergie, he's powerless to stop Harris, the Associated Press journalist, as Friday's press conference is governed by UEFA and therefore out of Old Trafford's control, but you sense any questions Rob may have for Sir Alex might not be well received.
 
In many ways Neville's testimonial was the perfect diversion for the club away from the untimely revelations of MP John Hemming in the House of Commons on Monday. Giggs being implicated in the injunction story is hardly new news, but the press (news press I hasten to add - sports hacks seemed to have steered clear) jumped all over the allegations on Monday and threatened to eclipse what should be a fantastic footballing occasion at Wembley on Saturday.
 
Giggs, ironically, will have a pivotal role to play against Barcelona. He will almost certainly start in the centre of midfield and United will set up with either Fletcher and Carrick together in a 4-5-1, or with one of those two in a more adventurous 4-4-2, the formation that Ferguson has favoured in almost all of his big matches this season.
 
I personally hope it's the latter. United were destroyed last time the two sides met in Rome 2009, also in the Champions league final, and most of the damage was done through the midfield, but I would still favour a more attacking option because the Barca back line can be got at, and United's team is fluid enough to re-shape when out of possession to assist the 2 guys in central midfield.
 
Rooney always drops back when United lose possession, adding an extra man into the midfield to help break up Barcelona's play-makers Xavi, Iniesta and Messi. With Park on the left and Valencia on the right, you also have two wingers that are happy to do their fair share of defending too, so essentially when out of possession, United will still have 10 men behind the ball, whether it's 4-4-2 or 4-5-1. 
 
And in having Hernandez up top as well as Rooney, you give yourself an outlet. If Rooney were to play as a lone striker, he would still naturally drop back into midfield and as a result United will have no outlet to relieve the pressure with. As Spurs found out against Real Madrid in the Quarter Finals of the Champions League this season, albeit with only ten men, if you don't have an outlet, eventually the opposition will break you down.
 
A lot has been made this season about United's lack of flair, but that's a tad unfair. What Ferguson has developed this season is a team with pace on the wings and up front with Hernandez, but whose attacking players all work hard for the team, which the same cannot be said of previous United teams containing Ronaldo or even Nani for example. Rooney, Hernandez, Park and Valencia will run all night for their team and they will need to not only to close Barca down but also, probably, because on the break will be one of their best chances of scoring.
 
In 2008 United kept two clean sheets against Barca over two Champions League semi-final legs and progressed to the final 1-0 on aggregate. If any defence in Europe can keep Barca out, it could just be United’s.
 
The Manchester United side that lost to Barcelona 2-0 in 2009 was basically Ronaldo's team, he was the main man. And in what transpired to be his final match for the club, his mind was clearly already in Madrid. He kicked Puyol all night and tried to compete with Messi for the best player in the world title, trying to impress the fans in Madrid, rather than trying to win a second successive European Cup for the United fans who still idolised him. With Ronaldo AWOL, the rest of the side didn't have the confidence to win without him, and once Eto'o scored after ten minutes there was only going to be one winner.
 
This class of 2011 fight for each other. They will run all night to close the opposition down and there's enough quality going forward and pace on the wings to cause Barcelona problems and create chances. In some ways, perhaps this side is not so different from the class of 1992 after all?     
 
Not withstanding Giggs, whom I suspect has had better weeks; it's been party time at Old Trafford this week. Hopefully that continues into Sunday morning. 

How The Hammers Can Bounce Back

Sullivan and Gold have a lot to do before West Ham's move to the Olympic Stadium

It seems like only a yesterday that David's Gold and Sullivan and Karen Brady arrived at Upton Park with a plan, a vision for the future to get the Hammers back on course after the Icelandic disaster.


Fast forward a year and notwithstanding the Olympic Stadium, which they have now secured (for now), everything else has gone mammary skywards. Avram Grant was appointed as manager, hardly a man to fill a fan base with confidence, and relegation has been secured with one game to spare.


Grant's recruitment may not have been inspired, but it was hardly surprising. He is a friend of super-agent Barry Silkman, who in turn is a pal and confidante of David Sullivan. "Silky" as he's known, set the deal up and doubtless took a healthy cut for his efforts in the process.


Silkman is also the man responsible for some of the more questionable transfers that West Ham's new board have presided over; the loan deals for Robbie Keane and Wayne Bridge, whose salaries cost a total of £160,000 a week, as well as deals for Benni McCarthy, Mido and Ilan, to mention but a few. The latter 3 scored no goals at all for the Hammers, and in McCarthy's case cost the club £6.7mm having played only 14 times for them.


Whether Silkman and Sullivan's friendship is still as strong now as it was then is questionable, but one thing is pretty clear: allowing an agent to broker deals for players that he himself recommends and has a vested interest in, without having someone at the club to approve those recommendations is naive and misguided in the extreme. How can a manager build a team when he's being given players he had no interest in signing in the first place?


But Sullivan and his dodgy agent friend can't take all the flak surely? David Gold has never been backward in coming forward when it comes to talking to the press this season, and something he said in the aftermath to Grant's dismissal just minutes after West Ham's 3-2 defeat away to Wigan on Sunday, having lead 2-0 at half time, makes for interesting reading.


"I honestly believed with the players we brought in in January we had done enough to pull clear of danger. I know that Scotty Parker shared that belief with me and we both had confidence that we would retain our Premiership status." Am I right in assuming then that perhaps Parker was a confidante of the board when it came to transfer targets and assessing the strength in the squad? It begs the question, did the captain have more authority over proceedings at West Ham then the manager did? In which case, why on earth keep Grant?


It's pretty widespread knowledge now that the spirit in the Hammers camp was close to rock bottom under the Israeli. There were fallings out on the training ground, confusion over tactics, and a lack of vision and authority from the manager. Before the 3-0 away defeat to Chelsea last month, a West Ham player asked Grant how they should deal with Essien and Lampard. Press, or sit back? Grant replied that they should adapt as they saw fit during the match. Well that's clear then.


Sullivan has said since Grant's sacking that he was a "Lovely guy, but the results speak for themselves". But Gold and Sullivan are shrewd business men. Surely they have encountered lovely but useless guys in business before and dealt with them accordingly? It seems strange that they've only just realised he was so bad that he had to go now? They must have known in January when they flirted with Martin o'Neill, so why not wield the axe then? If they knew he was unfit to lead back then why risk the unthinkable, namely the chance of Grant leading them to almost certain relegation?


But what about the players? Sure the manager was poor and the transfer policy was erratic to say the least, but the players they had should have been able to do more than they managed, surely? Only Parker offered anything close to his potential over the course of the season, and he will surely now leave as the Hammers look to reduce their overheads. Robert Green will also go, as no doubt will Upson and Cole, if they can find anyone who will actually take them. Wayne Bridge and Robbie Keane's loans are up, and so will return to their clubs, and the likes of Piquionne, Hitzlsperger and Ba may be on their ways too.


There's also the small matter of the Olympic Stadium to think about, with the keys set to be handed over in three season's time. Karen Brady has said that the board has budgeted for the stadium as a Championship club as well as a Premier League one, but still it's going to be pretty embarrassing if West Ham are only getting 18,000 fans a game through the turnstiles in their first season there in 2013.


A return to the Premier League in time for the move is imperative, but it won't be easy. Chris Hughton managed an instant return to the Premier League last season with Newcastle, and is also one of the front-runners for the Hammers managerial vacancy now. The West Ham board could do a lot worse that consider his application carefully. He did a marvellous job at Newcastle and the side he brought up was organised, competitive and had players that could win games, almost everything the current West Ham side lacks.


West Ham have some good young players in their ranks already, like Tomkins, Collison and Sears. With financial constraints as they are at Upton Park, and the lure of Premier League football now gone, these youngsters will be given the chance to play and establish themselves as the backbone to the new West Ham first team. They have the chance to lead their side back into the Premier League and into their new home too. There's an exciting future ahead, if the board gets it right this summer.


To do that, they need to make the right appointments, and rely less on agents. With a coach like Hughton at the helm, whose given time and the resources he needs to build a side to suit his style of play, perhaps West Ham can bounce back to the Premier League in time for the Olympic Stadium move in 2013.

Striking a balance between Test Cricket, the IPL, and the Considerations of a Modern International Cricketer



England One Day Captain Alastair Cook has reservations over the international cricket schedule


Alastair Cook made the point in an interview recently that too much international cricket is being played these days and that eventually something would have to give. He mentioned that cricketers had at their disposal the right to industrial action, and suddenly he was being portrayed as a revolutionary calling for his comrades to join him on the picket lines.

A couple of days later he added that striking would never happen, how it was a privilege to play the game and that his words had been taken out of context, which of course they had, but it did give an insight, if it were needed, that international cricketers are struggling to cope with the amount of cricket they are expected to play.

As has been outlined previously in this blog and many others, the England players involved in the whole of the 2010/11 Australia tour and the World Cup that followed were away for over 3 months, with only a 3 day break back home in between to recuperate.

The problem - and the beauty - of a game of test cricket is that it takes so long to complete. Personally, I love the test cricket format above all others, but you need 25 days to complete a 5 test series. Most 5 test series are now crammed into 6/7 week periods, which is a lot of cricket in a short period leaving little time for the body to recover.

But we've been over all of this right? Well yes, but Cook's comments are the first to come out of the England camp that show the true feelings of the players towards the amount of games they are being asked to play - perhaps a warning from the newly appointed England ODI captain that no change in policy may result in more early retirements and more injuries.

Recent years have seen some great players retire prematurely from test cricket. Persistent injuries and a continual strain on the body have seen Flintoff, Lee and more recently Malinga retire from the longest form of the game. If schedules continue at the level they are at currently - and with the lure of more money for less work on offer in the IPL - it won't be long before more players turn their back on 2-3 months away on tour with their national team in favour of a few weeks in India that will pay double the money for a fraction of the workload.

Imran Khan, in an interview published in the Telegraph last year said that "In six weeks of playing in the IPL, some players made more money than I made in my whole 21 years of international cricket. If you have that sort of money available, a player can first make his name in Test cricket and then retire and save himself for Twenty20".

"In these circumstances, I would do exactly that. I can imagine fast bowlers saving themselves. Shoaib Akhtar doesn't want to play Test cricket, he wants to play Twenty20. Shahid Afridi only really wanted to play one-day and Twenty20. And now Andrew Flintoff too".

Some people might say that International players are selfish and should feel honoured to play for their country, but cricketers aren't paid the money that, say footballers are, unless they get involved in the IPL, hence the lure. It also means a player can play with less strain on his body. As a result you see players like Shane Warne - long since retired from the international scene - still plying his trade on the IPL circuit, and performing very well actually too.

So is that the way cricket is destined to go? Will more countries set up their own national T20 franchises that will then start to compete in a global, club-like T20 World Cup? Well maybe, but that is a long way off, and certainly there is enough love for test cricket in England, Australia and South Africa especially to keep the game alive for some time yet.

For test cricket to survive, a drastic overhaul is almost certainly required. A "Test Championship" is an idea that has been mooted, whereby test series would be conducted between all the test playing nations and the top 4 teams would qualify for a play-off to decide the winner. The ICC has actually implemented this idea and the first play off is scheduled to be played at Lords in 2013.

This would give test cricket a context, a prize at the end of it, and therefore more prestige, success, and ultimately more money for the winners. Let's face it, the only way test cricket can survive alongside T20 long term is if the money within it is at least comparable to the shortest form of the game. A clear pecking order would then be established, replacing the convoluted points system currently employed by the ICC.

But what about the Ashes? Series like the Ashes continue to be well attended (apart from the last days in Adelaide and Sydney in the last tour, when the Aussies just couldn't take it anymore!). A league system may compromise the ability to stage Ashes series every 2 years as it is now - are English and Australian fans really prepared to accept that? After all, these are two countries in which support for test cricket is still as strong as ever.

For countries such as India, Sri Lanka and the West Indies, where test cricket is the least desirable of the three formats, a Test Championship may be too little too late. One only has to look at the state of the West Indies national team to see the effects that the lure of the IPL can have. The current side playing Pakistan in a One Day series in the Caribbean are shorn of the senior players who are more interested in the financial benefits that the IPL has to offer, and is instead comprised of an abundance of younger players. One can only hope that the youthful exuberance of these players brings a renewed interest to the West Indian national team.

India too will need to be convinced. Without their support, test cricket will always struggle to exist alongside One Day cricket and T20. Perhaps a Test Championship, and the prestige that winning will bring, as well as adequate financial renumeration of course, will be enough to rekindle India's interest? India's commercial grip on T20 cricket through the IPL and their strength in, and love for, One Day cricket are too great to be inconsequential. Somehow all three formats need to be acknowledged as separate and equally valid forms of the game of cricket for them to exist successfully alongside each other.

England's target is to become the best test-playing team in the world. I just hope the rest of the world still cares when that finally happens.