Time Up For Declan Kidney?

Ireland’s loss to Scotland at Murrayfield has heaped yet more pressure on Ireland head coach Declan Kidney. The knives were being sharpened long before the 12-8 reversal in the Scottish capital, but calls for his head will be louder now than ever.

Losing a game with 80% possession is, of course, criminal. The blame however rests firmly at the players’ doorstep, not the coach’s. Poor execution, insipid leadership, blinkered decision making and inaccurate goal kicking were the architects of Ireland’s demise, not the guy sitting in the stand.

Many have called for the ‘ultra-conservative’ Kidney to ditch his so-called ‘favourites’ and to give the youngsters a chance. It seems an oddly held opinion of Kidney in the first place. If Peter Stringer and Shaun Payne ever viewed their former coach in such light one would imagine they felt differently sitting on the bench in Kingsholm in 2008.

Tomás O’ Leary (ironically the beneficiary of Stringer’s demotion) and Luke Fitzgerald too might testify to Kidney’s ability to abandon high-profile players in favour of less illustrious replacements.

Either way the mud stuck. When the Irish coach announced his selection last week it was greeted with disbelief. Big calls at 1, 10 and 12 defied the perceived wisdom. He had given the naysayers their wish and when it backfired they used it as a stick to beat him with.

Firstly the out-half situation always had a ‘no-win’ feel about it. Had O’ Gara not performed poorly in the England game and then abysmally for Munster against Scarlets last week there would have been no call to be made; an away Six Nations game, against a team on a high and with confidence ebbing from your own camp the experience of O’ Gara was a no-brainer. As it turned out O’ Gara played himself out of the team to the extent that he simply couldn’t be picked.

Paddy Jackson, despite the comfort of Ruan Pienaar and a largely dominant pack in Ulster, has still managed to underwhelm in recent months. He does however offer the next most experienced alternative at Heineken Cup level. Ultimately this earned Jackson the starting berth at the expense of an inexperienced Ian Keatley and Ian Madigan who, although undoubtedly talented, is not a regular out-half in the big games for his province. Keatley and Madigan’s inability to oust their respective province’s number one out-half and make a strong case for inclusion in the national squad is their own fault, not Kidney's.

Tom Court has been one of the outstanding loose-heads in Europe this year; formidable at scrum time and impressive in the loose. Dave Kilcoyne’s progression has been a joy to watch this season but Court deserved his chance. Unfortunately like his Ulster teammate at number ten Court struggled to grasp that opportunity on the pitch. Luke Marshall, the third of the Ulster trio, was the most impressive in this regard. Positive in attack and solid in defence his performance underlined his growing stature in the game.

It was a match Ireland should have won, but endeavoured to leave behind them. Court and Ross were both shown up in the scrum at times. Rory Best’s missed line-out throws did little for the cause. O’ Driscoll and Earls were both guilty of not giving a pass when required and Rob Kearney continued his frustrating preference to go through rather than over or around opposition players when counter-attacking. All have to shoulder some of the blame. So too do Seán O Brien, Dave Kilcoyne and Jamie Heaslip for giving away the penalties that ultimately handed the Scots the initiative and the victory.

If there’s one decision Kidney must be held to account for it’s his decision to install Heaslip as captain. So far it has proven to be a very poor call. Heaslip has not only continued to produce below par performances in a green jersey, he has appeared a reluctant leader and a suspect decision-maker. Had Jackson been allowed to take the relatively easy opportunity to kick three points early in the contest perhaps confidence would have gone some way to easing the kicking woes that have been evident in his game. The call to go to the corner was brave and at times, as in the final minutes, is absolutely correct. Early on in an away Six Nations game with a debutant out-half and the score-line level is, however, not the time. Jackson’s captain did him no favours. If O’ Driscoll was to be removed from the post  Rory Best was the obvious choice to lead the side. The decision has to count as a mark against the Irish coach.

The responsibility for this loss however does not rest on Declan Kidney’s shoulders, rather stems from his player’s inability to reach the levels of execution required at international level. His players failed him, not the other way around. 

Match-Fixing and Doping in Football

All too often we hear people bemoan the dwindling moral standards of professional footballers and the ever-decreasing standing of the game in comparison to other sports.

Those who fear so greatly for the reputation of the game, while well-meaning, often ignore the players whose behaviour is the antithesis to that of the troublemakers.

Additionally, this overly sensationalistic approach ignores the fact that professional athletes of all codes step out of line from time to time and instead portrays football as the sole destroyer of moral standards in sport.

Whether it’s Liam Ridgewell baring his backside while brandishing a £20 note, or Joey Barton’s latest outburst; these are footballer’s worst ambassadors and barely deserve our attention let alone the power to influence our perception of a game in which they’re on-field contributions garner little attention.

There is however two pertinent issues that threaten to leave an indelible scar on the image of the Beautiful Game.

The first is the endemic of match-fixing that Europol’s investigation has this week positioned centre-stage. 680 matches spanning five continents and including World Cup and European Championship qualifiers are implicated in the alleged match-fixing conspiracy.

“A total of 425 match officials, club officials, players and serious criminals from more than 15 countries, are suspected of being involved in attempts to fix…professional football matches,” according to Europol’s 

director Rob Wainwright.

These revelations, allied with the Italian match-fixing troubles of the last number of years, indicate a widespread cancer in the game- from the lower leagues of club football to the upper echelons of elite international competition- that is scantly believable. Worryingly, who knows how many other matches might be involved that we don't yet know about?

It is this sort of tarnishing of reputation that football, and indeed sport in general, can ill-afford. The minimum required for people to maintain an interest in sport is the authenticity of the competition they witness.  Without this fans will become disillusioned and fall away from the game.

We are fortunate in that such a situation still remains unlikely, but should football’s top authorities fail to heed this warning and act accordingly people will eventually grow tired of being cheated and deceived in such routine fashion.

The second great challenge that football faces is one that it has so far failed to acknowledge; preferring instead to adopt a holier-than-thou approach and bury its head in the sand. Doping exists in all sports and football, as the trial of Dr Eufemiano Fuentes seems likely to prove, is no different.

Dr Fuentes is the doctor at the centre of a global sports doping scandal who has stated that his clients included not only cyclists, boxers, tennis players but footballers too.

Fuentes has admitted to aiding his clients in carrying out blood transfusions, although he claims this was to protect the player’s health rather than to facilitate cheating. Self-confessed drug cheat and American cyclist Tyler Hamilton has, however, agreed to appear as a witness in the trial- and in doing so would appear to cast serious doubts over Fuentes’ claims.

Jesús Manazno, the former professional cyclist who was the whistleblower on Dr Fuentes, has claimed that he personally saw well-known footballers attending the medic’s clinic.

Real Sociedad are rumoured to be one club that are alleged to have been involved with Dr Fuentes.  In light of comments made by the club’s former president Inaki Badiola it seemingly matters little whether any such involvement did occur in establishing that doping took place at the club however. Mr Badiola said: “What is certain is that in 2008 our board publicly denounced doctors Eduardo Escobar and Antxon Gorrotxategi because, in the six seasons before [we arrived at the club], at least, the directors paid for medicines or products which in that moment were categorised as used in doping.”

It’s difficult to discern which aspect of the situation is more troubling; the apparent doping at a top level of the sport or the general inertia with which it has been greeted. Either way it is an issue that is likely to gain many more column inches in the coming months. It may well prove to be a painful and prolonged exercise but the truth regarding doping in football must be established and dealt with.

While the misdemeanours of some of football’s more immature professionals are as undesirable as they are unsavoury, their importance is also often overstated. Should football not deal forcefully with the twin scourges of match-fixing and doping there will be no overstating the cost to the game however.

First Appeared on theblend.ie on February 7, 2013

The Gospel According to Ray

Tonight Ray Lewis, possibly the greatest middle-linebacker ever to play the game, will don the number 52 jersey of the Baltimore Ravens for one last time.

Seventeen years at the forefront of one of the NFL's most fearsome defences, a Superbowl winner and MVP in 2001, preacher of God's message and pillar of the community; anybody else's reputation would be assured, but not Ray Lewis'.

The problem with Lewis is his inability to answer a straight question. That, above all else, allows doubt to linger as to the virtue of the man.

Perhaps the virtue of the man does not matter. Perhaps the impact of Lewis the player is all that should concern us. As much as we may like this to be true the questions that linger over the man inevitably take some of the enjoyment from his accomplishments as a player.

There are two questions people most want an answer to; one has persisted since Superbowl night 2000, the other has gained traction only this week. Tragically neither focuses on Lewis' undoubted and largely unparalleled ability and influence on the field.

On January 31, 2000 Lewis found himself embroiled in an incident in which two men were stabbed to death outside an Atlanta nightclub following Superbowl XXXIV. Lewis and two companions were charged with murder and aggravated assault.

Ultimately a plea agreement was struck whereby Lewis' testimony against his two companions was enough to ensure the murder charges against him were dropped. He was sentenced to 12 months’ probation for obstruction of justice and fined $250,000 by the NFL.

Of course it is important to remember that Lewis has never been found guilty of the murder of two young men. Yet his unwillingness, or inability, to answer questions surrounding that night will always lead people to question his involvement in the incident.

Perhaps he has nobody to answer to only, as he oft reminds us, God himself. Perhaps he's comfortable with large sections of the populace doubting his credibility. Perhaps a tainted reputation sits easily on his colossal shoulders. Who knows?

“Nobody here is really qualified to ask those questions,” he said when quizzed on the subject this week. “I just truly feel that this is God’s time, and whatever his time is, let it be his will. Don’t try to please everybody with your words, try to make everybody’s story sound right.”

Regardless of whether anyone is qualified to ask the questions, people, and his fans especially, deserve to know the answers.

The other question surrounding Ray Lewis is the accusation made against him by Sports Illustrated that in attempting to repair a torn tricep he used products that contained a banned substance connected to human growth hormone. Deer antler spray, in fact.

The accusations stem from an article in Sports Illustrated where co-owner of Sports with Alternatives to Steroids (SWATS) is reported to have said that upon the request of the Ravens linebacker he provided Lewis with products to speed his recovery.

The co-owner, Mitch Ross, has since sought to distance himself from the remarks by claiming that Sports Illustrated "catfished" him. That, in everyday parlance, means they stitched him up.

Where the rights and wrongs of this story lie remains to be seen. The accusation is no more than that right now; an accusation.

Again though Ray Lewis has done himself few favours in refuting the claims against him, instead he invokes biblical references as his protection.

“That’s the trick of the devil,” he said. “The trick of the devil is to kill, steal and destroy. That’s what he comes to do. He comes to distract you from everything you’re trying to do.”

Scary stuff, maybe we shouldn’t ask any more questions for fear of being seen to dance with the devil rather than accompanying Ray in his pre-game shuffle?

One feels a simple ‘no’ would have sufficed. Instead his meandering monologue of truly biblical proportions gives the impression of a man attempting to obscure the issue rather than clarify it.

Maybe it’s just Lewis’ way. Maybe he is indeed innocent on all counts. Football fans, sports fans and the city of Baltimore will certainly hope so.

The great shame is that in the lead up to the ‘Greatest Show on Earth’ and what could be the crowning triumph of one of the League’s all-time greats, these questions linger and impinge on the legacy of one of the greatest linebacker’s in history.

The teachings of the Gospel were intended to enlighten. The Gospel according to Ray, however, serves only to confound and obscure.

First Appeared on February 3, 2013 on theblend.ie

The Loss of Tradition?

The tolling of the bell on the age of traditional journalism will this week ring louder in the minds of many. Newsweek, the media institution that once held an enviable position in the lives of millions of Americans, has announced it is to cease publication at the end of the year. Rather than slip quietly away however, it is instead to reincarnate itself as an all-digital publication in early 2013. To some this represents an unthinkable treason.

Since 2001 Newsweek has seen its paid circulation fall by over 50 percent to a meagre 1.5 million readers in June of this year. Its fall is undeniably and intrinsically linked to the rise of digital media in the last decade. Simply put, it has failed to maintain its relevance to the modern news consumer.

Tina Brown, founder of The Daily Beast website (with which Newsweek merged in 2010), pinned the magazine’s demise on the “enormous disruptive innovation” of the media industry, stating that “no one single person can reverse that trend.”

The question is should this development worry those of us that care about quality, accurate and insightful journalism? Are we now moving towards a free-for-all type of environment where the decaying of old journalistic values is unavoidable, and the consequences unpalatable?

While those who harbour fears over the evolution of journalism fret with the best of intentions, they’re beliefs are perhaps somewhat misplaced. For every moronic tweet that makes one doubt the value of technological advancement there exists a counterbalance of good; a link to a well-written opinion piece for example, or a breaking news story that traditional media will not disperse until the turn of the hour.

Social media and digital news sites are not bound by the constraints of the clock. They tap into one of the very core essences of news; briskness of reporting, and in doing so put the consumer at the heart of news like never before. If this ability to process and produce news in real-time is prudently harnessed within the constraints of accuracy why should we not embrace it?

Poor journalism has always existed, slipped through the cracks and been hoisted on undeserving readers. The new world of digital media is no different. What we should not forget though is that an abundance of fine journalists also ply their trade for these new sites. After all, the audience hasn't gone away they've simply altered how they access news.

Storyful, the Irish online news gathering platform, is an example of the regeneration of the industry. Where Newsweek has fallen by the wayside since the advent of the Internet era, sites such as Storyful have found a niche and gained a strong footing in the industry, providing trustworthy content to broadcast, print, web and digital platforms.

As Markham Nolan, Managing Editor of Storyful, recently explained; old values inform new practices: “It is old school journalism, it’s the same values, it’s the same principles in terms of vetting who the people are, who the sources are and the information that they’re [providing]. You just have to apply it with new tools and in a new environment.”

 The traditional newspaper may have waned in popularity, but is yet to be consumed by the new media as some would have you believe. After all, the co-habitation of old and new isn't such an absurd notion. In fact it might just be that a broader choice of news services will appeal to a wider audience and result in a more engaged and informed society. If the print media has to increasingly content itself with being the weekend choice of consumers- a phenomenon known as the ‘leanback’ experience where readers have the time to absorb and enjoy their content- then so be it. The two platforms need not be mutually exclusive.

To some people the cocksure pretender new media will never be anything but a subversive power. To others however, it is a cause to rejoice over. The exchange of views and informed debate that is the lifeblood of journalism courses through the industry at its very foundations like never before.

Roadmap For Departure

Today it was announced that the Wolfson Economics Prize has been awarded to a proposal on how a country could best leave the Eurozone. A year ago such a proposal would have been greeted with little more than a theoretical appreciation, now it has real world significance. 
Credit Suisse, in May, estimated there was about a 15% chance of Greece leaving the Euro. Others like Standard & Poor's believe this likelihood to be "at least" a one-in-three chance of leaving the Eurozone. While the Greek election results may have allayed fears to some degree, the threat looms large. Fears also remain over other fragile Euro economies like Ireland or Spain for example especially should the Greeks leave which would set a precedent and perhaps initiate a domino effect.


Advocates of leaving the common currency point primarily towards the benefits of a cheaper currency on exports, leading to increased employment and eventually sufficient levels of growth to escape from the grips of seemingly endless austerity. Accompanying such a plan would be an Icelandic style debt default and away we go free of our terrible debt burden and with the reassurance of more prosperous times ahead. So the attractions are clear, how about the practicalities? We will examine these from an Irish perspective. 

                                                           Economist Roger Bootle of Capital Economics

As the Wolfson entry states leaving the Euro would be a combination of two distinct monetary events;


(a) Currency Conversion and redenomination of wages, prices and all other domestic values into the new currency; (an Punt Nua as it is being touted)


(b) Change in the exchange rate of currency, i.e. a devaluation


In addition to the core monetary events are other concerns;


-How and when to leave.
-Subsequent legal effects and relations with outside interests, i.e. EU, creditors, markets.
-Consequences of debt default.
-Social Consequences.


It is would be desirable that any decision to leave the common currency be made in private as much as is possible. Additionally the imposition of capital controls to combat the risk of large scale withdrawals would serve to protect the exiting country's interests. There are many obvious obstacles to this optimal exit strategy. Firstly the ability to keep plans of such a nature confidential is far from certain. Given that reports, although not substantiated, have already surfaced over plans for a Greek exit being drawn up the question must loom even larger. Additionally any sudden announcement of withdrawal from the Euro would seriously damage the democratic foundations of the State having allowed for no discussion or democratic will of the People to be accounted for. Policy makers should thread very carefully in this regard. Setting a precedent for the abandonment of sound democratic practices, regardless of necessity or motive, would have a strong and long-lasting impact on society. While it seems likely that a country would be able to leave the Euro while still remaining part of the EU and that a new currency would be acknowledged by the International community this should not serve to disguise the inevitable difficulties with such 'successes'. It would be desirable to disclose as much information as possible in a reasonable time frame to other EU member states in order to retain goodwill and to smooth the transition for the entire EU. This unfortunately would compromise the need for secrecy in any such plans. Similarly honouring a large degree of debt obligations would lessen the negative impact of a withdrawal but a weak nation like Ireland would be in no position to do so. From the outset then it appears that the theoretically most advantageous exit strategy is questionable at best when faced with the realities of  the political and legal backdrop.


The redenomination of euro to the new currency (An Punt Nua) offers an array of difficulties. The Capital Economics Report dismisses the notion of stamping euro currency to indicate its new identity as An Punt Nua. This 'overstamping' has previously been the most common method of administering a new currency. As the production of new notes and coins is likely to take between four and six months this has often proven to be the most convenient method. The report's suggestion is two-fold;


a) To rely on non-cash transactions
b) To continue to trade in euros for the remainder of transactions where option a) is not viable


The notion of using a new currency of lesser value (the exchange rate of the euro having risen in comparison to An Punt Nua) to pay for goods seems to be somewhat overlooked by the report. The authors contend that small level payments becoming hypothetically 30% more expensive (given the rate change) should not pose a significant concern. While it is important to remember that no ideal solution exists and that this method may indeed offer the most desirable option, I would tend to disagree with the opinion expressed in the report. The ordinary consumer whose disposable income is already greatly reduced due to austerity measures that have been implemented is likely to find it extremely difficult to manage in a scenario where such transactions, even if infrequent, become far more expensive. One doesn't bare to think what anarchy would befall the nation should a situation akin to that presently at Ulster Bank again rear its head. In such a scenario cash becomes an ever more valuable asset.

A capital flight or 'run on the banks' is also a very acute risk. It is extremely likely that citizens would seek to withdraw large amounts of cash from banks, especially if the euro were to be worth more than the new currency. The solution offered to this is largely to prohibit access to deposits for a period of time until arrangements could be made for withdrawals to be treated as foreign currency debited against An Punt Nua. There is also the likelihood that institutional investors will seek to withdraw their holdings from Irish banks and instead deposit them in a 'safer' bank. Such a 'flight to safety' further diminishes the liquidity of the banking sector. Less liquidity means greater likelihood of a banking collapse or alternatively greater outside assistance from the ECB in the manner we are currently witnessing. It would, however, be foolhardy to expect the ECB to blindly continue to pump vast sums of money into a failing banking sector once they become sufficiently disillusioned with their chances of getting their money back.


The devaluation of the new currency is the kernel of the argument for leaving the common currency. Devaluing to such an extent that competitiveness is restored and export led growth allows the economy to grow out of its current difficulties. Managing the devaluation is fundamental to the success of the strategy. It is estimated by the report that Ireland would require a devaluation of roughly 15% but that initially this may reach closer to 25%. A problem arises when the depreciation goes beyond the desired levels and are marginally less beneficial to the economy. That is, that the price of imports rise by more than the price of exports as seen in the Icelandic economy. The core solutions set out by the report are;

"Act pre-emptively and put in place credible monetary and fiscal frameworks: inflation targets should be laid down; establish limits to the use of quantitative easing; publish a framework to constrain fiscal policy; and task an independent body to monitor the authorities' adherence to these targets."

Should these measures fail however, and the new currency devalue to a larger extent than is expected or desirable it will serve to devalue citizens personal wealth while delivering diminishing positive impact to the growth of the economy. Devalued wealth means more expensive goods and services. The impact could not be avoided. The average price of petrol is, at present, 159.9 c per litre. Already hugely costly. Now imagine with a devaluation of An Punt Nua of 25% and the price at the pumps becomes a frightening 199.88 c per litre. And lets face it we may export a lot in this country but equally we import a lot too. Expect many of what we would consider to be fundamental goods & services to either disappear completely or become significantly more expensive.


The other main concern raised by leaving the Euro is that in the minds of most experts it would absolutely be accompanied by a large-scale debt default. Both go hand in hand. A debt default means we as a nation could not, in all likelihood, access credit from anywhere. Certainly not the money markets, and probably not the IMF. Should this arise where then do we find the money to continue the smooth running of the country. The payment of wages being perhaps the most obvious casualty. A deficit of €16bn would have to closed in this country through extreme cutbacks in expenditure. To put it into context the current public sector wage bill is approximately €14bn, cut that and you still have another €2bn to find. It's a huge swathe of money that would have to be cut and which would in all lieklihood result in untold hurt for citizens. Unfortunately we have already witnessed across Europe the degradation of social harmony and a disregard of peaceful protest. Given the circumstances in which people find themselves in their motives can largely be appreciated. Should even greater hardship be placed on the shoulders of our citizens I wouldn't bet against the same unsightliness on the streets of our cities, towns and villages. Eventually people will tolerate no more.

I may seem to have disregarded the work of the Wolfson prize winners in the summary it inspired above. Far from it. As the saying goes; you can't make a silk purse out a sow's ear. The contents of the report will never make for pleasant reading and will inevitably raise concerns as to the efficacy of the recommendations as expressed above. Perhaps given all its drawbacks it may be the best option for a struggling nation like Ireland, burdened by a crippling sovereign debt and bowed by continued austerity and the absence of growth. It is my opinion that this is not the case and that exiting the Euro remains the option of last resort, that for now at least we need not consider. What is not in doubt is that this is an issue that is becoming increasingly significant across the Eurozone and will in all likelihood continue to do so for the forseeable future. For now the departure remains conveniently contained in its hypothesis only. Should the time come for it to break into reality we'll all be scrambling for the Woolfson Prize winning entry 2012, here for your convenience.... 


http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/WolfsonPrize/

Spain.
A few questions answered.

So Euro 2012 in the end went the way of WC 2010 and Euro 2008, no surprise there. In winning an unprecedented three major tournaments in a row the debate has been opened as to whether this Spanish team is the greatest international side we've ever witnessed. Certainly they are the greatest I have ever witnessed. That, however, won't count for much come the final reckoning I'm sure.

What matters more than debating the merits of the great teams and ultimately declaring one the greatest is that we appreciate each of their contributions while we can. Its easy to lose oneself in the nostalgia of the past and forget the joy of the present. Spain have developed the game, brought something new to the table for all to examine, dissect and try to imitate. They have set their own course and remained true to it. As Cesc Fabregas reminded everyone after Sunday nights final their style is borne out of necessity as much as anything else, "We have to play this way. We can't play long balls because Iniesta is not strong, I am not strong, Silva is not strong, Xavi is not strong." Borne of necessity or not, what this group have moulded their strengths into is something to behold. The passing is incredible but that is only part of the greater story. Sublime passing is futile if not facilitated by the imperious movement of the Spanish. Angles are of the world of mathematics but so too of football; creating and exploiting in an endless, fluid cycle. Defensive strength is in turn a product of the possession game. This side is unusual in their defensive emphasis; defend WITH the ball, 'typical' defense is only a contingency plan should the original fail from time to time.

That is not, to answer another pressing question regarding this team, to say that they are boring. Arsene Wenger became an unlikely traitor from the cause when he claimed that the sole purpose of Spain was to hold onto the ball to defend rather than to attack. Rubbish Mr. Wenger. As one of the greatest purveyors of the finer points of the game Wenger's comments were disappointing to say the least. He is not entirely wrong either though. Possession is little without penetration. The marriage of these qualities makes for joy, excitement and exhilaration. Mostly it brings success. At times it looked as if Spain's success in this tournament was in doubt. Times when the aforementioned penetration was lacking, to be more precise. The fact that the matter is that they rely on Iniesta, Silva, at times Fabregas and lately Jordi Alba for this crucial facet of play. The rest play in front of the opposition. As such the burden is great on only a small few and at times they falter. Crucially though, as is they crux of Wenger's comments, it isn't for the want of trying. The way in which the Spanish play requires that quartet to go past the defenders and relies on the ability of others to find them. The accuracy required is incredible and invariably more often than not the ball will be intercepted. But such is the manner of their game plan, they need only make it work once and the likelihood is that win the game.

Wenger's misunderstanding is this: Spain are limited in ability not in attitude. Limited may seem a perverse tag with which to label some the greatest footballers of our time, but they are. Fantastically good in the strength of their play but limited in their range of abilites and consequently the team's ability to change style when required. Even the 'false 9' is only a tweak to the same system. There is no Plan B, pass to win or pass to lose. Consequently La Roja are predictable and generally quite easy to plan for. In theory if not in execution. Furnishing the enemy with the plan of attack and implementing it to claim victory regardless is no small feat. This is what Spain do time and again. Excuse them please if this bunch of players who have developed a style of play that has brought joy to millions, reinvented the game and won three major tournaments sometimes falls short of the thrills and spills we demand of top level football. The improbable skill of their players renders their shortcomings largely meaningless, and allows them triumph over all before them time and again.

The European champions are not boring. They simply are not cavalier, they are not pacy, they are largely not spectacular. Their expression of the Beautiful Game is a subtle, refined, exquisitely beautiful version. Don't look for joy where it is not, don't intentionally ignore the gifts this team frequently bestow upon us. Appreciate, instead, their style, their manner, their brilliance where it does exist; pass and move football. They lack the flying wingers, the goalscorer phenomenon centre forward, the cult figure enforcer, all these qualities with which we readily identify with and reward with adulation. What this team lacks in such qualities they more than make up for in their abundance of skill and guile. Outwitting rather than out-running, out-muscling and out-jumping.

In my humble and in many ways uneducated opinion this Spanish team will be ranked among the greatest but not quite at the pinnacle of the finest teams ever. That title, for the time being at least, still rests with the Black Pearl and the Samba beat of Brazil's incredible 1970 World Cup winners. Crucially that team provided the exhilaration that Spain cannot frequently muster. 

What cannot ever be taken away, however, is their achievements and the manner in which they were attained. Limted, but undeniably great- the ironic truth of this fabulous group of players that must be acknowledged to protect their legacy from detractors in the ilk of Mr. Wenger.

The Italian Odd Couple


Selection permitting, come this evening we may have witnessed the sublime brilliance or infuriating petulance of one of the game's most peculiar strike partnerships; Mario Balotelli and Antonio Cassano. Very much cut from the same cloth the partners upon which Italian hopes are likely to rest are mavericks, playboys, eccentrics, the list of terms is endless. Given the temperament and tendencies of Balotelli one would be forgiven for expecting Cesare Prandelli to partner him with a level headed role model from which he could learn to curb his eccentricities. Instead the coach seems to embrace what makes the young City striker what he is and revel in the possibilities of his strike force. There really is a growing sense of master and student between the two. Upon arrival in Poland, Prandelli did, however, note one restraint he'd placed on the pair, "Mario actually wanted to share a room with Antonio but we didn't want to overdo it." A wise move one suspects!

Their 'rap-list' takes some reading. Ballotelli's training ground darts throwing 'pranks', experimenting with fireworks, confrontations with team mates, appearing unannounced at press conferences- of different teams, wearing an AC Milan jersey on national TV while playing for great rivals Inter, its all there. Not to be outdone the jovial Cassano can lay claim to "sleeping with 600- 700 women", being sent off and subsequently abusing the referee in the Italian Cup Final of 2003, imitating Fabio Capello, falling out with Sampdoria president Riccardo Garrone and generally being one to overeat and under train. As he puts it " I was born tired", tired in this sense we can take to mean lazy. Throughout much of his stint in Madrid he was ridiculed and lampooned as a clown of ever increasing weight and lessening value. Claims such as those made in his autobiography, 'Telling Everything' that he had a friend in Madrid whose job it was to "bring me three or four pastries after I had sex" probably didn't help his cause. Not that he cared what the media had to say about him one suspects. Cassano, like Balotelli, is a free spirirt. Just this week Balotelli's agent compared him to Peter Pan. In a curt reply to questions on the matter the young striker asserted that he is "more of a man than Peter Pan" although he did accept "I could be Peter Pan because I do things my own way, I'm a bit free". On the eve of a quarter final of the European Championships it was all a little surreal. Saving his best for last Balotelli out did himself in response to James Milner's claim that there are two Ballotellis- the one who can the win the game and the one who can get sent off at any minute- by simply saying; "he's fortunate that he knows two of me!"

For all their misdemeanors however they remain incredibly talented footballers, capable of putting England to the sword tonight should they be on their game. Cassano, at the age of 29, has collected two Italian Super Cups, one Serie A title and one La Liga. Ballotelli's haul at the age of 21 is truly remarkable; 1 Italian Super Cup, 1 Coppa Italia, 1 FA Cup, a Premier League Title, 3 Serie A titles and a Champions League. Their combined medal collection is one to marvel at and, given their idiosyncrasies, a huge testament to their incredible talent. José Mourinho once called Ballotelli "unmanageable". Roberto Mancini though perhaps gave the best insight into managing and tolerating such a talent in equal measures;

"I told him, if you played with me 10 years ago I would give you every day maybe one punch in your head..I don't speak to him everyday, otherwise I would need a psychologist, but I speak with him because I don't want him to lose his quality." Mario can be one of the top players in Europe. I don't want him to lose his talent."

Infuriating and inspirational in equal measure; the Odd Couple will tonight be given the grand stage upon which to silence their doubters and fire Italy to a semi-final date with Germany. Balotelli once wondered aloud after scoring against Manchester United; Why Always Me? Now that he has a partner in crime in the world of footballing mavericks, concerns of being singled out should no longer trouble him.