Frank Fielding

Given the standard of recent English goalkeepers the Derby County keeper will no doubt get his chance on the senior stage, and after a few top saves in Denmark maybe the former Blackburn Rovers shot stopper will get his chance sooner rather than later.

Kyle Walker

The Tottenham Hotspur defender enjoyed a very successful loan spell with Aston Villa this season and was tipped to be one of our stars of the tournament and he most certainly was. In a game where the Three Lions were outclassed against Spain, Walker looked like the only bright spark in the team and despite a poor tournament for the squad, it was a good one personally for the full back as he enhanced his fast growing reputation. Walker will definitely be pushing Glen Johnson for the right back spot in the senior squad in the next few friendly fixtures.

Phil Jones

Sir Alex Ferguson has recently splashed out a reported £16.5 million on the England man, such a fee from such a respected manager is praise in itself for Jones’ talents. The 19 year old has already proven he has what it takes to play at the top and deal with the world’s best footballers after his handling of Didier Drogba in his first start for Blackburn. With Terry and Ferdinand entering the end of their international careers’ and will be lacking in leaders but Stuart Pearce believes Jones has the ability to go on to be England captain later in his career. Jones was captain for last night’s game and arguably had his best game of the tournament, which is extremely promising for England’s future.

Chris Smalling

A very impressive debut season for Manchester United providing more than adequate cover for the injured Rio Ferdinand, and no doubt the former Fulham man can provide the same cover in the international set up. Playing alongside Phil Jones in the Under 21 set up now will help them two form an understanding as well as a commanding partnership that they will take with them to the senior level.

Ryan Bertrand

If Ashley Cole was to get accidentally shot by an air rifle tomorrow, ruling him out for the season, Chelsea have definitely got more than adequate cover in Bertrand. The former Gillingham star enjoyed a consistent tournament and has attracted the attention of Wolves, who are in talks about taking the Chelsea left back on loan for the season. However with Leighton Baines improving with every game and Ashley Cole being one of the best left backs in the world, it will be hard for Bertrand to break into the senior squad but there is no doubting he has the talent to do it.

Continued on Page TWO

Click on Carlos Alberto and Bobby Moore to find out the top ten…

Which captains have I missed out? Have your say on Twitter –   and Facebook

What’s more surprising is that the FA has taken this long to consider encompassing changes to the fabric of youth development in this country, seeing as the national side has endured years of underachievement without a steady stream of young talent emerging behind them. For decades, children in South America have been coached in small-sided games until the age of around 15 when they are then faced with a decision to switch to 11-a-side professional football. These same methods have been employed to help produce talents from Pele and Zico right up to Ronaldinho and Lionel Messi.

In Italy, Spain and France, children have to wait until they qualify for the under-14 age group before they can compete in 11-a-side matches, and have each won a World Cup within the past four tournaments. “What we are proposing will give them the environment to develop those skills,” explains Southgate, “with 11 v 11, there are fewer touches for players. If we go to that format too young then it becomes a much more of an athletic-based game. We have huge pitches that kids can’t get around. It benefits the physically stronger players but there’s a real danger that we lose the smaller, more technically gifted ones.”

One of the most significant motivations driving Southgate’s proposals is Barcelona’s and Spain’s recent domination of club and international football, borne from very different practices than exist in England. “I suppose we’ve had a Paul Scholes come through who would have been able to play in that Barcelona team because his quality of touch, pass appreciation, ability to play one-touch and to manipulate the ball was up there with them, but would we have produced lots of them like Xavi, Iniesta and Messi? I suspect not,” the former Middlesbrough manager asks. “We would probably have overlooked a lot of those and not necessarily at club level. It might have been years before that. At Sunday football level, the guy who was trying to win a league didn’t pick the smaller kids.”

Southgate’s vision must not be ignored, but condensing the sport and altering the techniques used to train youngsters is just the start. Holland, a nation whose football is traditionally recognized as being more technically adept than in other countries, benefit from an organized grassroots model which William Gaillard, senior advisor to UEFA President Sepp Blatter, has suggested the English FA imitate. The Dutch Football Association (KNVB) is the single governing body of all 2,700 clubs in Holland – 36 of them professional – with around 1billion Euros worth of investment pumped back in to the youth game every year, 90% of which funded by local authorities, the other 10% by the government.

In 2000 the Football Foundation stated that the FA would contribute £20million per year to grassroots football in England, yet by last year the FA’s contribution was only £12m. The Premier League contributes £43.4million, less than 5% of its latest £3.1billion television rights deal, and yet we all expect technically gifted youngsters to break in to an England team capable of winning the World Cup. Southgate is at least on the right path, but the grassroots situation in England is so flawed in every way that a complete overhaul in line with emulating the positive aspects of other, more successful, countries is required.

Follow Josh Sheridan on Twitter –   and Facebook

“When you have a company that owns the league and the 16 clubs are equal shareholders and equal decision‑makers, then you automatically have three things,” explains Bob Munro, chairman of Mathare United and a high-ranking KPL official. “Fair play, financial accountability and democratic transparency, that’s all you need to have good football management.” The clubs that assumed control of the country’s first professional football league in 2008 now enjoy the accountability and openness implied by Munro, but it wasn’t always this way, and the remarkable achievement in removing the shackles of intimidation and sabotage by the national federation provides a shining example to the rest of the continent’s continually suffering leagues.

Almost exactly eleven years ago, Maina Kariuki was appointed as the 13th chairman of the Kenyan Football Federation (KFF) following an election campaign promising ‘A New Beginning’ for the country’s footballing development. But at the time, very few could have predicted the direction of this new dawn; a regime which ultimately oversaw the most corrupt period in Kenyan football’s 37-year history. In 2005, a report published by the Forum for African Investigative Reporters (FAIR) revealed the alarming extent to which the KFF had abused their limitless power, in a tale of bribery and theft that was essentially encouraged by FIFA’s illogical statutes pertaining to political interference in football. The Kariuki-led indiscretions include the theft of gate receipts from local and international matches arranged by the KFF, the misuse and embezzlement of over £700,000 of FIFA funds, the failure to pay match officials and the employment of biased, unqualified referees, the recurring reluctance to pay national team coaches, officials and players in addition to the ‘disappearance’ of 30 FIFA-donated computers.

None of the funds stolen during the regime have been recovered even though Kariuki, along with former KFF Secretary General, Hussein Swaleh, and former KFF National Treasurer, Mohammed Hatimy, were jointly charged in July 2004 with the theft of over £700,000 of KFF and FIFA funds. With no sense of honour or shame, both Swaleh and Hatimy even stood again in the KFF elections in December that year. But the biggest challenge faced by the revolutionary movement that eventually forced through the large-scale shift in the organization of Kenyan football, was FIFA’s strictly regulated policy of suspending nations subject to governmental interference. In theory, this principle is rationalized by the rife corruption within political circles, but in practice, this decree prevented the Kenyan government from investigating suspected corruption within football due to the threat of expulsion from international competition. No government wants to be held responsible for the exclusion of a country from world football, and this damaging incentive to maintain silence has only served to feed the corruption not just in Kenya, but in several African footballing associations.

“Nobody dares touch these looters [corrupt football executives] because of the FIFA policy of non-interference,” explains a coach from one of Zimbabwe’s top-division teams. “The football community will never get to the bottom of the rot.” This farcical rot was illustrated in a remarkable case of match-fixing which reached FIFA’s agenda not long after allegations of bribery tarnished the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups last autumn. In 2009, Zimbabwe’s national side embarked on a two-game tour of Asia overshadowed by Malaysian gambling syndicates and misrepresented players. In fact, local club, Monomatapa United, under the auspices of two Zimbabwe Football Association officials, were sent to Malaysia disguised as the national XI, and on arrival, were instructed to lose 1-0 to Thailand in the tour’s opening encounter. According to coach, Joey Antipas, an Asian man named Raja Raj, a Malaysian gambler, not only sat on the bench during the game while conversing with other members of the gambling syndicate, but threatened the team for having “cost him more than $1million” for enduring a 3-0 defeat.

The situation was publicly revealed just days following the exposure of two FIFA delegates accused of selling their votes in the World Cup bidding process for 2018 and 2022, a situation which forced FIFA president, Sepp Blatter, to acknowledge “a sad day for football,” adding: “I appeal to all members of the FIFA family to behave in an honest, sincere and respectful manner because football is based on discipline, respect, fair-play and solidarity. I am a little bit surprised that [you] say is FIFA corrupt? FIFA is actually in the world of sport a well-recognised organisation and institution, so let us do our job and clarify the situation and bring back credibility to football. Our society is full of devils and you find these devils in football. We have to fight for fair play. Trust us and you will see confidence will be restored.” But these sentiments wholeheartedly contradict a FIFA-initiated process which does little or nothing to support African governments in the struggle to abolish corruption in sport, and in fact saw the Kenyan national team banned from international football twice between 2004 and 2006.

Ominous practices ignored by international football’s governing body have affected not just Kenya and Zimbabwe but a host of other domestic football associations across Africa. Tales of corruption, infighting, political interference, theft, illegal agents and incompetence characterize the culture highlighted in the FAIR report and have been most recently illustrated in Nigeria, a country threatened by FIFA exclusion not long after their premature elimination from last year’s World Cup. Nigerian president, Goodluck Jonathan, ordered a comprehensive examination of Nigerian football following allegations of deceit and theft, but was threatened by FIFA after the authority accepted advice from Amos Adamu, the man at the heart of the World Cup vote-rigging scandal. Adamu’s instructions led FIFA to pressure Jonathan to back-down, giving the Nigerian government just three days to withdraw their involvement or incur expulsion not just of the senior national side, but also the women’s team, club sides and Nigerian referees and officials, in addition to withholding around £5million owed to the Association as part of Nigeria’s participation in South African last summer. As expected, the politicians retreated.

Kenya have at least provided an encouraging example of what can be achieved through persistence, as on top of the KPL’s flourishing exposure and revenue, a new voting system is to be implemented for electing the head of Football Kenya Limited, recognised by FIFA as the body which runs football in the country. “This [previous] system has been used to elect the wrong leaders, who bribe delegates to vote for them,” Peter Ogonji, the head of Kenya’s Independent Electoral Board (IEB), told the BBC. For the first time, all 3,000 affiliated clubs in the country will have a vote, marking a progressive break from traditional elections epitomized by the decisions of a select few delegates. But the experiences learned from Kenya’s grueling journey underline a broader concern regarding the sport’s governance. Evidence has been published relating to 30 letters containing detailed proof of corruption sent by Kenyan clubs to FIFA between 2002 and 2004 which were promptly ignored. The absence of support led Kenya’s high court to remove unelected officials from the KFF in April of 2004 to which FIFA responded by demanding their reinstatement and the withdrawal of government involvement. “How can FIFA demand that a sovereign government break its own constitution by ignoring a ruling of its highest court or be banned? Would the British or American governments consider that a reasonable demand by FIFA?” Munro asks. But FIFA remain committed to their policy, which when challenged, provoked the most extraordinary turnaround in African domestic football this century, but when adhered to, encourages the intensification of corrupt practices whilst satisfying the greed of a chosen few.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter

Press the governing bodies of British athletics, swimming, canoeing and cycling on the facilities and investment they are expecting to receive once the flames of the 2012 London Olympic Games have distinguished and its likely you’ll be met with a uniform response. These four disciplines are set to benefit from millions of pounds of investment that will leave their sports with permanent, contemporary facilities that will be enjoyed by elite athletes and local communities for years to come. “We believe the pool will rejuvenate swimming in the East End of London,” opined the chief executive of British Swimming, David Sparkes, in regards to the new £244 million aquatics centre being constructed in the Olympic Park in Stratford. “It will also be a fantastic training and competition venue,” he added.

The total cost of the centre has tripled from its original price as postulated in the bid to host the event and is £94 million more than previous worst-case estimates. Unfortunately, the majority of British sports will not be profiting from an Olympic legacy, as the flat-pack, temporary stadia will be dismantled, leaving as many as 17 different sporting authorities without a physical structure by which to remember the globe’s largest sports festival. London organisers have legitimized their reluctance to build several new arenas based on the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) request to avoid white elephants, which have plagued almost every previous Olympic host including Beijing, whose 91,000 capacity Bird’s Nest Stadium, purpose built for 2008, regularly remains vacant and has returned just over £50 million of the original £300 million costs since the Games. A paltry figure considering the operational and maintenance fees total around £10million a year, but at least Beijing’s Olympic hangover is being handled with encouragingly greater efficiency than 2004’s host.

But what of the FIFA World Cup, a tournament of similar intensity which requires comparable financial consideration and has an increasing list of victims struggling to overcome the difficulties created by hosting such an elaborate experience. The motivation to bid for such events lies in their perceived ability to generate long-lasting interest in sport in the accommodating country, and propel that nation in to the global consciousness within the context of a particular sport. It is widely-known that Japan is still reeling from a £3billion outlay on ten World Cup venues for 2002, many of which remain under-used, so how is South Africa, the first African nation to host a World Cup, coping with these inevitable issues and how much has been achieved in attempting to implement an enduring and progressive legacy in the country since last summer?

An obvious place to start would be stadiums seeing as they comprised $1.12billion of South Africa’s $3.5billion budget and were conceived with the express intent to provide the physical symbols of the World Cup legacy. It is worth mentioning that for the six years between South Africa’s appointment as hosts and the start of the 2010 tournament, universal press coverage relentlessly predicted that the stadiums would not be ready on time, that visiting fans would be taking their lives into their hands and that FIFA would consider switching venues, so the country’s achievement in delivering such a successful event must not be underestimated. That said, several worrying indicators have emerged pertaining to the future sustainability of the nation’s five new, and five renovated, 50,400 average capacity arenas. In previous years, the hosting nation’s domestic league’s average attendances have swelled by 3,000, whereas in the 2009/2010 season of the ABSA Premiership, South Africa’s top division, attendances rose by a mere 200, with only four out of 212 matches drawing an audience of over 40,000. The ten World Cup locations range from 40,000 to 64,000 seats, and bearing in mind the average attendance at a top professional domestic match is six times smaller, it is clear that the improvement and exposure of South African football after the tournament remained the principle objective for the country’s footballing authorities.

Continued on Page TWO

The reaction to the FIFA leader’s comments, not least from Sir Alex Ferguson’s office door, was of overwhelming outrage, seeing as Blatter conveyed either a tenuous grasp of history, or simply the unforgivably insensitive use of the term ‘slavery’ in relation to the purportedly unfair treatment of Ronaldo. Eschewing the comparison of historical slave conditions, modern-day slavery is broadly defined as the submission to authority for the purpose of economic exploitation; in other words, a confusingly inaccurate way to describe a professional athlete’s request for the termination of his willingly signed £100,000+ a week contract with arguably the world’s largest firm, in order to make £250,000 a week playing for one of his current employer’s biggest continental competitors.

Despite a reputation for trimming unruly influences, Ferguson tirelessly convinced his star asset to remain at Old Trafford for a further season, when he ‘reluctantly’ scored 25 goals as United reached the Champions’ League final for the second consecutive year following Premier League and Carling Cup triumphs, before eventually securing his protracted move to Madrid in July of 2009. It is widely considered that Real dwarfed their original investment of £80million in terms of shirt-sale income within hours of Ronaldo’s arrival, perhaps loosely exposing the economic exploitation Blatter had referred to a year earlier. I’m going to avoid describing the multifarious allegations of a more sinister nature that have littered Blatter’s presidency, but instead focus on an issue which the Swiss was so comfortable presenting his opinion on, albeit in an erroneous context.

It seems peculiar that the individual who retains a universal scale of influence in terms of football’s governance expressed his support for player protection when each year, thousands of young and vulnerable footballers are misled and manipulated by rogue agents, taken from their homes with the false promises of wealth and stardom, and then left to fend for themselves on foreign soil when the brutal reality is hastily acknowledged. This growing army of migrant talent has become a familiar part of the landscape in several major European cities, with children as young as 9 forced to beg on the streets of Milan or sell fake Prada handbags in Paris just to survive. The outcome these youngsters are guaranteed is as far removed as possible from the glamorous dream sold by Didier Drogba and Michael Essien, whose faces adorn every billboard in the Ivory Coast and Ghana respectively, selling anything from chocolate to mobile phones. But what is driving this damaging and abusive process and what measures are being conceived to prevent its intensification?

The reality, particularly in the Ivory Coast and Ghana, where a large number of globally established footballers have been exported recently, is that the greater the success had by West African players in Europe, the vaster number of domestic Africans will believe they can follow this path. This has resulted in a substantial growth in the number of illegal football academies being established in Africa, offering children as young as six the chance to be noticed, with roughly 500 operating in Ghana’s capital, Accra, alone. Around 90% of these ‘centres’ are run by local men who claim to be ex-professional footballers, but in fact have limited experience, and are united in their shared intent on discovering the next Stephen Appiah or Asamoah Gyan; or a multi-million pound resource. Most of them charge subscription rates to the enrolled students’ parents and extended families, who, in several cases, remove them from routine schooling to allow them to concentrate on football full-time. The financial rewards reaped from having a professional footballer in the family evoke a rags to riches scenario of Hollywood proportions, so many consider the risk to their child’s education worth taking.

Continued on Page TWO

But for those actually living in the capital, and the rest of what is now known as the Democratic Republic of Congo, 1974 is meaningful for an altogether different sporting occasion. That summer, Zaire became the first team from sub-Saharan Africa to qualify for the World Cup, but their players and fans recall the tournament in West Germany with mixed feelings, despite the achievement of being the first black African representatives on global football’s grandest stage. “I was very proud, and still am, to have represented Black and Central Africa at the World Cup,” says former defender, Mwepu Ilunga. “But we had the erroneous belief that we would be returning from the World Cup as millionaires. We got back home without a penny in our pockets. Look at me now, I’m living like a tramp,” an incensed Ilunga told BBC Sport.

The retired right full-back remains bitter about several aspects of the ‘Leopards’’ campaign, most notably the fact that Zairean officials are alleged to have pocketed his and his team-mates’ wages for the tournament, something Ilunga would only discover mid-way through the group stages. The opening game saw Zaire defeated 2-0 by Scotland, but Ilunga claims that the players were told that they wouldn’t be paid at all, prior to the next match against Yugoslavia. “Before the Yugoslavia match we learnt that we were not going to be paid, so we refused to play,” claims the defender, who has since become a cult footballing icon for running out of the defensive wall to kick a Brazilian free-kick away in Zaire’s final first-round fixture. Unfortunately, the Leopards were thrashed 9-0 by Yugoslavia, having been persuaded at the last moment to attend the encounter, a result that did immense damage to the image of African football.

Following the humiliating defeat at the hands of Yugoslavia, the late Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire’s leader at the time, intervened directly in the team’s affairs. “After the match, he sent his presidential guards to threaten us,” remembers Ilunga. “They closed the hotel to all journalists and said that if we lost 4-0 to Brazil, none of us would be able to return home.” The unforgivable treatment of Zaire’s players at the World Cup was in stark contrast to the way they had been received following qualification, when Mobutu is said to have gifted each team member a car and a house. “Mobutu’s generals were so jealous of the gifts we were given that he had to buy them a car each, to keep them quiet,” Ilunga said. In their last game, Zaire lost 3-nil to Brazil, which allowed the team to return home free from the fear of retribution, but Africa’s first World Cup showing saw the Leopards record an unenviable statistic of conceding 14 goals without scoring a single one.

Fast forward almost exactly 36 years and 120 minutes, and Africa’s sixth and longest-surviving representative at the 2010 edition of FIFA’s esteemed international tournament are simply a 12-yard spot-kick from reaching the semi-final stage, a watershed moment in the continent’s history. By this point, the global audience had thrown their full support behind Ghana’s ‘Black Stars’ following Luis Suarez’s deplorable goal-line hand-ball, which prevented the West Africans’ justified progression. Their talisman, Asamoah Gyan, who had scored in three of the previous four games, struck the cross-bar with the game’s final kick, and despite redeeming himself by converting in the subsequent penalty-shootout, Ghana were eliminated following a 4-2 reverse.

The country’s desolate onlookers were at least able to assess their players’ performances with a considerable element of pride, despite Ghana just failing to erode the semi-final barrier which no African side has yet been able to. But what are the factors which have contributed to the vastly altered assessment of African national teams? Previously, one or two representatives at international level would be perceived, by the European media at least, as negligible whipping-boys, with less than technically-adept playing staff. This is clearly no longer a widely-held view, evidenced by the number of African players not only competing in Europe at club level, but also at the very highest echelons of European competition.

The succeeding tournament hosted by Korea and Japan was remembered as much for Senegal’s impressive maiden appearance at a World Cup as for Ronaldo’s relentless form, as Frenchman, Bruno Metsu, led the ‘Lions of Teranga’ to the quarter-finals and a heroes welcome in the capital, Dakar, upon their post-elimination arrival. The acceleration of this trend reached a potentially damaging juncture last summer, when five out of Africa’s six attending nations elected foreign supervision prior to the continent’s first hosting of a World Cup in South Africa. Algeria were the only African representative with a home-grown head coach, – Rabah Saadane – but Nigeria’s conduct in releasing manager, Shaibu Amodu, three months before the tournament highlights a much broader concern within African football. “A lot of people [in Africa] still have the mentality that the European knows more,” said Thomas Mlambo, a distinguished television presenter and analyst on the South Africa-based sports network, SuperSport. The fact that Amodu was sacked following not only the remarkable achievement in qualifying Nigeria for the World Cup, but also in leading them to a third placed finish at the African Cup of Nations last year, emphasizes this confusing ‘mentality’ which inspired the Nigerian Football Federation to replace the 52 year-old with Lars Lagerback, who was only available to take the helm having failed to guide Sweden to the finals tournament.

Many will have questioned the decision to remove a coach who had spent two years conditioning the team, and succeeded in meeting his short-term objectives, with a manager who had recently failed to accomplish a similar target and with almost no knowledge of the country’s footballing traditions and philosophy. Amodu was actually sacked in a replica scenario prior to the 2002 World Cup and is unlikely to accept a fifth stint as Nigerian head coach should the opportunity arise. An Ivory Coast fan described the unusual racial barrier most African coaches face, and perhaps goes some way to explaining the seemingly irrational choices many African football federations have made recently: “The players have more respect for whites,” says Bienvenue Kehedi, a 26 year-old student in Abidjan. “An Ivorian can’t assert their will against the players because he tries to keep on the side of all the players and is scared of taking tough decisions.” Although European leadership may have assisted a few African nations in achieving their World Cup aspirations before last summer, the continent’s relatively poor showing at the 2010 tournament was interpreted by many as a sign of African football’s static development based on the dependence on foreign coaches.

The 1995 World, European and African Player of the Year, and Liberian legend, George Weah, has claimed that overseas influences are only serving to harm the progression of the sport in Africa. “In 1999, I addressed international coaches at FIFA and I said it; they come to Africa to coach but they are not the right people for the African team because they are not developing our players, they are just making the money, come for vacation and that’s it,” the former AC Milan forward stated.
Weah implied that the Ivory Coast’s, Cameroon’s, Algeria’s, Nigeria’s and hosts South Africa’s premature elimination should act as a wake-up call to provoke a change to the continent’s process of pursuing European management. “The European coaches are not the best for Africa. Some agree with me, some they don’t. Look at the statistics of the World Cup, since Africa started hiring European coaches, only the Africans coaches have done well,” Weah concluded.

The three-time African Player of the Year (1989, 1994 and 1995) may be right in some respects, but the continual appointment of foreign coaches embodies a natural corollary to African players’ increased presence in the European leagues. The employment of European coaches makes sense considering a large number of modern African national teams consist of mainly European-based players, evinced by a Sven Goran-Eriksson selected Ivory Coast squad containing just one Ivorian-based player out of 23 – the third-choice goalkeeper. There is certainly a growing feeling amongst many Africans that a change in organizational structure at the Confederation of African Football (CAF) is required to assist the development of the presently insufficient, and future, African coaches. With a campaign being led by Weah, arguably the continent’s most recognized footballing and political exemplar, it is not inconceivable to imagine prospective World Cups being contested by African nations guided by African managers. “We have to believe in ourselves, believe in our people. Give them the support to be trained and to develop our teams,” pleads Weah. “The CAF needs to wake-up, we need an institution for coaching in Africa. Our people don’t need to go to Europe, they need to stay in Africa and train.” Weah is certainly fighting a valid cause, because in spite of Africa’s varying successes under foreign managers, it would be catastrophic to witness a repeat of Ghana’s Serbian coach, Milovan Rajevac’s, inexcusable despair following the Black Stars’ 1-0 victory over Serbia in last years’ tournament. Africa’s sudden and meteoric ascension to the top of European football’s consciousness must not halt now, and with a burgeoning pool of talent swarming every region on the continent, it is time for the national federations to cultivate the hidden coaching talent to avoid future disappointment, and maintain the extraordinary progression.

Like this? Follow me on Twitter

FootballFanCast.com WORLD Exclusive, Robbie Savage’s Face in a Baby Scan

Brian Barwick, the former head of television sport at the BBC and the man responsible for bringing Alan Hansen to our screens, explained that: “With a pundit you are looking 10 years down the line. There is a honeymoon period when viewers recognise them from their playing days. But that ends. Then you’re going to be marked purely on your performance as an analyst.”

The art of good punditry is simply being a good analyst whether you’re bland, controversial or sit on a couch wearing a trilby. Dull pundits are often forgiven if they at least talk sense, whereas loud pundits are not excused for their lack of insight.

Week after week, Alan Shearer, who despite an exceptional scoring record from his playing days, was a boring footballer with a boring celebration and has translated his insipidness on the pitch to the Match of the Day studio over the last two seasons. However, his biggest problem isn’t that he fails to connect with his audience because he’s monotonous and ordinary, it is his evident lack of understanding and consistent inability to convey anything interesting that makes him a bad pundit.

Tony Cascarino, who since his playing retirement has forged a successful career as a television and radio pundit as well as a regular newspaper columnist, admitted that certain frivolous attitudes towards punditry, and pundits who adopt a care-free posture, irritate him. “A manager in the Premiership was talking to me recently and he said, “If I lose my job I think I’ll do what you do.” That’s the attitude. They think it’s easy but it’s not.”

In the last few years, several former players and temporarily unemployed managers have attempted to make the switch from dugout bench to studio sofa with varying results, but as Barwick explained earlier, it’s the pundits with a deep comprehension of the game who last longest. Throughout a League season, it is important for highlights broadcasts to house a regular panel of analysts who remain within the confines of their job description, rather than unsuccessfully and embarrassingly stray in to the realms of humour.

That said, there are certain platforms where inept pundits flourish and should be encouraged to provide light entertainment to supplement the intense examination imparted by competent analysts. During a World Cup or other international tournaments, the studio cast plays an important role in determining ratings success and viewing pleasure. Seeing as there are usually up to three games broadcast each day, with an additional highlights show transmitted later every evening, it is vital for a television channel to add flavour and comedy to at least one of the three or four daily shows.

Often this is achieved by employing one or more current cultured footballers to give their opinions during certain games. The BBC hired Emmanuel Adebayor and Clarence Seedorf to give their views during last summer’s World Cup to great effect, and the Togolese striker became an instant hit when his phone rang during coverage of Japan v Cameroon, providing the audience with at least one laugh, which is more than his colleague at the time, Shearer, has accomplished overall. Whilst Adebayor delivered indirect humour in his unique machine-gun way, Seedorf exhibited a consistent level of wisdom both when responding to questions and throughout his recurring articles on the BBC’s website.

History has proved, despite a few exceptions, that the best pundits in terms of popularity and career longevity retain a specific set of characteristics, with a decent level of knowledge being the most important. The issue is rarely whether or not an analyst is likeable, because viewers already have preconceived opinions regarding familiar ex-footballers, which are either altered or enhanced depending on the pundit’s ability to impart insight, despite a bland or provocative style.

If you think it’s time for Shearer to get off our screens, follow me on Twitter

The Premier League was set up in 1992 amidst claims that it would help bolster the England team, but nearly twenty years later it is ironically crippling the Three Lions. The Premier League has created ‘super managers’, the likes of Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger being the main culprits, which has tilted the balance in favour of the clubs whose managers are able to withdraw their players or, at the very least, lay down strict guidelines.

The clubs do have valid reasoning for withdrawing their players, other than the obvious ‘burn-out’ argument; why should the FA have the final say? Are they not just a big corporation interested in their brand and product rather than interested in football and England as a real class act that gave the beautiful game to the world?

There are numerous examples over the years of players sacrificing their national team for the good of their club career; Dimitar Berbatov, Alan Shearer and Paul Scholes to name just a few, but who can blame them? The club pays their wages with many endorsement payments on top and we must remember being a footballer, like in any job, people want to make as much money as possible. Playing for England brings no financial benefits, just pride, but even that sense of pride seems to be dwindling with every redundant friendly that passes; despite international managers arguing that friendlies are vital for allowing new talent and tactics to be tested.

It always seems to boil down to European football’s obsession with the top half a dozen from each league, especially when you read that five players released from England duty this week all play for a team in the top five, one of them being John Terry, the man who has recently declared how proud he is to be reinstated as England captain. Not only does this demonstrate the FA’s general feeling of indifference towards the fixture against the Black Stars, but it is this direct lack of respect for the rest of the teams competing in the league that makes the power of the top six so strong; allowing them to call the shots in relation to the club versus country dispute.

I wouldn’t say passion and desire for England is totally lost, as come every major tournament when England ultimately promise so much but always fall, there is a genuine disappointment and anger from young and old alike. This may just be because the season is over so football fans need something to keep them occupied, but I believe it’s more than that; I feel it is frustration at ruining another chance to recreate ‘our’ own iconic photograph of Bobby Moore being lifted by his fellow countrymen, only this time with Wayne Rooney in Moore’s place. Furthermore, Jack Wilshere, whose inclusion in the U21 squad started the latest struggle between club and country, has declared he would love to play for the U21’s this summer and if you look at players such as Darren Bent and Matt Jarvis, players who are unlikely to play in the Champions League, they would view England as an honour and a chance to showcase their talents on one of the World’s biggest stages.

All is not lost for the national team just yet. I believe it’s the fans that hold the key to England’s games becoming more than just an inconvenience. Until the fans decide they want to follow and support England for more than two months every two years then the FA have to make them want to; but I’m afraid, for now, club will always be the victor.

The likes of Lampard, Terry and Rooney remain in the side despite their poor performances last summer and Gerrard, Ferdinand and Crouch almost certainly would have joined them, if it had not been for injury. So how do you think that makes the younger players feel, especially those that have been playing so well this season? I’ve had a look at some of those who undeservedly missed out on the squad.

Martin Kelly

OK, so he’s only come into the Liverpool squad this term, but what a season he has had so far. Slotting into the right-back position comfortably, he has been a major part in the upturn of Liverpool’s fortunes recently. His performance during the 1-0 win against Chelsea was definitely a high-point, as he played a big role in keeping out Drogba, Anelka and, of course, Torres. Should he be given the chance on the national stage?

Jack Rodwell

Amazingly, the Everton youngster (pictured) is still yet to earn a call-up to the national side. Capped at England youth level, the midfielder had to settle for a place in Stuart Pearce’s under-21 side this time. Rodwell has been a consistent performer for Everton since breaking into the side and, at the age of just 19, he certainly looks a great prospect. But does he deserve a place alongside Gerrard and Lampard?

Marc Albrighton

Another under-21 squad member, Albrighton has gone from strength-to-strength in his first full Premier League season with Villa. With four goals to his name, including one against Manchester United, it is surprising that Capello has not given him a chance. However, the youngster has a lot to do to fight his way past Milner and Walcott, as well as his Villa teammates Ashley Young and Stewart Downing.

Ryan Shawcross

This one amazes me. Although he managed to break into the England squad in March 2010, he has struggled to get back there. With Ferdinand and Terry reaching the latter part of their careers, we have to look to the likes of Shawcross to come in and replace them. What else puzzles me is Capello continues to pick Joleon Lescott, who struggles to make the Man City side, whereas Shawcross captains Stoke every week.

Nedum Onuoha

The versatile defender has spent the season on loan at Sunderland, and has more than impressed during his time there. Onuoha can play full-back or in the centre of defence, a useful trait in any defender. He is a threat going forward, as Chelsea discovered when he jinked past their whole defence to score one of the goals of the season. He has even turned down an international call-up from Nigeria in the hope of a Capello phone call. Let’s get him in the squad before he changes his mind!

Those are just some of the under-25s who missed on a call-up this time. There are plenty of others who players warrant a call-up, youngsters and more experienced player. However, some may see them as being “too old” to break into the England squad.

The likes of Leon Osman at Everton and Birmingham central defender Roger Johnson probably deserve at least a call-up. Osman is always a tricky player and often chips in with a goal. Johnson played a major part in Birmingham’s impressive season last term, and is also a threat from set-pieces. Should they get a look-in on the national stage?

We all remember how badly the World Cup went and what an embarrassment it was to lose 4-1 to Germany. Capello promised changed, but is still yet to convince many that this is still the plan. Don’t get me wrong, the likes of Terry and Lampard are fantastic players and have great ability. But, perhaps it is time to give the “lesser” players a chance, see what they can deliver. Let’s be fair, it can’t be worse than what we saw in South Africa!