Lay off Berba

For the disgruntled Spurs fans who rage at the prospect of losing Dimitar Berbatov read the small-town boy who watches with mixed emotions as his beautiful girlfriend seduces the country in some godforsaken talent contest, knowing all the while that her success would ultimately result in her removal from him. Berbatov is too good for Spurs. No amount of protestation from Juande Ramos can hide this. Ramos knows it, Berbatov himself knows it, his team mates know it, and, reluctantly, so do those same fans. It is, after all, a situation they are familiar with, echoing the painful departures of Hoddle, Waddle, Gascoigne and Sheringham.

Spurs’ enemies in the football world, as numerous as they are vociferous, have latched on to the plight of Berbatov with glee. Berbatov’s desire to depart, they say, proves that Spurs will never be a big club, that they are a selling club and a feeder club to the big boys. They miss the point. Berbatov’s situation highlights the impossible difficulties facing any club outside the top four. Clearly to reach this level Spurs must keep him, but such is the scale of the player’s ability that as he has acclimatised to the Premiership he has simply outgrown his stage. An unsettled player is never a positive influence and his departure has become inevitable. Blackburn will soon face a similar situation with David Bentley.

The gulf between the top four and the rest is more pronounced than ever. As Ian Wright inadvertently put it: “I reckon if you asked 10 Spurs players if they would like to join one of the top four clubs, eight or nine would say yes. You rarely hear Arsenal or Chelsea players saying they want to move because they already know they are at a big club. And unless Real Madrid or Barcelona come in for them there are not many bigger clubs they can go to.” What is so surprising about this? Surely no-one at Spurs, or Man City or Everton for that matter, would be foolish to claim that their club can compete with one of the top-four at the moment. If Alan Hutton has asked for time before joining Spurs in the hope that United will come in for him then so what? It is not an insult to Spurs as such, rather an acknowledgement of the state of the realm. United are a bigger club, as are Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool. With the cash of Thaksin Shinawatra City may mount a serious challenge to the quartet but the point remains that it is entirely understandable for any player from these clubs approached by the ‘big-four’ to have their head turned. 

The only club from outside this clique to win the Premier League are Blackburn in its third season, while the same four teams have monopolised the FA Cup since Everton won it in 1995. As far as the Champions League goes, only Everton have broken through, and they were unlucky enough to run into an inspired Villarreal in 2005. When even Liverpool, runners-up in last season’s Champions League and the owners of £26m Fernando Torres, trail the leaders by 12 points in January the problems for those below them are clear. Spearheaded by Berbatov, Spurs had their chance to stake their claim this season but for many well-documented reasons the anticipated push has never materialised. Such is life. It is not the player’s fault that in-fighting, injuries and an over-reliance on youth have conspired against his team. Had everything gone according to plan they would have struggled to break the stranglehold, but as it happens not even the great Geoff Capes could have carried Spurs’ leaking ship to European contention this campaign. 

Berbatov has been castigated by the media and countless ex-pro’s for his body language as the team snowballed. Spurs ‘legend’ Paul Walsh, a player whose hair gave fans more pleasure than his ability on the ball, saw fit to describe him as a ‘disgrace’. Walsh is one of many with a short memory. It was less than a year ago when Berbatov first shot to prominence that these same critics eulogised over his languid countenance, his grace and casual air on the ball. Not that much has changed this year. Some weeks he is sublime, others peripheral. It is the nature of the beast. Just as the reckless abandon of George Best was translated so sublimely onto the pitch, Berbatov is an artisan, a rare breed. Why do we demand that he wears his heart on his sleeve in the style of a Lee Carsley?

Clearly an intelligent man, why should Berbatov not have been aggrieved by events at Tottenham this season? The behaviour surrounding the sacking of Martin Jol was shambolic, and a player of his ability would surely be inhuman if he were not led to question what he is doing at a club seemingly so determined to shoot themselves in the foot. As for his body-language, the gulf in ability between Berbatov and some of his team-mates is at times derisory. Berbatov plays a style of football befitting the finest traditions. He is a perfectionist, who cares enough to show his disapproval when his colleagues are playing a different game. He deserves the chance to display his talents alongside those of a similar mindset at Old Trafford or Highbury. After all he is no Paulo Di Canio. He has scrapped with the best of them for Spurs, been influential away at Middlesbrough, Man City and Wigan. He is human yet immortal, his four goals at Reading coming after a first-half when everything he touched turned to mud. To suggest that in such an case the player owes the club is dangerous. They have not developed his extraordinary ability, it is his own work. The player must look after number one, nobody else will.

The time has come for an amicable break, whether this January or in the summer. Berbatov is 27, the clock is ticking. The fate of a bruised Thierry Henry at Barcelona serves as a reminder of the consequences of misguided loyalty, and Henry had the benefit of Championship medals at Arsenal to sate his thirst for further success. Rather than cursing him for his ambition, Spurs fans should savour the fact that once again they have been lucky enough to bear witness to a player who was destined for a higher plain.

More Guardian Unlimited OBO's

England in Sri Lanka

Second Test in Colombo

First day
morning session

Third Test in Galle

Fifth Day
Morning session
Afternoon session
Evening session

Distin laughing loudest

Written just before Tottenham travelled to Portsmouth on December 15 2007

Sylvain Distin will appreciate the irony when his Portsmouth side entertain Tottenham this weekend. Portsmouth sit fifth in the table, level with big spending Liverpool, are unbeaten in five games and have won their last six away from home. Their opponents, despite a slight upturn under new manager Juande Ramos and the controversial recent home win over Manchester City, are 13th, 15 points adrift and within touching distance of the relegation zone. Both sides have scored a healthy 28 goals, a total topped only by Manchester United, Arsenal and Everton, but Spurs have conceded a whopping 29 goals to Portsmouth's 14. The reason for the disparity in league position is clear.

It could be so different for Spurs and Distin. It was well known in the summer that Martin Jol was keen on signing the 29-year-old Frenchman, a free-agent after reaching the end of his contract at Manchester City, where he was captain. Distin would undoubtedly have been keen on the move to a London club in European competition, but the Spurs board quickly pulled the plug on any deal because of the his age and wage demands . Harry Redknapp had no such quibbles, needing no second invitation to add Distin to an experienced and streetwise defence that already contained former England keeper David James and title winners Sol Campbell and Lauren.

Instead of Distin, the Spurs board preferred to continue their policy of investing heavily in promising youth with the alluring potential of future profit. Their choice was Younes Kaboul, the France u21 captain signed from Auxerre for nigh on £8m. It is a decision that has blown up spectacularly, as Kaboul has made several high profile blunders in recent weeks to cost his side vital Premiership points. Surely, given the chronic nature of Ledley King's injury problems in recent years, signing a young, foreign, ball-playing central defender as his principle cover smacks of gross irresponsibility from up high? Kaboul's current trials are unfortunate, as he has all the attributes to be an exceptional defender given the time that there is little chance he will be shown by a Tottenham support that currently resemble a pack of wounded lions. How they crave the solidity Distin would have provided. Elano and Martin Petrov, two other players vetoed by the Spurs board for reasons similar to Distin have proved the catalysts to Manchester City’s bright first half of the season.

Kaboul's case serves to highlight the endemic flaws in Spurs' transfer policy, and the naivety of their board to expect Champions League qualification on the back of four signings of whom Darren Bent was, at 23, the oldest and the only one possessing any Premier League experience. With their poor start to this season Spurs have paid the price for a failure to acknowledge that youthul promise can only take a side so far. Even the famous Manchester United kids of 94/5 were supplemented by Schmeichel, Bruce, Pallister, Irwin and Cantona. The only player Spurs purchased in the summer who has improved their team in the immediate term is Gareth Bale, and such is the hand of fate that injury has now deprived them of his services until March.

Bent himself has endured a torrid beginning to his Spurs career, a few recent goals failing to mask the low esteem in which the White Hart Lane crowd have held him since he missed a golden chance to level his first North London derby at 2-2, a game that Spurs would lose 3-1. The truth is that Bent, an honest labourer with a touch to match, has never for a second looked a Spurs player to a crowd spoilt by the talents of Hoddle, Ginola and now Berbatov. The problem is, he knows it. For all the upbeat soundbites, Bent's face bears the look of one that is painfully aware it doesn't fit.

David Nugent can sympathise. A goalscorer for England last season, it looks like the £6m signing from Preston and perennial benchwarmer's only achievement this term will be providing proof that Harry Redknapp is not flawless in the transfer market. While he has been afforded little opportunity by the form of Benjani and Kanu, another of Redknapp's shrewdest moves, he has looked worryingly off the pace when called upon. Spurs too bought young from the Championship, but such is the freakish scale of Gareth Bale's talent and maturity that the two hardly bear comparison. After his hat-trick at the weekend, Everton will be happy that they coughed up the extra £4m for Yakubu's proven goal-scoring.

Nugent will almost certainly depart in January, with Portsmouth reclaiming most of their outlay, and Redknapp will return to his policy of buying players who he knows exactly what he can get from them, regardless of their age. One wonders whether he would have been encouraged to alter this strategy had he accepted the job at White Hart Lane that his friend Paul Kemsley is rumoured to have persuaded Daniel Levy to offer him. That hearsay never materialised, but Levy now faces an uncomfortable Christmas bearing the responsibility for the fact that Dimitar Berbatov, the one player on his books capable of taking the club to the financial playground Levy so covets, is likely to leave in the ensuing transfer-window. If he does go, it will send a silent tsunami smashing through Spurs' hopes of joining the elite.

Who knows what the future holds for Portsmouth? James and Campbell will need to be replaced sooner rather than later, and their squad may well not possess the depth to keep going until May. At present, however, they are doing a passable imitation of a side capable of presenting a real challenge for a Champions league spot. Perhaps their success may even jog the thinking of whoever is in control of Spurs' transfer dealings. For the moment though, Distin is the one laughing loudest.

Come in Number 10

Written just after England's decisive qualifying defeat against Croatia on November 21 2007

Over the coming weeks much will be written about what is wrong with English football. Steve McClaren, perhaps deservedly, will take much of the stick, while the argument will continue to rage about the effect of foreign players on the national team. It will be said that the country is not producing enough young footballers of the requisite pedigree. This is not entirely true. Over the last year Micah Richards, Theo Walcott, Ashley Young and Gabriel Agbonlahor have emerged, Walcott excepted, from the shadows as outstanding candidates for the senior side in the future. They are all superb athletes, blessed with searing pace and in Richards' case a frightening physicality. They are products of the modern Premier League, a place where place and power rule, but what of their old bedfellow precision?

What is true is that England are not producing a certain type of player any more, the old fashioned no10, capable of operating in the grey area between midfield and attack, putting his foot on the ball and orchestrating play. Nowhere was this more in evidence than on Wednesday at Wembley in the shape of Croatia's Luka Modric. For all England's passionate bluster, their fate always looked to be at the whim of the diminutive yet destructive Modric. Until England find a means of developing this type of player they will continue to look pedestrian and cumbersome in international football.

It is clear that these sorts of players do not exactly grow on trees in England. It is ironic that Chelsea have been linked with a move for Modric when they already boast in their ranks the English player perhaps most suited to the role in Joe Cole. Sadly, for club and country he has developed into a left-winger who, though full of endeavour, spends most of his time doing step-overs on the halfway-line rather than influencing games where it matters. Wayne Rooney, like Teddy Sheringham before him, has the ability to link play but his style is more get-up-and-go and he tends to operate further forward for England. Steve McClaren clearly recognised the inherent lack of guile in his squad. He was in principle admirably committed to solving this problem by employing pace on the flanks, but consistently showed his weakness by reverting to the staid tactics of his predecessor whenever failure beckoned. He was a weak man caught between two stools, a decisive ditherer, whose reign will forever be defined by his inability to trust his own mind.

The last English player to really occupy anything approaching the Modric role at international level was Paul Scholes under Glenn Hoddle, Kevin Keegan and initially Sven-Goran Eriksson. Under Hoddle, Scholes thrived in the now distrusted and discarded 3-5-2 formation, while under Keegan he was given enough license to score an international hat-trick. That said, even Scholes was not a conventional no.10, with his Ferguson instilled work ethic if not his tackling skills giving him a defensive capacity that would have been beyond a Hagi, a Scifo, a Modric or a Kaka. Before Scholes one must turn via the unfortunate Gascoigne back to Hoddle, so gifted yet so typically mistrusted by England during his playing days. He alone among recent England managers has shown any inclination to give the country's most talented ball-players their head in the final third of the pitch.

A look at the makeup of Premier League midfields is revealing. Very few attack-minded 'creative' midfield players are given license to operate in a central position. Cesc Fabregas at Arsenal is an exceptional exception, while the vision of Scholes and Anderson at Manchester United is supplemented by a tireless work ethic. All are shielded by exceptional defensive minded partners. Elsewhere managers are less forthcoming in going forward, with most play-makers accommodated by their teams in wide positions, notably Elano at Man City, Mikel Arteta at Everton, Steed Malbranque at Spurs and Yossi Benayoun at Liverpool. Elano and Arteta are consistently excellent, but the other two would undoubtedly benefit from a more central exposure in midfields that have notably underperformed this season. Seba Veron is an example of an old-fashioned play-maker who could not adapt to life on the margins at Old Trafford. Scholes aside, the injury-prone David Dunn at Blackburn is the sole regular English exponent of the creative central-midfield art in top-flight football. His manager Mark Hughes has also been unafraid to entrust the impressive David Bentley with a central attacking responsibility, all while maintaining an enviable defensive solidity. With a successful stint as Wales manager already on his C.V. Hughes looks increasingly the outstanding candidate for the England job, a man who knows his own mind in an increasingly fear-driven environment.

So why this distrust in the ball-player? Premier League midfields are increasingly reliant on the power of African imports, a trend understandable in the modern era as any team seeking to thrive in the Premier League must compete first on a physical level. Whether this emphasis on hard-running and harder-tackling is a recipe for success remains to be seen. It was clear watching Nigeria play Australia recently that, for all their enviable power, African teams too continue to lack a player who can operate in the style that Harry Kewell did that day, dropping deep and picking holes in the opposition defence. Their lack of subtlety is glaring, and it is difficult to see an African nation fulfilling Pele's phrophecy and winning the World Cup until they address this problem. It is worth remembering that the two outstanding midfield pairings in English football in the last ten years contained an enviable balance of defensive solidity and attacking nous, Roy Keane and Paul Scholes at United and Patrick Viera and Emmanuel Petit at Arsenal.

The standard Premiership midfield now comes pre-packaged with a powerful holding midfield player and an energetic box-to-box player who can score goals (see Sissoko and Gerrard, Essien and Lampard, Zokora and Jenas). Most managers are happy to see their creativity come purely from the flanks, whether it be in the form of a wide-playmaker like Arteta or the out-and-out winger such as Cristiano Ronaldo. The problem, however, is that a great number of these creative players are foreign: Ronaldo and Nani at United, Hleb and Rosicky at Arsenal. There are attacking English players featuring in the Premier League: Cole, Shaun Wright-Phillips, Walcott, Young, Agbonlahor, Bentley, and Aaron Lennon are the most prominent, but with the exception of Cole and Wright-Phillips, the English fliers are at the start of their careers.

So what does the future hold? Clearly, the English game does not produce players in the style of Luka Modric, but Steve McClaren's successor cannot afford to bemoan this. He has pace and trickery at his disposal in wide areas, and must organise the midfield in a way as to best provide our wingers with the ball in the areas in which they can hurt the opposition, high up the pitch. Never again must lumping balls up to a big-man be England's sole means of attack, and if this means crushing a few egos in the middle then so be it. After all, we are at the end of a campaign in which England have failed to pass through Macedonia at home.

Whoever follows McClaren has a hell of a difficult job. Young English talent will continue to compete physically with Makelele and outpace Mikel but, for now at least, they will not be able to outpass Modric. He must have the courage and the judgement to clip the wings of the established and give his young wingers their heads when it is appropriate, as they represent the best hope of conquering the present malaise. If he dithers, he will quickly come to a sticky end like his predeccessor, stuck in the mud of no-man's-land.

What happened to Wayne?

Written just after England's qualifying defeat in Russia on 17 November

Wayne Rooney's volleyed goal against Russia was stunning in its simplicity and brutal in its execution. It was also a goal that evoked hope in English supporters. Hope that England would go on to clinch the win that would secure qualification for the European Championships, and hope that here, finally, Rooney was showing signs of growing into the player that he had threatened to become in that heady summer of 2004, and answering the critics who claimed that he was no longer worthy of his place in the national side.

Sadly, fate is rarely sentimental. England lost, and in a cruel twist it was Rooney himself who clumsily upended the Russian right-winger for the equalising goal. Rooney's eagerness to help his side out defensively was to ultimately cost them dear. For Rooney the goal-getting hero of 2004 read Rooney the defensive villain of 2007. His goal aside, his contribution was fitful, his partnership with Michael Owen once again anonymous. So where has it all gone wrong?

Before chairs are thrown from tables, it has obviously not gone that wrong. Rooney was a vital member of the United team that swept (for at least half the season) majestically towards the Premiership last season and helped to reignite the public's passion for a domestic game that had endured two seasons of Chelsea's unchallenged monotony. The problem, in so much as there is one, lies in the fact that his flashes of genius are now increasingly rare, so rare that even the most ardent United or England fan could no longer claim that Rooney is one of the Premiership's, let alone the world's, top players. Good? yes, Great?
no.

Whereas his teammate Cristiano Ronaldo goes from strength to strength and trick to trick, the byword for Rooney is now functionality. He possesses in abundance what his club manager Sir Alex Ferguson has always demanded from his players, a willingness to graft hard and for the team, as epitomised in that fateful moment in Moscow. He willingly fills in at left midfield when Ferguson persists with his controversially conservative 4-5-1 formation, and the audacious long-range efforts of old have disappeared to be replaced with sideways passes. He is most probably now a more mature and better all-round player than when he arrived at Old Trafford but at what cost has this been to his hopes of greatness?

Improving the allround game is such an unsatisfactory term in itself; just ask Jermain Defoe and Emile Heskey. While neither were as talented as Rooney, as young men both had the potential to be significant international players. Yet somewhere along the way, while developing their 'allround game', they misplaced the confidence and gumption to keep doing what had got them there in the first place. Heskey lost the ability to turn and drive at defences in the way that so terrorised the Argentinians at Wembley in 2000, while Defoe discarded the single-minded head-down scent for goal that marked him out as such a predator in his time at West Ham and early days at Tottenham. Both appear jaded by experience, and while injuries have led to a very different Heskey's temporary resurgence, Defoe remains in the doldrums, still searching for the fearlessness of his early career. For Rooney to go the way of these two would be criminal. He must seek to regain what marked him out as special before it is too late. It may already be so.

Where is the joie de vivre of the Rooney who scored a hat-trick on his Old Trafford debut, the audacity of the youngster who juggled the ball on his knee on his full England debut aged 17 against the uncompromising brutes of Turkey? It seems to have disappeared somewhere in a fireball of metatarsal injuries, constant press scrutiny and the relentless treadmill that is now the life of an international sportsman. The old anger is still there, but seems more borne of frustration at the diminishing of his powers than a healthy flame inside. Playing football appears far more of a job for Rooney than you would want it to be for a 21-year-old with theoretically well over a decade left at the top level. But then again Rooney is no ordinary 21-year-old, having already played 40 times for his country.

While in the past England managers have been criticised for not giving their most technically gifted players a run in the team (Hoddle, Barnes, Le Tissier), Rooney has suffered no such problem. Of course he brings more to the team as a whole than all three of them, but it looks increasingly like Steve McClaren persists with Rooney on the basis of what his prodigious gifts once promised to bring. It cannot be for his recent international form taken in isolation, which while by no means being derisory has not been good enough to warrant depriving the team of the tall striker that statistics prove Michael Owen needs along side him to score goals consistently. And that is what England need and have needed all through this qualification
campaign: Owen's goals.

Ironically, it was from Owen's unlikely and impressive leap that Rooney took the ball on his chest to give England the lead in Moscow. Sadly that was all that was seen of Owen of note on another night that he and Rooney notably failed to work in tandem. This might be forgiven in isolation, away from home on a plastic pitch in the cold of Russia, but cannot be when the same trend was in evidence against the fragility of the Estonians at Wembley four days earlier. Something, surely, has to give with the return of Emile Heskey and Dean Ashton.Heskey and Owen showed more chemistry in two games last month than Rooney and Owen have in three years, and this cannot be ignored any longer. But what a crime it would be, for the gifts of Rooney to be substituted for the brawn of the derided Heskey. At United, he fits seamlessly as part of a global ensemble cast of stars, but his country require more from him. The problem is that Rooney is no longer as we once knew him, and until he returns to that level, the team must come first.

Is it our fault we have to ask ourselves, the nitpicking media and the baying public? Has the culture we have created demanded Rooney's conformity because flair and genius is something the English rarely possess and so are naturally distrustful of? Would the English have tolerated the sporadic, inconsistent yet mesmeric genius of Gheorge Hagi and Enzo Scifo in the way of the Romanians and the Belgians? Not if the gradual assimilation into the ranks of the similarly talented
Joe Cole is anything to go by. For the grin of Ronaldinho and the wink of Cristiano Ronaldo read the grimace of Rooney, because he is English, born and bred in Toxteth, and what English sport cherishes most are blood and guts and heart and soul; you need only look to the England's Rugby players in Paris on Saturday to see that. What chance of greatness did Rooney ever stand in this framework?

To turn to cricket for a comparison, Kevin Pietersen was lauded when he first played for England because he displayed a very un-English (unsurprisingly for a South African) lack of fear of situation or reputation, qualities equally synonomous with Rooney at the start of his career. With Pietersen's boldness came risk, occasional failure, yet a bravado that captured the imagination of the public and prematurely did for the stodgy Graham Thorpe. As his career has progressed, for a number of reasons, including several media backlashes when things have gone wrong, he has tempered that bravado. Unadulterated showmanship has been replaced by relative circumspection. As his Test figures show, he is undoubtedly a better
all-round player for it, yet England fans have missed his devil-may-care attitude in the shortened forms of the game, where he has appeared confused by his change of identity. While cricket is technically a team game, there is a clear focus on the individual. Consequently, Pietersen has been able to showcase his improvement and sheer weight of Test runs mean few save the romantics rue his changes
in approach.

Unfortunately for Rooney, football works differently, and consequently his progression as a player has not been so clearly visible. He is a striker, and as such is judged ultimately not only on goals, but because of his reputation, spectacular ones. They have been few and far between of late, with significant goal droughts for United in Europe and England
in competitive fixtures. While he has broken both, such trends beg the question as to whether we have seen the best of him already at 21?

Only time will tell, but if so, perhaps we should not be greedy. For that one summer, the possibilites for Rooney and England were endless, the future was an open door. That is a rare and exceptional feeling, and he bestowed it upon a whole country in a way that no player had done since Gascoigne. At least he had the chance to stamp his genius on the international scene, unlike the unfortunate Robbie Fowler, whose best days were the preserve of the Kop and was washed up at 23, but would
have graced any field in the world before then. That may sound sacrilegious, but Michael Owen has never been the same player since he was voted European Footballer of the Year at a similar age in 2001, and arguably never the same since he too terrorised Argentina at the age of 18.

But this is not an international obituary; it doesn't have to be like that. Rooney is 21. The talent is clearly still there, waiting to come out. In his next match he will probably score a hat-trick of volleys from outside the area and I will happily eat my words. However, until then, until he rediscovers what made him England's Wayne Rooney in the first place, England and McClaren must let go of the past and pick a team that serves Michael Owen and will beat Croatia.

GU OBO- England v India 5th ODI

A pretty comprehensive victory for India in the 5th ODI at Headingley as they outclassed a Flintoff-less England.

For my OBO of the England innings click here.

Good-Bad or Bad-Good?

This is a great article by Barney Ronay in the Guardian. He really nails the difference between technically great footballers who fail to produce consistent results, the bad-good players (ie Steed Malbranque) and those players who overachieve for their ability, the good-bad players (Peter Crouch, Lee Carsley, Phil Neville). Which would you rather have in your team?

Patience: a lesson to be learnt across the board

It is a regrettable situation when an England batsman can start a one-day series with scores of 126* and 64 and still find some sections of the media calling for his head. That is the position Ian Bell found himself in earlier this week, before he silenced the doubters (for now) with a match-winning 79 in the 3rd ODI at Edgbaston. Bell, the argument goes, is too meek for one-day cricket, his inability to rotate the strike and dominate good attacks exerting interminable pressure on the other members of the top-order. Bell is 25, and boasts an average of nigh on 40 from his 50 one-dayers at a strike rate of 70.98, good enough figures to rank him currently 35th in the all-time ODI batting averages.

To bear comparison, India's monolithic captain Rahul Dravid sits just 11 places above him in the list, with a career average of 40.55 and a virtually indistinguishable strike rate difference of .57 runs per hundred balls. The difference is that Dravid has played 323 matches to Bell's 50, scored 12 hundreds to Bell's one, and 81 half-centuries to Bell's 13. In Dravid's first 50 ODI's he averaged 34, yet now stands as one of the most feared batsman in the world. The message is clear to England, stick with Bell, and one day he may well have emulated or even bettered these figures. Intriguingly Bell's strike-rate is only one run below that doyen of England one-day batsmen, Nick Knight, a man fondly remembered for his tendency to smear opposition attacks to all parts.

Yet, will this evidence be enough to save Bell from future attack? Unlikely, and such is the hectic nature of the international calendar that it may be only as soon as the end of this series that his place comes under scrutiny once more. A week truly is a long time in one-day cricket. The tolerance that the selectors show towards him in both forms of the game will determine whether he becomes an England institution, or cricket's answer to Glenn Hoddle and John Barnes, with future generations left to wonder how someone blessed with such an aesthetically pleasing technique could fail to prosper at international level.

Bell is something of a figurehead for this young England one-day team, if only in that he is one step further down the international career path than the young generation who promise so much for the future- namely Cook, Panesar, Tremlett, Prior, Bopara and Broad. As such, how he is treated from now will give a real insight into England's future chances of success. It is given that these young players will produce inconsistent performances as they settle into the international arena, yet this must be tolerated and handled with appropriate patience. After all, the Chris Tremlett who did much to win the match at Edgbaston by dismissing the well-set pair of Dravid and Ganguly had taken a pasting at Bristol and been withdrawn from the attack in Birmingham after going for 20 from his first two overs. England have performed fantastically in the first three matches of the series, yet there will undoubtedly be blips in the future.

Asking for the England selectors to show patience is one thing, as fortunately they show an increasing tendency towards loyalty, yet begging the same of the media is a different matter. Whether the English press will ever be able to break away from a culture that demands immediate success is open to debate. It is such an entrenched part of a society that lives too much of its life through other people that it seems inevitable that it is here to stay.

One only need look across to football to see the fruits of patience. The same Cristiano Ronaldo vilified for his selfishness and wasteful tendencies as United crashed out of the Champions League to Benfica in 2005 was feted just a year later as the best player in the world as he swept United to the Premier League title. For Ronaldo, this short period of time, which included an exceptional personal World Cup, was enough to give him the maturity to convert his unbelievable talents into a consistent end product. Fortunately Sir Alex Ferguson was wise enough to see this, and supported his young player as others criticised.

Sadly, this is an exception that proves the rule. Spurs' chairman Daniel Levy clearly feels that spending £40m gives his club an instant right to Champions League football, never mind the fact that the majority of that money was spent on three players under the age of 21 with absolutely no Premier League experience. Spurs, like the England one-day team, are a side rich in promise, but full of young players who will struggle to produce the consistency needed to produce an immediate challenge for honours. Levy's obsession with signing only players young enough to increase significantly in value, thus boosting the worth of the club to potential investors, is costing them the chance to maximise their potential in the immediate term. Whether any of these exceptional young players will still be with a club that muddies itself further with every passing day to witness long term success questionable. Levy must realise he cannot have it both ways.

The Arsenal side that will probably pip them to the final Champions League spot have started the season in a way that shows they are determined to prove wrong a media who have slammed them as too young, over elaborate and a soft touch over the last 12 months. It will be incredibly satisfying if Arsene Wenger is able to stick two fingers up to that same media in a year or two as his at times breathtaking team acquire the maturity to sweep beyond their competition and regain the title. It may not happen, but would prove conclusively the value in allowing potentially great players to mature at their own pace. And I say that as a Spurs fan.

Guardian Unlimited OBO's

Somehow I've been let loose sporadically on the Guardian Unlimited's over by over reports.

England v India

First Test at Lord's

Day One-
Evening session

Day Four-
Morning session
Afternoon session


Second ODI at Bristol

England Innings

Guardian Podcasts for the Cricket World Cup

April 9th- After England's defeat to Australia - Click here

April 25th- After the first semi-final - Click here

April 29th- The final - Click here

Further financial folly from the Hammers

The signature of Matthew Upson from Birmingham could eventually cost West Ham as much as 7.5 million pounds. Alan Curbishley will argue that if Upson helps keep them in the Premiership, he will be have paid for himself several times over but there is no escaping that West Ham have paid well over the odds for a player whose contract expires in 18 months and they could have had for 1 million at the end of the season. To be fair to Curbishley, he had to do something as West Ham's defence is leaking goals in embarrassing fashion, but there will be dire financial consequences if the club goes down. Upson has apparently also had a clause inserted in his contract, like the now injured Lucas Neill, allowing him to leave the club in the event of their relegation. The irony would not be lost on Birmingham fans if they fill West Ham's place in the division and Upson is forced to move on once more.

Wise words from the old man may yet win Bale

Alex Ferguson's well-timed and equally well-chosen words in the Gareth Bale transfer saga showed that while he might not be as sharp tactically as in the past, his skills of media manipulation are as strong as ever.
Just when it seemed like Spurs had stolen a march in the race to capture the highly-rated Bale, having tabled a higher offer than United and promised him regular first team football, in stepped Fergie.

''Southampton said no to us because they are looking for more money, which they have every right to do,'' he said.
''The bid we made for Gareth reflected his potential. There were a series of build-ups in it because we have to protect our own club's assets too.
''We offered an initial fee with add-ons depending on how many games he plays, international caps and so on.
''I am not exactly sure what Tottenham have offered more but they have offered more and that has put them in pole position at the moment".
''Anyone who guarantees a player first-team football every week is wrong,'' he said.
''There are so many examples of young players being given a chance at this club, no-one could dispute the fact they will get opportunities.
"Maybe the boy himself would need to assess that.
''The fees don't frighten me, although it can sometimes frustrate me a little bit.
''When you are talking about signing young players with potential, you hope your decision-making and your assessment of the player is correct.
''You hope he won't be there for just one contract but for two or three. Then you get the longevity from that player, as we have done in the past with the likes of Roy Keane, Gary Pallister, Steve Bruce and Denis Irwin.
''That is the only way you can assess it".

This is classic Ferguson, challenging Bale to back his judgement of how best to treat a young player, and pointing to the success experienced by those who have done so in the past. His words are made more persuasive by his immense reputation and the signs that United are finally re-establishing themselves as a dominant Premiership force once more. If Bale does snub Spurs for United, then Fergie will also have saved United a few million pounds, as Southampton have been guilty of driving up Bale's price and would surely not turn their nose up at 8 million pounds for a 17-year-old.

Of course there is no law that says Bale need join anyone in this transfer window, and even if he does not move to United, if he does not join Tottenham either then Ferguson will have achieved his objective. There is always the summer after all, and it would be no great surprise if Bale is wearing red in 2008.

More to come from Arsene's youngsters

While the football world salivates unashamedly at the performances of Arsene Wenger's young gunners in the Carling Cup, unfortunately for the rest of the Premiership they are just the tip of the iceberg. The maturity of Denilson, Hoyte and co. have caused such a stir that everybody seems to have forgotten about the others in the Emirates stable, sent out to Championship clubs on loan in order to gain experience.

Birmingham lead the Championship thanks in no small part to the goals of Niklas Bendtner, the guile of Sebastien Larsson and the presence of Fabrice Muamba. Arturo Lupoli is impressing as Derby challenge, Kerrea Gilbert a fixture at Cardiff, and so well stocked is Wenger's pantry that Anthony Stokes has been allowed to sign for Sunderland despite scoring three hat-tricks in the first half of the season while on loan at Falkirk. With others presumably in the system of who we have yet to hear, Arsene Wenger's stock will surely continue to rise long after his retirement.

England cannot give up the fight

England seem to have reached their lowest ebb this morning, another unbelievably inept batting performance meaning another crushing defeat at the hands of the Australians. Adelaide is fast becoming England's room 101, it is fair to say that England's performance with the bat in the second innings of the Test and in the one-dayer this morning have been the most forgettable moments of a car-crash tour that has provided nothing if not a new sense of perspective for those involved with English cricket. It is clear that this tour is now inflicting some serious scars, not least on Andrew Flintoff's captaincy and the batting of Andrew Strauss, but there is no let-up in the schedule of international cricket nowadays. It is crucial that these players are strong enough to draw a line under what has happened and move on with their lives and their game.

The players looked defeated in every sense of the word as they left the pitch today but they must raise themselves, as there are more days to come, in this tournament, the imminent World Cup and the Test series against the Windies that starts straight afterwards. How the players respond over the next few months will be crucial to the next few years of English cricket. They must stand up and be counted. Vaughan's return will help, if he can stay fit, but the young men who have looked just that this winter must now show us that they are England's future and not their past.

Jol fails tactical test

Another day and another top manager fails the tactical test against Arsene Wenger. Spurs were winning 1-0 after 20 minutes, and in truth it could have been four, yet Martin Jol reacted to an injury to Dimitar Berbatov by switching his formation to 4-5-1, putting Robbie Keane into what deserves to be dubbed the 'black hole' somewhere behind Jermain Defoe. Defoe was left horribly isolated, Spurs stopped playing football, and despite a second goal the excellence of their early football with Berbatov on the pitch was emphasised by the poverty of their attacking intent forthwith. Arsenal took full advantage of the space afforded them, with the unfairly talented substitute Hleb to the fore, and deservedly levelled the tie. Spurs and Jol have suffered from their lack of ambition in the same way that Alex Ferguson did at the Emirates on Sunday. Get amongst Arsenal. attack them, and they are vulnerable. Give them space and the will kill you. Jol may come to regret his timidity in a week's time.

The myth of Fergie proves hard to swallow

'Alex Ferguson has done supremely well to create yet another Manchester United team ready to mount a genuine challenge for the Premiership title'. So said the commentator during yesterdays encounter between United and Arsenal at the Emirates Stadium. Absolute codswallop.

United are clearly now a force to be reckoned with, but it is a scandal that it has taken them so long to compete consistently for the Premiership again since the decline of Roy Keane and co began over three years ago. Ferguson was far too slow to address the problems right in front of him. One need only look at their opponents yesterday to see how a ruthless approach is crucial when rebuilding a team. Arsene Wenger has culled Patrick Viera, Robert Pires, Sol Campbell and now Freddie Ljungberg and the result is a precocious, vibrant team that, although too inexperienced to compete this time around will be right in the mixer next season.

Ferguson's record at Manchester United is beyond reproach- 24 trophies in 20 years as manager, including eight Premiership titles and a European Cup, are figures that are unlikely to ever be rivalled in the modern game. However, in recent years, his powers have sadly and undeniably been on the wane. United have not won the Premiership since 2002/03, having been overtaken firstly by Arsenal and more recently Chelsea. Ferguson's biggest mistake was the refusal to recognise the need to replace an ageing spine. He held on to Keane for too long, and the players he signed as replacements were quite simply not good enough- Kleberson, Liam Miller and Eric Djemba-Djemba have long since left the club with their tails between their legs. He displayed the stubbornness of an old-man in refusing to admit he needed to make a high profile central midfield signing to replace Keane, recently making do instead with Fletcher, O'Shea, and even a striker in Smith, none of whom would be first choice in that position at most of the clubs in the top division. This streak also reared its head when it came to filling the goalkeeping position, Edwin van der Sar's recruitment coming after a season dithering between the initially impressive Tim Howard and the perennially incompetent Roy Carroll.

What is ironic is that Ferguson's defining moment as a manager came when he cut loose Paul Ince, Andrei Kanchelskis and Mark Hughes at the end of the trophyless 1994-95 season. The experts thought he had gone mad, but Beckham, Scholes, Neville and Butt proved he had made the right decision. He had judged exactly the right moment to shift the balance of his team, and the youth combined perfectly with the experience of Cantona and Schmeichel to win the Premiership title. Wenger has followed this blueprint to perfection, and although success may take his side longer to come by, they are undoubtedly going the right way. While Ferguson may not have youngsters of the same quality as Wenger coming through, this cannot be used as an excuse as he has hardly been short of backing in the transfer market.

To that respect, can Ferguson really be credited as being a genius for spending 30million on Rio Ferdinand, 31million on Wayne Rooney, 18million on Carrick and 12million each on Ronaldo and Saha and and finally hitting on a successful formula. The team's improvement this year can be put down to the coming-of-age of Ronaldo and the return to form of Giggs and Scholes more than the manager's cunning.

While Ferguson's man-management may be as sharp as ever, so off has his tactical radar been at times in recent years that he has actually proved a hindrance rather than a boon to the outstanding talent at his disposal. The hallmark of Ferguson's sides of the nineties was their dashing attacking play, centering around the speed of Giggs, the accuracy of Beckham, and craft and dynamism up-front. All this was backed up by the driving force of Keane and Scholes. The formation was 4-4-2, not flash, but the best of British and damned effective.

Yesterday, United fans must have been scratching their heads as Ferguson went with 4-5-1 and Rooney on the left. It is a formation he has favoured in European games initially since the arrival of Veron and van Nistelrooy, and is one which has proved singularly ineffective. United have not got past the quarter-finals of the European Cup since they started using this formation. It compromises the main strength of Ferguson's teams- attacking at pace, yet he is too stubborn to admit defeat and persists still. It cost them dear yesterday as with a team full of attacking talent they failed to look capable of scoring the crucial second goal and paid for it with defeat. Rather than settling for one-nil, he should have trusted his fowards to put the game beyond Arsenal.

United are at their best with two mobile forwards, to that end their improvement since the departure of the cumbersome and selfish van Nistelrooy is no surprise. His goal-scoring record is clearly phenomenal, but his penalty-box mentality helped to make United one-paced and predictable in the long-term. His and Veron's signing's hint at Ferguson's surprising insecurity in his own tactics in the wake of United's European Cup success. He tried to change the team's style, to create a super-team to dominate Europe, and Veron, van Nistelrooy and the shift to 4-5-1 would be the final pieces in the jigsaw. Rather like Woody Allen trying to make serious films, it didn't work. He should have stuck with what he knew, it worked.

With his achievements at Aberdeen and Manchester United Alex Ferguson has earnt the right to be considered among the top tier of managers that the game has known. However, these successes should not cloud analysis of his performance in recent years, which have simply not been up to scratch with the resources at his disposal. Sadly, it is the continued exellence of his great rival Arsene Wenger which shows this up in the clearest light.

Will the transfer window please hurry up and shut

A small rant about the transfer window. Why on earth is it a month long? All the excitement that has built up between September and January at the prospect of some good old transfer speculation, the prospect of replacing the moron at left-back etc. quickly dissipates after two-and-a-half weeks of constant and often ridiculous rumours and very little action indeed.

Most transfers seem to happen either right at the beginning of the window or right at the end. The delay in deals is inevitable as clubs on either side of the deal wait until the last possible minute hoping to squeeze an extra bit of cash out of the buyer or force the seller to lower their price. We saw it a few years ago with Louis Saha and Scott Parker, and this window Watford have shamelessly created what amounts to an auction for Ashley Young, pretending they don't want to sell when they have intended to all along. After a while it just gets bloody boring, and you can't wait for the thing to shut again.

One solution would surely be to shorten it to two weeks. That way clubs have enough time to do their business, less time to stand-off against each other, and less time to bore us rigid.

Foolhardy West Ham must beware the Leeds effect

For West Ham fans, this transfer-window must be a bittersweet time. Their side sits 18th in the Premiership, but has just embarked on a spending spree unprecedented in the clubs history. Financed by the mysterious new owner Eggert Magnusson, Alan Curbishley has signed Luis Boa Morte for £5m, Callum Davenport for £3m, Nigel Quashie for £1.5m, bid £10m for Ashley Young, supposedly £12m for Darren Bent and are reportedly on the verge of signing Lucas Neill for £2m.

This in itself is not cause for alarm. Magnusson appears to have the money to finance the signings, and West Ham are in need of some major reinforcements if they are to beat the drop this season. What makes for uneasy reading is the salaries that West Ham are apparently offering (all these terms have been touted by the tabloids, so must be taken with a pinch of salt) to try and entice these players to a club in a relegation battle. Young, a 21-year-old with half a Premiership campaign behind him, was reportedly offered £50,000 a week over five years, taking the total value of his deal to £20m. Bent tried to take advantage of the madness and asked for £100,000, while Neill has apparently turned his back on the 'dream-move' to Liverpool that he has hankered for all season after the promise £50,000 a week at Upton Park was more attractive than a paltry £35,000 at Anfield.

Fine, if West Ham stay up this season the policy will be deemed a success. They will be another club with an owner prepared to support a massive wage-bill, as don't forget those already at the club will also demand an increase. Next season they may even challenge for Europe with their re-jigged squad, and go some-way to paying back these transfer fees.

But what if it goes wrong? West Ham fans know only to well there is no such thing as 'too good to go down', and relegation would be a financial disaster. The playing staff would surely have to be gutted, for example one cannot imagine Neill's new found allegiance to West Ham would extend to playing in the Championship. Not only this, the club would be left with a crippling wage bill. One only has to look at Leeds, still paying £46,000-a-week to a player as average as Gary Kelly, not to mention subsidising Robbie Fowler's contract at Liverpool, to see what effect this can have. They too sit in the bottom three of their division, only they find themselves in danger of oblivion, relegation to League 1, and this a club who reached the semi-finals of the Champions League five years ago. And what about Magnusson? Will he hang around to bail out his new toy? He displayed a calculated coldness in his treatment of Alan Pardew and West Ham fans must hope he does not treat their club the same way at the first sign of trouble.

This may just be a hypothetical scenario. West Ham may stay up, in three years they might be bloody good, and Magnusson might be there lapping up the applause. But, if they flop and end up going down with the Watford, it'll be very interesting to see how long Magnusson, Neill and co hang around to get them back up again.

England get it wrong again

No sooner had things seemed to be looking up for England, than Michael Vaughan's untimely injury has created unrest once again. The selectors have been forced to make the one decision they didn't want to, that is to choose once more which one of Andrew Flintoff and Andrew Strauss will take the reigns in Vaughan's absence. In reappointing Flintoff they have shown a refusal to learn from what has happened this winter, a lack of leadership themselves and an inordinate lack of guts. The appointment is to cricket what the choice of Steve McLaren over Martin O'Neill and Sam Allardyce was to football.

The decision appears to have been based more on a desire to not risk upsetting Flintoff than on any sound logic, much as it was before the Ashes, when Strauss could also have been given the job. The argument seems to be that to demote him from the role for a second time would be to make him a scapegoat for the team's failure, and the selectors want to show he has their backing. However, they should think more about Flintoff's long-term wellbeing and that of the team, rather than his appeasement in the short-term.

The Flintoff who attended today's press conference looked shattered, understandably, after the mauling both he and his team have been subjected to this winter by not only the Australians, but the media. He is already the scapegoat, regardless of the management's support. It may simply be coincidence that he produced his best performance of the tour on Tuesday, freed of the responsibility of captaincy. Regardless, such is his importance now to England's cause in Pietersen's absence, as their one world-class one-day player, it seems madness to over-burden him further.

The selectors have backed themselves into a corner now, much as they did at the start of last summer. By so prematurely appointing Flintoff as Vaughan's stand-in for the duration of the summer, they had little room for manouevre when it came to choosing the Ashes captain. Strauss' success in orchestrating a whitewash against Pakistan had made him the more viable option, but to appoint him would have constituted a massive snub to Flintoff. Similarly now, where can they turn when the captaincy becomes an issue again after Vaughan is gone? Will they again seek to protect Flintoff's ego, or make a decision based on the facts?

Flintoff had enjoyed success in India, galvanising a young team to victory in Mumbai. However, the cracks in his command shown when India briefly threatened at Nagpur were widened to chasms in Australia. He could not deliver on his promise to get the best out of Steve Harmison, and was unfortunately dragged into the selection mud-slinging by Duncan Fletcher. Tellingly, the team did not pull together under him when things went wrong. Splits emerged, accusations were thrown and performance levels dropped.
This is not to chastise Flintoff as a man, more to recognise that captaincy is an art in itself. It is an art that no amount of charisma can bluff you through. Charisma is of minor importance compared to a shrewd tactical brain, a knowledge of how to get the best out of individuals and an immunity to criticism. Vaughan, somewhat surprisingly, soon showed himself to possess all these qualities, and his strength as a leader of men is in stark contrast to Flintoff. Flintoff is cricket's Kevin Keegan, full of blood and guts and passion, but found lacking when it mattered most. That is why his re-appointment is a backward step.

There will soon come a time when there is no prospect of Vaughan returning to clear up the mess, and England's failure to draw a line under Flintoff's captaincy, to admit that it didn't work, is disturbing indeed. Strauss deserves his chance to stake a claim. He may not be the answer, but this winter has shown that Flintoff isn't either.

Newcastle show story-book can be reality....

Yesterday's match at White Hart Lane between Tottenham and Newcastle served as a welcome reminder of football's occasional ability to rise above the hum-drum and produce a genuine story-book ending.

Newcastle simply had no right to win the game. Missing a whole team, and a bloody good one at that, through injuries, they were most decimated in defence - reduced to fielding a back four of a right-winger and three raw, if talented, youngsters.

Early on a rout seemed on the cards, as Spurs poured forward with pace and verve and could have had four inside ten minutes. Surely Newcastle couldn't hold on? They didn't, Defoe had the ball in the net on 13, his third good chance, ironically this one was offside. Yet however inexperienced Newcastle's defence may have been, they had Given, and he was all that mattered. Captain in Parker's absence, he was as acrobatic in the early stages as Robinson was static when the ball drilled through his legs to make it 1-1. Spurs had led for just two minutes, and the scorer was the 19-year old left-back Huntingdon, in just his eighth appearance for the club. Boys-own stuff indeed. His other fullback wasn't doing badly either- Solano was everywhere, coming up with several goal-saving blocks as Spurs laid siege again. One such lunge to deny Tainio met with rough-justice as the rebound fell to Berbatov, who volleyed down into the ground and in. It looked like game over. Surely Tottenham, boasting a home record bettered only by Manchester United and Liverpool, would go on and win comfortably.

Thankfully football takes no notice of statistics. After Martins had smashed the equaliser Spurs looked stunned. So stunned, in fact, that they neglected to track Butt's midfield run and the game was lost. Butt, the match-winner, had of course spent all-week in bed with flu, losing 9lb's in the process. To add to the irony, he could easily have been sent off at half-time after an unsightly fracas first with Chimbonda and then his own team-mates. But that would have ruined the story.

Spurs will hang their heads, 24 shots and just two goals tells the tale, but they should take comfort from this when they next find themselves in trouble, and remember that occasionally the story-book comes true.