I don't understand why Eriksson is paid £5m a year. Apparently, according to his assistant Tord Grip, they have yet to formulate a "Plan B" without Rooney.

The BBC article is here

Right. Ok. So, you're an International football coach and your whole tactic of winning the World Cup involves Wayne Rooney being fit, ready and available the whole tournament?

Even though he got injured in Euro 2004 and we subsequently lost? They say you learn from your mistakes but apparently not if you're a dozy Swedish wanker that is more interested in shagging around than actually doing his job.

I've never liked Sven and I've never rated him tactically.

Now I just think he's a fuckwit.

The other story from the weekend that is now going to dominate from here until the start of the World Cup is Wayne Rooney and his fractured metatarsal. I was hoping that we were going to be spared the same fiasco that happened during the run-up to last World Cup when David Beckham fractured his foot but apparently not.

Obviously the debate about Rooney has be centred around “do you take him or don’t you”. For me, this is a simple question with a simple answer of “yes”.

He won’t be fit for the group games. That is fairly obvious. So we have to hope that he can come back either by the quarter final or by the semi final if we get that far. I think that the moral within the team will be better if Rooney is in the squad and I would suggest that he stays with Manchester United for training right up until such time as they are obliged to release him to the England squad.

What has been of concern to me are the reports that quoted Steven Gerrard saying we need Rooney available to win the World Cup. It sounds like the excuses are coming out already. England has players like Gerrard, Beckham, Lampard, Joe Cole, Michael Owen, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry, Ashley Cole and Gary Neville. These players are seasoned professionals that have all experienced the highest levels of European football for several years. Do people really think our chances at the World Cup are hinged on Wayne Rooney?

It seems many are, including the players and the manager. This is not the right attitude and for once I agree with Sir Alex Ferguson when he stated that the more senior England players such as Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard, Neville et al should be shouldering more of the responsibility.

Rooney is a precocious talent, of that there is no doubt, and England will be poorer without him but I actually think in many ways it could benefit them tactically. If Eriksson can figure out what to do, that is.

For my mind, without having Rooney available, we are forced into looking at playing one of two systems. The first would be a 4 – 4 – 1 – 1 system. This would involve playing Michael Carrick in a holding role to cover the back four and having Gerrard, Beckham and Lampard playing across midfield. Gerrard would be out on the left, Beckham on the right, and Lampard through the middle. Joe Cole would then play in behind Michael Owen and would provide the link to the midfield quartet.

The second way of playing would be to adopt a 3 – 5 – 2 system. England have a lot of high quality centre halves available to them, so I would play three across the back and then have Ashley Cole and David Beckham playing as wing backs. We would then have Lampard, Carrick and Gerrard playing across the centre, and then Joe Cole would then play up front with Owen.

You could argue that Beckham isn’t quick enough but he often goes on runs from deep for Real Madrid so I don’t think it will be a problem. I also believe the quality of his crosses and his ability from a dead ball situation is something that England will need during the tournament. It may be that Shaun Wright-Phillips can be used in the last twenty minutes in that wing back position to terrorise tiring defences.

I still think this bunch of England players constitutes a very good team. Maybe it doesn’t have the individual brilliance of, say, Brazil, but I think that if the players gel, then we still have a decent shot at having an impressive World Cup.

Plus, if we do get as far as the semi-finals, who is to stop Rooney coming on in the second half and then firing us into the final?

Stranger things have happened and that, for my money, is why you gamble and take him.

Chelsea Football Club are The Premiership champions once again after beating Manchester United 3 – 0 on Saturday. United themselves never really turned up and, Rooney apart, never looked like a threat. Christian Ronaldo yet again flattered to deceive and the Manchester United back four looked like a shadow of their former selves when confronted with Joe Cole and Didier Drogba.

Of course, there were two huge talking points after the match. One was the injury to Wayne Rooney after being tackled by Paulo Ferreira and the other was the behaviour and speech of the Chelsea manager, José Mourinho, of which I have a few opinions.

Mourinho put on a quite unbelievable display of narcissistic behaviour. Rather than focusing solely on his players achievements, he focused on himself as usual. José told the assembled media that he nearly quit Chelsea twice this season. He believed that they (the media) were unfairly portraying him and that it is very tough to get credit when you are the manager of Chelsea. Wow. Most managers would have stepped back when they won and let the players take the credit but apparently not Mourinho.

I’m sorry but I’m not going to shed a tear for you José. You have the richest team in the world and you are bankrolled by one of the richest men in the world. You can buy any player you so desire and, to a point, you can stop other players from being bought by your rivals, as we have seen with Shaun Wright-Phillips. This is not something that will be looked upon as anything but a huge advantage for a football manager.

Given all the funds available at his disposal, Mourinho has moulded a team that doesn’t play particularly attractive football. They play efficient, effective football. Chelsea haven’t covered themselves in glory with the behaviour of either the manager or the players this season. The Robben incident versus Liverpool, Drogba and his antics regarding diving and Mourinho himself in respect of saying that Lionel Messi of Barcelona was, in fact, a cheat and that this is the reason why Chelsea got knocked out of the Champions League. He also stated that “the better team lost”.

These are not the words of a gracious loser. They are also simply not true.

Del Horno was just as guilty in that incident and Barcelona were clearly a class above Chelsea over both legs. They are certainly a far more attractive team to watch. Their assembled line-up also cost considerably less than Chelsea’s.

This season José Mourinho has come across as petulant, arrogant and sulky. He is prone to throwing fits on the touchline and making strange tactical choices at times. He has often refused to speak to the press. In short, he has no one to blame but himself for the negative brand image that Chelsea now have, not only here in this country but also throughout Europe.

If José was so naïve to think that winning trophies with a football club that has more financial power than any other in the world would be given the same adulation that winning the Champions League with Porto, then he is surely not “The Special One” he claims to be.

Well, politics does throw up some strange stuff.

It turns out John "Two Jags" Prescott has been having an affair for TWO years with his secretary. Now, with the greatest respect, is she blind? I mean, I know he's Deputy Prime Minister and all that and has two cars but he resembles a beached whale!

Its nearly as astonishing as John Major having an affair with Edwina Curry but not quite so gross.

Ewww.

Now that really isn't news you want to read over breakfast.

There was a report on BBC News this morning about the fact some clever boffins at Cambridge University have worked out how we can all lengthen our lives. They did a study of 22,000 people and they reckon, and this will come as a shock to all of my 3 readers, that....

*drum roll please*

If you stop smoking, eat healthily and do some exercise, you will live longer!

Oh. My. God! Genius!

Thanks for that. I'm glad the tax that is paying your research grants is going to such good use. It gave me that extra spring in my step on the way in to work today.

So, without further ado, I shall give up the fags, do some more exercise and eat more fruit and vegetables immediately because now, for the first time ever, I know that it will help me live longer.

Honestly, who would have thought it that cigarettes were bad for you? Or a good diet and exercising was beneficial to your health?! It certainly surprised the hell out of me!

Those clever, clever people at Cambridge. What would we do without them?

You can read the article here

I travel to work each day on the train. It is, thankfully, only a short journey. It should only take 23 minutes but of course it rarely does.

I quite like trains as a method of transport. What I absolutely hate is the way in which they are run. The demise of our raliways started with Maggie Thatcher, who decided that no public investment would be made on the infrastructure, so they went through a period of years and years of neglect. Then, when they privatised them, some bright spark decided that the regions would make up the operating companies but another company would then look after the track!

Thereby, in an instant, creating a monopoly.

I'm quite often staggered at the stupidity in politics but this, surely, is one of the stupidest things ever. Did they not stop and think about it?

Of course not. I mean, having a monopoly on the track would be fine, surely? Farm it out to the biggest bidder and then have them compromise public safety by hiring out the cheapest contractor to fix the track! Great idea!

Of course, they weren't using the trains so they couldn't give a toss about it. The devious little rat-faced weasel fuckers.

I don't know if you've noticed it but I love the way the train companies now have a "passengers charter" and "service reports". You see these stuck up at the bigger stations detailing how well they are doing in meeting their targets. For example:

Punctuality :- Target figure - 99%
Punctuality :- Actual figure - 97%

You what? Oh fuck right off. Only 3% of trains have not made it in on time? DO YOU TRAVEL ON THEM? EVER? I would say 3% of my trains make it in on time, the rest are late. I base my travel arrangements on the trains on the basis they will be late and I'm rarely disappointed.

But then, when you read the really small print, you realise that the punctuality figures are allowed 5 minutes of leeway.

Hmm. 5 minutes. So, on my 23 minute journey, being 5 minutes late is OK? Thats 22% late. What about on someones 10 minute journey? If a train is 5 minutes late on a 10 minute journey, its 50% late. Thats OK?! That ISN'T late?

Imagine if I based my life on that principle. I work 9 till 5:30 with an hour for lunch, so its a seven and a half hour day. 22% of my day would be roughly one hour and three quarters. So I'd rock up at 10:45am in the morning each day and this would be acceptable and within reason? I think not.

What these figures need is a sense of proportion. You can't have a blanket 5 minutes. Its OK for a journey that takes over an hour to be 5 minutes late, but for the shorter journeys, I would suggest two minutes. Otherwise its not punctual.

Actually, it seems that we're now defining punctual as late.

Its absolutely bonkers.

Most people are now aware that the only way you will now see live televised Cricket in this country, at least until 2010, is by owning Sky TV. This means a cost, at the very least, of £37.50 a month. While this isn't a great deal of money in today’s world, to some people it is just an expense they cannot afford or justify. Other people cannot get access to Sky because of planning permission or they might live in short term rented accommodation. Sky will always exist in a minority rather than a majority of UK households for the foreseeable future.

The current subscriber base to Sky is around 10 million viewers in the UK, less than 1/6th of the population. The viewing figures for last years Ashes series reached around 8 million at times. Now that Sky has the rights, there is absolutely no chance of the viewing figures reaching that point for the 2009 Ashes series for the next home series.

That constitutes a problem for the good of the game as far as I'm concerned and the ECB, when brokering this deal, where guilty of not being able to see past the shiny pound signs.

We live in a world that, sports-wise, is saturated by media coverage of football and last summer was a very welcome break from that. Cricket, for once, kept the overpaid prima-donnas of the Premiership off the back pages and made today’s kids realise there was another sport available to them to watch and play. There were other heroes, playing a different kind of game. It showed there was a game being played between two sides that actually showed sportsmanship as it should be; it showed fight, it showed spirit, it showed guts and the pride of playing for your country from both sides.

But no longer will just anyone be able to tune in to the days play. It’s a travesty as far as I'm concerned.

My other gripe with the fact Sky now has the cricket, is that the coverage simply isn't very good. I'm not talking about the camera work or the number of adverts or the technical media side of it but regarding the commentary team and the way the game is presented.

Sky assumes the viewer knows what is going on and is already knowledgeable about the game. It doesn't make the game as accessible to the newcomer or casual watcher as Channel 4 did. It has employed two generations of ex-England captains to present the opinion and provide the commentary based on no reason except, well, they're ex England Captains. Gower has all the charm of watching paint dry. Botham is boorish and opinionated. Willis is chock full of disdain and Lloyd is high on the drug of optimism.

Sky just lacks the class that the Channel 4 presentation had.

Maybe they will surprise me over the season. I hope so. But I've been watching their coverage for many years and I know who I’d rather watch out of choice.

Debate still continues to rage about who the next England manager is going to be. The shortlist contains Sam Allardyce, Alan Curbishley, Steve McClaren, Martin O'Neill and Luiz Felipe Scolari and today the papers are saying that the new hot favourite is Scolari. I can't quite keep up with it all to be honest. First of all Martin O'Neill was the hot favourite, then it was Alan Curbishley, then Steve Mclaren and now its Scolari as the man who has the job in the bag. In fact, the only person not to have been installed as the current hot favourite is Big Sam.

The trouble with listening to the newspapers on these matters is it is purely speculative. They may have someones Grannies cousin who is a cleaner inside the FA but as the FA have not made their decision yet, they do not actually know. Nor do they know what the current thinking of the executive committee is because they are not actually on it.

Its all getting quite tiresome.

I have several issues with the whole process. First, who actually decided that "shortlist"? Are these really the best contenders for the job? I don't believe this to be the case. The powers that be have decided, very early on, that a foreign manager is only an outside chance and the only name left in the hat happens to be the last manager to win the World Cup, i.e., Scolari. Admittedly, this isn't a bad name to have left so then, when you put his CV up against all the rest of the contenders, it should be a foregone conclusion, right? Apparently not. The FA is a fairly stuffy and jingoistic organisation and they believe that because of all the process and coaching skills and groundwork they have put in for English managers and coaches, it should therefore go to someone English. Which rules out Scolari and O'Neill. Therefore we're left with Mclaren, Curbishley and Allardyce. Mclaren has been shadowing Eriksson as an assistant coach with England for the last 4 years, something that neither Big Sam or Alan Curbishley have done.

So, out of all the English managers, the fact he has shadowed a manager that has produced a lot of third rate football with first class players seems to make him favourite.

Insanity.

With all due respect to all the current crop of English managers, absolutely none of them have any experience at the highest level. The number of Champions League matches between them? None. The number of trophies between them? One, Steve Mclaren with the Carling Cup. Their highest ever league position? Allardyce, with 5th last season. Their European experience? UEFA Cup only and that is only Allardyce briefly and Mclaren currently.

Its just not a good enough CV to manage a team that consists of stars such as Beckham, Terry, Ferdinand, Cole, Owen, Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard et al. These guys are used to coaches of the stature of Wenger, Ferguson, Mourinho and Benitez. I can't see how Mclaren, Allardyce or Curbishley will command the respect of the current crop of English players, I really don't.

Eriksson has the respect of the players and he is a decent man manager; unfortunately I believe him to be selectorially and tactically inept which is why I believe England have no chance at the World Cup this summer. I hope he proves me wrong.

But if anyone but Scolari is picked out of the current shortlist, we'll have even less chance at Euro 2008.

The Sri Lankan team have arrived in England and although they are without one of their top batsman, Marvin Attapatu, they are still a decent Test Match side with a few outstanding performers. Muralitharan is a top class bowler, no matter what my opinion is of his action and Chaminda Vaas is a good seamer in whatever conditions he is presented with. The also have Sangakarra, who is an excellent wicket keeper and a very good Test batsmen.

However, truth be told, England should beat Sri Lanka and beat them fairly comfortably. They are ranked 7th in the Test Rankings and have a poor record away from home. Even with the injury situation that England currently has, there should be too much strength in reserve to allow Sri Lanka a sniff in the 3 match series, which starts on 11th May.

England will not have Vaughan, Harmison and Giles available for the 1st Test. However, they will have Trescothick back and ready for selection and also Simon Jones, as long as he doesn't break down again with an injury in the next 18 days. The selection discussions are going to primarily revolve around the batting positions and the two vacant bowling positions. Strauss, Trescothick and Pietersen will definitely be picked for 3 of the top 5 slots. That leaves two vacant batting positions; numbers 3 and 5. I believe that Pietersen should bat at 4 so that he and Flintoff, the team’s big hitters, are separated in the order, something I think is necessary. I am of the opinion that Collingwood was one of England’s best players on the winter tour and that he should definitely retain the number 4 slot. That leaves the position of number 3 available while Michael Vaughan is continuing his comeback from injury. So, with that in mind, who are the contenders?

Ian Bell
He had a poor Test series in India, albeit two of his six innings were batting as a makeshift opener which is not his natural position. He averaged only 21.83 in those 3 Tests and was guilty of getting himself out more often than not. He has a propensity to nibble at the ball outside off stump not only just early in his innings but later on as well when he looks set, which must be a concern for the England coaching staff. His average against Australia in the summer was just 17.50 and it could well be said that, his catching aside, England won The Ashes despite him being in the side. He had a good series in Pakistan, topping the averages but if you discount the series against Bangladesh, when he scored heavily, then his overall average is below 30. His demeanour at the crease is not convincing at all and he often looks like a rabbit in headlights when the pressure is on.

Alistair Cook
Got flown in as a last minute replacement when Trescothick went home in India. Hit 67 and an unbeaten century in the 1st Test although he subsequently failed in the second. He looks to have the technique to succeed at Test level and his temperament looks unflappable. He also scored 214 against the touring Australians last summer and has started this county season like an exocet, scoring 88 and 103* in the first county match of the season for Essex. However, he does lack Test Match experience and is only just 21.

Owais Shah
He was brought in for the last Test against India and scored a very composed and almost slightly cocky 88. He might well have had a century if he didn't have to try and force the pace whilst batting with the tail in the 1st Innings. He also scored a composed 34 in the 2nd innings when there was no shortage of chaos around him. He is the oldest of the three contenders for the batting slot at the age of 27. However, he was unconvincing in the one day matches after the Test Matches and is not renowned for his fielding ability.

There are two issues at stake here; the first is who will the selectors go with and the second is who do I think they should go with? I believe the selectors will stick with Ian Bell which, while admirable in terms of continuity of selection, I believe to be a fundamental mistake. I don't think that, right now, he has the mental toughness to play Test Cricket against the top teams. He doesn't dominate the crease or exude that aura of calm like the best players do. That, for me, is the key difference between him and the other two contenders. I think, given some time, he will turn into a good Test player but he needs to toughen up a bit first. When playing Australia in the winter, it is crucial that we have our mentally toughest cricketers playing.

So, that leaves the choice for me between Shah and Cook. Shah played very well in the Test match but has not shown much since, either in the one day matches or at the start of this county season. Cook, on the other hand, has shown plenty of form early season and is already being marked as an FEC (Future England Captain). Is now too soon? Also, if he was picked, he'd be playing out of position at 3 and this is where I think Shah currently has the edge on him.

Right now, my choice at number 3 will be Owais Shah.

So, the batting line up is now Strauss, Trescothick, Shah, Collingwood, Pietersen, Flintoff, Jones. What bowlers do we go with? Who are 8 to 11? Well, Hoggard, Simon Jones and with Harmison out, Jimmy Anderson are the pace bowling options, which then leaves the number 8 slot to be filled. I don't believe Duncan Fletcher will pick Monty Panesar as the spinning solution due to the fragility it gives the lower order. Therefore we either go with another seamer that can bat, like Liam Plunkett or a spinner that can bat, like Shaun Udal. I believe it will go to Udal to add some variety to the attack. It is by no means a long term option as Udal is 37 and it’s certainly not looking a forward looking move but Fletcher is hoping that Giles will be more than fit for The Ashes in November so, for the here and now, Udal is a good stop-gap measure.

I think it will be Udal, Hoggard, Jones and Anderson completing the line up for the 1st Test.

We shall see how correct I am in the next week or so.

Well, The Irons did it. We're in the FA Cup final for the first time since I was 7 years old. Truly a great day for a long time and sometimes long suffering supporter to myself.

I have to say it almost brought a tear to my eye.

Alan Pardews dance when Harewood scored was priceless. I bet he'll end up regretting that over the next few days!

Anyway, an FA Cup Final and win or lose, we have UEFA Cup football next season. What an amazing season.

Top stuff from Alan Pardew and the lads and I raise my glass to them tonight.

Yay!