Hazard, a ball boy and some very unusual morals

Just when you thought you'd seen everything in football, along comes an incident that leaves you utterly speechless. Speechless at the event, but more so at the stream of commentary that followed.

Eden Hazard, the Chelsea midfield play maker and Belgium international, went to retrieve the ball during his teams dismal League Cup semi-final performance away to Swansea City on Wednesday. As he did so, a Swansea ball boy intervened and, after a little nudge from Hazard, fell on top of the ball thus denying the quick retrieval that Hazard was hoping for.

As he lay on the ball, Hazard tried to kick the ball from beneath him and, in doing so, kicked the ball boy in the ribs. This sparked immediate debate as Ashley Williams, the Swansea captain, confronted Hazard who was swiftly removed from the developing melee by his teammates. After things had calmed down and following deliberation with his match officials, Chris Foy, the referee, decided to show Hazard a red card. What followed was absolute delirium.

Firstly it is worth pointing out that the ball boy, who is 17 years of age, could have retrieved the ball a lot quicker than he did. In actual fact, he let the ball run past him before stepping across Hazard's path to obtain the ball. The chances are quite high that the ball boys of Swansea were encouraged to take their time in returning the match ball, in an attempt to waste time. This is something that has been happening in football for decades and was confirmed by former Chelsea midfielder, Craig Burley, on TalkSport on Thursday.

Some have suggested that Hazard's actions were akin to the infamous incident involving Eric Cantona assaulting a Crystal Palace at Selhurst Park in 1995. The truth is, it was nowhere near as bad. But it was wholly irresponsible.

Added into the mix of this whole debate is the fact that Hazard plays for Cheslea, who have an unerring consistency to attract negative media attention. The official Chelsea Twitter feed reacted to the incident within minutes, tweeting "Has football gone mad? Hazard is sent off for kicking the ball under a ball boy attempting to smother the ball rather than return it", which was later removed. It was an incredibly ill-advised tweet from a club which does little to endear the neutral fans. Added to this is the wait for a Chelsea statement that suggests what Hazard did was wrong. So far, all that has been communicated is that he and the ball boy have apologised to each other.

The commentary and debate that erupted in the aftermath of the incident was typically insidious on Twitter but, most alarming, were the comments made by Alan Smith, commentating live for Sky Sports, and John Salako, providing updates in the Sky Sports News studio. Without the benefit of hindsight, Smith was dumbfounded by the decision of Foy to dismiss Hazard but Salako, when questioned by Sky Sports News presenter, David Garrido, as to how he would react if the ball boy was his son, quipped: "I'd shake his hand and say 'you've won us the game there, well done'...Hazard has pinched him at best."

Such was the surprise and forthright nature of Salako's comments that Garrido posed more questions. Salako, although entitled to his opinion, was guilty of completely misreading the situation.

Having been shown a straight red card, Hazard will get a minimum three game suspension which could increase depending on how The Football Association view it. What cannot be ignored, however, is that these are professional footballers and, with that, they are expected to act professionally. Forget the ball boys age, it is only relevant for those wishing to gloss over misdemeanours.

As Burley pointed out, and what football fans have known for a long time, ball boys deliberately slowing down the speed at which the ball is returned is something that has been happening for an awful long time.

Whilst you can understand Hazard's frustration at these tactics, he must be made aware that behaviour like that is completely unacceptable. You get the feeling his employers may not be the ones to tell him this.

Has Lambert Bent his bridges?

As the dust settled on what was a hugely embarrassing night in Aston Villa's history, attention has turned to the future of their manager, Paul Lambert.

Having lost the first leg of the Capital One Cup semi-final 3-1 away to Bradford City, of League Two, Villa were expected to overcome the two goal deficit and show their superiority. They didn't. They lost 4-3 on aggregate and not even the 2-1 win on Tuesday could mask the deficiencies of a side lacking in confidence and leadership.

Even the staunchest of Villa supporters would have trouble denying that Phil Parkinson's Bradford are worthy finalists. En route to Wembley, they have knocked out three Premier League sides in Wigan Athletic, Arsenal and Villa; becoming the first fourth-tier side in over 50 years to reach the League Cup final. It is a feat that will take some beating.

Something that doesn't take a lot of beating is Villa, but what is surely most worrying for the fans of the Midlands club is the ineptitude of their performances and distinct lack of cohesion under Lambert.

Too many managers are dispensed before being given a chance to turn things around and, if his tenure at Norwich City is anything to go by, then Lambert should be given time. What he is trying to achieve at Villa is admirable and, in many respects, it mirrors what Brendan Rodgers is attempting at Liverpool, admittedly with varying levels of success. The key difference, which has been highlighted so frequently this season in regards to Villa, is the absence of experienced players.

Whilst the likes of Raheem Sterling, Suso, Andre Wisdom and Jonjo Shelvey are being given regular opportunities in the Liverpool first team, the level of success would undoubtedly be lower if they were not playing alongside experienced, senior players such as Steven Gerrard, Luis Suarez and Martin Skrtel.

Despite being unfortunate with the likes of Richard Dunne and Stiliyan Petrov, absent through injury and long-term illness respectively, Lambert still has enough quality to choose from. It's merely a question of stubbornness. Many forget that he has Stephen Warnock and Alan Hutton available and, although they may divide opinion in terms of quality, they would certainly add some experience to the back four and starting eleven.

Then there is the curious case of Darren Bent, a player who has routinely found himself amongst the top scorers in the Premier League in recent seasons. It soon became apparent that Bent did not figure in Lambert's first team plans but whenever questioned about the situation, Lambert would gloss over any reports of a fall-out and be extremely vague when asked about his future at the club.

For seasoned observers, it had all the makings of a manager deciding that a player was surplus to requirements and waiting for the January transfer window to offload him. Thus far this has not happened, which is rather bizarre.

If Lambert was hoping to bolster his squad from the sale of Bent, then it makes the delayed action all the more peculiar. For a side so clearly struggling to be so reliant on the young Belgian striker, Christian Benteke, in his debut season in the Premier League shows a distinct lack of regard for Bent who, if not first choice striker, could surely help shoulder the responsibility of scoring the goals.

As it is, Bent has been restricted to the odd appearance in league and cup games, scoring the equaliser in Villa's recent 2-1 FA Cup victory against Ipswich Town. Still no bids have arrived.

This has led to an enormous amount of speculation about Lambert's future and, injuries aside, it's all of his own making. But if you are to believe what you hear, he is in defiant mood and "thriving" on the pressure.

This may sound like something he thinks the fans will want to hear but it also sounds like a man who is unwilling to change his approach; adamant that it will eventually work out. It is this attitude, when players such as Bent, Warnock and Hutton are at his disposal, that could eventually seal his fate.

Too much, too soon

If reports are to be believed, then Wilfried Zaha, the Crystal Palace winger, will be confirmed as a Manchester United player by the end of the January transfer window.

Many are already predicting big things for the 20 year-old, who has scored 15 goals in 124 appearances for Palace. Against the backdrop of Michael Johnson, the Manchester City midfielder, who, last week, was finally released by his employers three years after his last appearance for the club, it is particularly poignant.

Troubles with alcohol and mental health have seen a footballer, once billed as a future England star, walk away from the game a shadow of his former self and pleading to be left alone to get on with the rest of his life.

In the ensuing opinion pieces following the breaking of this news there was no one who quite said it better than the manager of Swansea City, Michael Laudrup, whose comments came after his side lost their FA Cup third round replay to Arsenal at the Emirates. They had nothing to do with Johnson.

Laudrup was speaking about a certain Jack Wilshere, whose late goal sent Arsenal through to the fourth round. After the inevitable superlatives were heaped on the young England international, he said: "You don't want to push your young players too much. Sometimes people are a little too fast, too quick with the big words...we have to let them grow because young players can always improve, that goes for Jack Wilshere too."

It was an extremely salient point from a man who absolutely knows what he is talking about. He later added: "To be world class you need more at the highest level. We are talking about a 21-year-old and we're already talking about him being the best."

Laudrup highlights an incessant problem within the English game. Our eagerness to embrace talent, coupled with an ever-increasing desire to see England challenge for major honours on the international stage only serves to cloud judgement and heighten expectation. It is this mentality that could well have contributed to Johnson failing to live up to these expectations. Expectations set by us and beyond his control.

Manchester City will feel that they have done everything to help Johnson try to resurrect his career and this is not in question. There are only so many times you can be forgiven.

So much pressure is bestowed upon English players that the moment they show a morsel of talent the floodgates open and, before they know it, they're the great white hope for the Three Lions. 

There has been a seismic shift in attitude among some of the Premier League's more established clubs with the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and Aston Villa favouring youth ahead of experience. 

Whilst this may bode well for the future of England and The FA following their much publicised unveiling of St George's Park, there also needs to be an emphasis on protecting those that begin as prospects and are suddenly being touted as "world class".

It is this combination of exposure, money and insurmountable media expectation that is too much, too soon for many players.

Luke Shaw, the latest product of the Southampton Football Academy, has put together a number of promising performances this season. He is just 17 but he is already being spoken of as a future England regular. 

Laudrup is right and we all have a part to play. So as the next crop of hopefuls such as Zaha and Shaw filter through, it is worth remembering the case of Michael Johnson. There are few greater regrets in life than a talent unfulfilled.  

The FA, on the balance of probabilities, are one of the most spineless governing bodies in the world

Against the backdrop of John Terry's disciplinary hearing with The Football Association for the alleged racial abuse of Anton Ferdinand, much debate has emanated regarding the wider issues of racism within the sport.

Whilst Terry was found guilty of using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand, which included a reference to colour and/or race, many have suggested that racism is a widespread problem, with the inclination that it is an incessant disease manifesting itself within the sport.

In the past 12 months there have been a number of issues that have brought this argument to the forefront of people's minds.

Luis Suarez, the Liverpool striker, was found guilty of racially abusing Patrice Evra, the Manchester United defender, in a league game at Anfield last season -a week before John Terry, the Chelsea captain, was alleged to have racially abused Anton Ferdinand, the Queens Park Rangers defender.

These two cases alone brought such unwanted attention to a sport that has, we are lead to believe, worked tirelessly to rid itself of this type of incident.

The outlook is very different to how it once was. Gone are the days that, in this country at least, black players are be subjected to the abuse that is so evident in countries such as Ukraine, Russia and Spain.

But how far have we actually come?

As children, we are told by our elders to 'speak up' if we are bullied, in the knowledge that those responsible will be dealt with accordingly. But, if the aforementioned cases are anything to go by, why on earth would you put yourself through what Evra and Ferdinand have had to endure?

For having the temerity to make an official complaint of racist abuse against Suarez, Evra finds himself on the receiving end of insults and boos every time he faces Liverpool. Similarly, Ferdinand is roundly booed by Chelsea fans and has received bullets in the post. This abuse has extended to his brother Rio, the Manchester United defender, and other family members who have received death threats.

There is a lot to love about football but there is an awful lot to loathe. It is a sport that is riddled with such hypocrisy and run by organisations that cause offence to the word organisation.

Remind yourself briefly of the uproar in this country when, despite receiving an almost unbeatable 'technical bid' to host the FIFA World Cup in 2018, the tournament was awarded to Russia with England finishing fourth in the voting process.

Remember the finger pointing? Remember the accusations? Remember The FA getting on their soap box and highlighting the flaws within FIFA and citing Russia's record of racial discrimination?

Cast your mind back to whenever England players have been subjected to racial abuse while away on international duty playing in Spain, Poland, Ukraine... the list goes on. Remember the reaction of The FA? Remember how they insisted that FIFA and UEFA take this issue seriously? Remember how we scoffed at the paltry fines and sanctions that were given?

Now think how hypocritical this all sounds when, yesterday, The FA finds John Terry guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand and serves him with a four match ban and a fine of £220,000.

The stage was set for The FA to take the lead and show FIFA, UEFA and the world just how intolerant they are of such discrimination, but they failed horrendously.

Regardless of the differences in the Suarez case, where he was banned for eight games and fined £40,000, this punishment will not act as a deterrent.

It will not inspire those from grass-roots level upwards to speak up against racism. It will not make players, at any level, feel any more protected and it will certainly not make people believe they belong to an organisation that takes racism seriously.

By ignoring the wider ramifications of such a weak sentence, The FA have once again shown that, on the balance of probabilities, they are one of the most spineless governing bodies in the world.
 

Terry plays the victim in cowardly England exit

As the news of John Terry's retirement from international football filtered through last night, it was The Football Association that were the subject of fierce criticism.

Whilst there can be no doubt that The FA have approached Terry's impending disciplinary with a huge amount of reluctance, the timing of his retirement shows a distinct level of arrogance.

Every player has the right to retire, this is not for discussion, but when a player decides to call time on his international career a day before an FA disciplinary hearing, citing the situation as "untenable", it shows the making of the man.

Today's FA disciplinary hearing is into the "alleged reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Anton Ferdinand, the Queens Park Rangers defender. It is not, as many have wrongly suggested, a hearing into whether Terry racially abused Ferdinand.

It is ludicrous that this has taken so long to be heard by an FA disciplinary panel. Notwithstanding the fact this was the subject of a court case, The FA have had months to deal with this issue since Terry was cleared of racially abusing Ferdinand at Westminster Magistrates' Court in July.

In his statement, the Chelsea captain, said: "Pursuing charges [when] I have already been cleared in a court... has made my position untenable. Representing and captaining my country is what I dreamed of as a boy and it has been a truly great honour. I have always given my all and it breaks my heart to make this decision."

From the opening comment in his statement, Terry seemingly believes that he is beyond reproach for his actions. This is unforgivable and obscenely arrogant.

The FA have a duty to the sport and its reputation to run the rule over any incident(s) that they deem brings the game into disrepute. It is astounding that Terry, or whoever has advised him, has dressed this up as a witch-hunt.

What makes this statement even more deplorable is that an FA hearing into the events at Loftus Road last October was inevitable. So much so that, as soon as the Police became involved and it was the subject of a legal dispute, The FA said that any hearing would be conducted following the conclusion of the court case.

Regardless of the fact that Terry was cleared of racially abusing Ferdinand, his actions warrant an FA hearing - if only for a 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge. With the very public court case, in which the entire football fraternity had to endure, there can be little doubt that the image of the game was tarnished.

Whilst we shouldn't forget that Terry has been a colossal figure at times for England, he is also someone who epitomised the spirit England fans expect from their players. You don't win 78 international caps for being an average player. However, with the same token, we also shouldn't forget that he has been stripped of the England captaincy twice. This is not the record of a role model.

Terry's statement also suggests that because he has been cleared in court then that should be it and that he should not be answerable to an FA hearing. You may wonder how that kind of decision would go down on Merseyside, with Liverpool losing their striker, Luis Suarez, for eight games last season after being found guilty of racially abusing Patrice Evra, the Manchester United defender.

Although there are slight differences in the two cases, The FA would be pilloried should they show anything but a consistent approach to these issues.

However, in delaying the date for Terry's hearing, The FA have shown a complete lack of authority and have forced Roy Hodgson, the England manager, into inheriting a problem that should have been put to bed months ago.

Whilst many will respect Terry's decision to retire and his reasons for doing so, it is difficult to see beyond the comments of a man that appears so reluctant to face the consequences of the actions that brought such shame on both him and his sport.

The FA's Olympic headache

As summer ends, and the memory fades like sunburn, there are those already predicting gloom. They are the same people, who predicted washout, cock-up, grid lock and overkill, and they will be just as wrong. It was the best summer ever, precisely because we feared the worst.

The above was a quote from Ben Macintyre which was featured in The Sunday Times. It perfectly encapsulates the summer of sport that the nation has just witnessed and why we, as a nation, should be justly proud to be British.

This has been the beauty of hosting the Olympics and Paralympics. We have seen the best of the country and a unified sense of patriotism which is so often reluctantly shown for fear of causing offence.

It has "opened our minds to what people can do and to what can be achieved by sheer talent and determination", as Lord Coe so exquisitely put it. We have seen sport and disability in a way we could not have imagined.

It has made the governing bodies of national sports, most notably The Football Association, pledge to learn from the Olympics and sustain the Olympic spirit. This, though, is where Macintyre's prediction of gloom and being wrong feels slightly out of touch.

Whilst parallels can be drawn between football and the Olympics on the simple basis that they are both sports and forms of entertainment, there is a fundamental flaw affecting this sustained mantra of Olympic fever.

That fundamental flaw is, quite simply, The FA.

This weekend will serve as a reminder to all of the ineptitude of an organisation that has been treading on egg shells for far too long.

On Saturday afternoon, Queens Park Rangers welcome Chelsea to Loftus Road in the Premier League. It will become yet another fixture between the two sides in which a handshake, or not, will take prominence over the actual result in what is fast becoming a Punch and Judy type sideshow between the sides.

For the minority unfamiliar with previous events, John Terry the Chelsea and former England captain, was accused of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand, the QPR defender, during a league meeting between the two teams almost 12 months ago.

In July of this year, after a very public court case in which details published only helped tarnish the sport, Terry was cleared of racism against Ferdinand. Less than two weeks later, having relinquished any form of disciplinary action until the legal dispute had run its course, The FA charged Terry with using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Ferdinand. Terry predictably denied the charge and requested a private hearing.

With Terry and Ferdinand both reportedly winning their races to be fit for the match, one can't help but think that The FA are crossing their fingers in the hope an injury to one, or both, will spare their blushes.

It is fast approaching a year since that incident took place and, in that time, the sport has never been allowed to move on from this sorry saga yet The FA have appeared alarmingly apprehensive in trying to bring this matter to a justified conclusion.

Their laissez-faire approach to issues that are both damaging and distracting to the sport make their gestures to 'learn from the Olympics' seem extremely empty.

So while our Olympians and Paralympians, our 'games-makers' and armed forces and the Great British public have helped make London 2012 "the best Olympic Games ever" and a platform for other sports to build upon, an afternoon at Loftus Road will highlight the stark reality of how far football has to go to reach the standards set.

A blessing in disguise

According to many news wires, Scott Sinclair was expected to complete a £6.2m move from Swansea City to Manchester City at some stage this week.

However, reports today suggest that a move has stalled. What a blessing this could be for the career of the young winger.

Should the move be completed, Manchester City would become his tenth club, including loans, at the age of 23 but it would potentially signal the end to his dreams of becoming an England regular.  

Having been at the Liberty Stadium for just over two years, enjoying promotion from the Championship in his first season and a superb debut season with the Swans in the Premier League, it seems as though Sinclair has found the right club.

A player with undoubted ability and attacking flair like Sinclair will always attract interest from top clubs, so it is no great surprise that Manchester City are trying to prise him away from Michael Laudrup's side.

The proposed transfer would represent a huge moment in the 23 year-old's fledgling career, potentially a defining moment.

A move to the current Premier League champions would give Sinclair the opportunity to realistically compete for trophies on all fronts and compete in the UEFA Champions League, as well as the obvious increase in financial reward.

The attractions, whether they are financially motivated or not, are there for all to see and appreciate. The question, and it is a serious one, is how realistic his chances of playing regular first team football would be at Eastlands.

Roberto Mancini, the Manchester City manager, has already spoken of the need to find a replacement for Adam Johnson having let the England international complete a transfer to Sunderland last week.

By virtue of Johnson's lack of first team football, Mancini's comments suggest that Sinclair would arguably be the latest player to be warming the bench for the Citizens.

Sinclair wouldn't be the first or last player to be attracted to a bigger stage. It is a recurring theme, like a moth to flame, that has affected and continues to affect many a career.

Yet the reported breakdown of this deal is surely a blessing in disguise.

At Swansea, he is a first team regular which instantly enhances his chances of breaking into the England squad. Some may argue that it is the very fact that he plays for Swansea that is preventing his progression to the international scene. It is a double-edged sword, but with Roy Hodgson now the manager of the national team, consistent performers for club will most probably be rewarded with a call-up, regardless of the stature of the club.

Whilst Sinclair may be ruing the fact that a move to the champions could desert him, it is something that he could well be thankful for in years to come.

Months of doubt, 90 minutes of promise

Having made the difficult decision of relieving Kenny Dalglish of managerial duties at Liverpool, the appointment of Brendan Rodgers attracted many cynical comments.

There was the obvious criticism that Liverpool, the five time European Cup winners, should be recruiting someone more high profile than a man whose only experience of top flight football was with Swansea in the Premier League last season.

Although the expansive brand of football that Rodgers had Swansea playing saw them finishing just five points behind Liverpool, his appointment still drew derision from fans.

Remarkably, Liverpool fans were adamant that Dalglish should have remained at the helm despite the win ratio during his tenure being less than 10% better than the under the much-maligned Roy Hodgson's stewardship.

Many would argue that Hodgson was denied time to settle as manager because he wasn't the fans' choice. The calls of "Dalglish" from the Kop soon told the board who they wanted.

Having won the League Cup and reached the final of the FA Cup, eventually losing to Chelsea, it was the eighth placed finish in the Premier League that saw Dalglish's time as Liverpool manager come to an end.

With Rodgers sworn in and wanting to have his new team playing in the style that saw his Swansea side attract many plaudits, his foray into the transfer market saw him bring in two players that he had previously managed in Fabio Borini and Joe Allen.

The two signings only served to bring more negativity in certain quarters with many, like Rodgers' appointment, seeing it as a decline in the club's ability to attract high quality personnel.

Following their opening day defeat, a 3-0 loss away to West Bromwich Albion, the early cynicism resurfaced. The knee-jerk reactions were already apparent on the terraces and on radio phone-ins.

Today, they entertained Manchester City at Anfield in a match that many predicted would see a second straight defeat for Liverpool. How wrong they were.

Although it ended in a 2-2 draw, with both City goals being defensive lapses, the Anfield faithful will be encouraged to see their side play with such tempo and tenacity that the current Champions struggled to contain them.

Joe Allen, pulled the strings in a three-man midfield and was awarded the Sky Sports Man of the Match award for his efforts. It was a performance to silence the critics and to alleviate the pressure on the team and Rodgers.

After a terrible opening day, perhaps Rodgers' work on the training ground is starting to come to fruition.

Are The FA delaying the inevitable?

Earlier this week Roy Hodgson declared that John Terry would be included in England's World Cup qualifying squads for the games against Moldova and Ukraine.

The reason this was even seen as news is due to The Football Association's protracted dealing of Terry's independent hearing over charges he used a racist slur against QPR's Anton Ferdinand in a Premier League game last October.

Terry, who denies the allegation, was cleared of racially abusing Ferdinand by a magistrates' court in July. Weeks later and having waited for the legal case to run it's course, The FA charged the Chelsea captain with using "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour" towards the QPR defender.

Almost a month has passed and the football fraternity is still to learn what sanctions will be bestowed upon Terry.

It is a farcical situation and only adds to the weight behind accusations that The FA are inept at dealing with the big decisions in football. They also display a complete lack of consistency in the speed in which these matters are dealt with.

Luis Suarez, the Liverpool and Uruguay striker, was banned for eight games and fined £40,000 in December of last year for "using insulting words" towards Manchester United defender, Patrice Evra. The ban and fine was delivered less than two months after the incident, which occurred on 15th October 2011.

Unlike the incident involving Terry and Ferdinand, the inquiry into the Suarez/Evra race row required intricate study of numerous camera angles to ascertain what had been said and, indeed, whether it was insulting.

Rio Ferdinand, the Manchester United defender and older brother of Anton, was charged by The FA on 30th July with improper conduct following a comment made on Twitter. Another user labelled Ashley Cole, the Chelsea and England defender, a 'choc ice' for supporting Terry in his court case.

By re-tweeting the comment, a derogatory term meaning black on the outside, white on the inside, Ferdinand was seen as endorsing the slur.

Within three weeks, Ferdinand was found guilty and fined £45,000.

Given the speed in which the latter two cases have been dealt with, serious questions need to be asked of The FA as to why it is taking them so long to deal with such a high profile case which has only served to tarnish the sport and the Premier League's reputation.

By virtue of the fact the case was subject to a legal investigation, any hearing held by The FA was always going to be delayed; but there are many who feel that The FA were too weak in allowing Terry to delay the court case until after Euro 2012.

The delay lead to Hodgson having to make an awkward selection for his Euro 2012 squad which ended up with Rio Ferdinand omitted from the squad, despite the initial reassurance that having both Terry and Ferdinand involved would not be divisive.

Last week, the situation became even more embarrassing when Hodgson openly stated that he hopes Terry is cleared of any wrongdoing as he wants him available for selection.

Although this comment was ill-advised and subsequently criticised by Lord Ouseley, chairman of anti-racism organisation Kick it Out, perhaps it shows the complications that a prolonged hearing is causing the England manager.

The inquiry involving Suarez was far more complex, not least because the insult aimed at Evra was spoken in his native tongue. The charge brought about by The FA set a precedent, but the longer they take to make a decision on the Terry/Anton Ferdinand saga, the more people will begin to wonder how equipped they are at making a stance on such a imperative issue.

Rooney absence may be good news for United

Manchester United's 3-2 home win against Fulham this afternoon saw Robin van Persie score on his full debut and Wayne Rooney ruled out for a month following a nasty looking injury.

Rooney, who was introduced as a second half substitute, was carried off following a challenge from Fulham striker, Hugo Rodallega, and Sir Alex Ferguson has predicted that his striker will be out for four weeks.

Whilst it may sound absurd in the aftermath of such a key figure of United's attack being ruled out, this could be a welcome relief for Ferguson as he looks to shape a team that has had little time to gel since the arrival of van Persie.

On Monday night, against an inspired Everton side, United looked devoid of creativity which wasn't helped with an unfamiliar 4-3-3 formation, eventually succumbing to a 1-0 defeat. Shinji Kagawa, signed from Borussia Dortmund in the summer, was the only outfield player who came out of the game with any real credit after showing promising touches in an advanced role.

United's formation in the defeat to Everton lacked width and penetration. Rooney, at the forefront of the attack, struggled to have any impact on the game and looked visibly fatigued midway through the first half.

The injury to Rooney in today's game will allow Ferguson to re-assess his first choice eleven without the media glare that would ensue if a fit Wayne Rooney was overlooked.

It was a peculiar move to opt for a 4-3-3 against Everton given the time it took to come to fruition when Cristiano Ronaldo was at the club. Perhaps it suggested that Ferguson was looking for a way to accomodate a front three of Rooney, van Persie and Kagawa at some stage. The early signs did not look good.

With Rooney now out for a reported four weeks, Ferguson will be able to mould a side with van Perise, the Premier League's top scorer from last season, as the focal point.

Ferguson's main gripe from the defeat at Goodison Park was the lack of service to van Persie after his introduction midway through the second half. Given United lacked any real width and looked lacklustre in the final third, this was no real surprise on the night.

Kagawa, whose talents are best utilised in a role just off of the striker, has all the attributes to supply van Persie with goal scoring opportunities. Today's formation of 4-4-1-1 at Old Trafford suggested that this may well be the preferred look with natural width across a four man midfield.

Whilst United fans may have cause for concern and rival supporters may be rejoicing at the lay-off for Rooney, this could well prove to be just what the doctor ordered.

It's a marathon, not a sprint

It is still less than two weeks from the curtain closing ceremony of the London Olympics, not that you needed reminding.

Since then sport, notably football, has been read the "follow the Olympic example" mantra and it shows no sign of abating.

There is no doubting that it is a credible mantra. The world has witnessed one of the most memorable Olympics of recent times and the feel-good factor generated across the UK was evident for all to see. The nation shared the elation of success and the disappointment of failure with the athletes, recognising the personal sacrifices made by each and every athlete who had given everything to win an Olympic medal at their home games.

Admittedly football does need to clean up its act after a season which was overshadowed by racism rows. Although the quarter-final defeat to Italy signalled the end of England's Euro 2012 campaign, it also signalled the start of the much anticipated court case involving John Terry, the Chelsea captain and former England captain.

The whole court case, read out in front of the entire nation, was an embarrassment to the sport and for all the organisations that have been working so tirelessly to rid football of racism. Whilst Terry was cleared of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand, the QPR defender, the language used was deplorable and is still subject to a Football Association hearing. 

Whether The FA determine Terry's comments to be worthy of a fine or ban remains to be seen. Quite what Roy Hodgson, the England manager, was thinking by pleading with his employers for Terry to escape punishment we may never know. For such an intelligent man to even entertain the question of Terry's potential penalty was unwise, but not fatal.

The opening week of the new football season has, thankfully, shown an awful lot of good. For entertainment, there are few sports that can compete.

The euphoria that swept the nation during London 2012 was of such magnitude because everyone was supporting the same team and one can only hope that the same level of support is maintained for Team GB in the Paralympics.

Following the example set by the Olympics may prove to be difficult in the short term, but there is no reason why the success of one sport should shackle another.

Cricket escapes censure; right or wrong?

As soon as the window smashed at Lord's you could hear the journalists' keyboards being frantically tapped, the headlines had been made.

Matt Prior, the England wicket keeper, had returned to the famous pavilion after being run out and, presumably still annoyed with himself, entered the dressing room and smashed a window.

There were, rather embarrassingly, many conflicting stories of how the window pane shattered, including many over-elaborate stories that akin to that of a school boy trying to get out of detention.

The first reaction captured by the television cameras was that of Andrew Strauss, the England captain, whose disparaging shake of the head was enough to signal his true feeling of the act of petulance shown by Prior.

However, despite the initial reaction displayed by Strauss, the angst towards Prior immediately waned as soon as comments were sought from former cricketer's such as Michael Atherton and Nasser Hussain.

"The incident shows Prior cares and that's what I want to see from England cricketers" said Hussain.

Funny isn't it? If this was football you couldn't begin to imagine any degree of support or sympathy for such a reaction. It would be considered 'yobbish' and in-line with football which, to everyone disconnected with the sport, is inherently arrogant and loutish.

The fact this was cricket, a gentleman's game, means that staunch criticism is seldom given in comparison to similar misdemeanours in other sports considered less gentleman-like.

The Rugby Football Union is just as guilty for failing to condemn its professionals. Last month saw a much anticipated game between Northampton Saints and Leicester Tigers remembered for nothing more than the barbaric attack from Leicester's centre, Manu Tuilagi, on Northampton and England's Chris Ashton.

It was immediately dismissed as being 'part of the game' by fans and pundits with the ever-predictable 'its a man's game' concluding statement which, in their eyes, is all the justification you need to repeatedly punch an opponent in such brutal fashion.

When the RFU did act it was, as we have come to expect, shrouded in farce. Tuilagi, the aggressor in this instance, was banned for just five weeks. The original sanction was 10 weeks but this was reduced due to mitigating circumstances.

Jeff Blackett, the RFU disciplinary officer, said: "We determined that there was some provocation from Chris Ashton who pushed and struck him in the back with his knee...the top-end range is eight to 52 weeks and we determined that the appropriate entry point within that range is 10 weeks.
"This was reduced by 50% to reflect Manu's youth and inexperience, his admission of guilt and his genuine remorse" Blackett concluded.

So there you have it. For an offence that would have seen a member of the public tried in a criminal court, Tuilagi gets a reduced sentence because he showed genuine remorse. Oh, and he's young.

Its enough to make you reel in despair at the thought of a 20-year-old being considered old enough to play the game professionally yet too young to fully understand what is morally acceptable on a playing field.

Still, at least it shows he cares.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?vOM

Inconsistencies at The FA: Toure ban to be revised

Kolo Toure could see his ban for a failed drugs test increased after it emerged that sporting watchdogs were going to revise the sanction to decide whether The Football Association were too lenient.

Toure, the Manchester City defender, was banned after testing positive for using a banned diuretic in February.

Testing positive for any illegal substance can carry a two-year suspension and many within the game were bemused when The FA-appointed panel awarded only a six-month ban last month which, back-dated to March, could see him play as early as September.

Similarities were instantly drawn to the treatment of Rio Ferdinand, the Manchester United and England defender, who was banned for eight-months for missing a drugs test in 2003.

It would appear that this kind of inconsistency is where the sticking point is.

Ferdinand, although not completely innocent, merely missed a drugs test. It would be naive and misguided to make a judgement on whether there was any sinister motive for missing the drugs test but miss it he did. Toure, on the other hand, actually failed a drugs test.

At the time it was felt that eight-months was lenient and that Ferdinand was lucky to escape with such a minimal ban. How times and opinions have changed.

Of the two, Ferdinand lost the most and not just because his ban was more severe than Toure's. The eight-month ban actually meant that he missed an entire season and would not be eligible to play for England at the 2004 European Championships.

There are, of course, conspiracy theories that will not relent until a review of Toure's ban is undertaken. Many feel that David Bernstein, The FA chairman and former Manchester City chairman, has had something to do with the sympathetic ruling handed to Toure.

Stories like these will always persist but it may be worth pointing out that Bernstein played an active part in the three-game suspension handed to Wayne Rooney for the Manchester United striker's foul-mouthed rant at a television camera after scoring a hat-trick against West Ham United.

For the balance, it should be noted that The FA have not been quite so quick to hand out similar punishment to Mario Balotelli and Micah Richards who were guilty of the same act following their FA Cup final win over Stoke City. They both play for Manchester City.

Both the UK Anti Doping and the World Anti Doping Authority are believed to be weighing up their power to appeal any sentence that they feel is inadequate.

You get the feeling that they may see it as inadequate - the ban, not The FA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz8nc1X1rC8

The FA and the need for reform

The Scottish Football Association have taken a huge step forward in becoming more in tune with the modern game, something many will argue The FA should be doing.

The chief executive, Stewart Regan, heaped praise on the organisations members after his proposed reforms gained unanimous support at Tuesday’s AGM.

Regan said: "I'm really proud, I'm proud for my staff, proud for the board and proud for the members that they have had the guts to make the change. It really is a huge day for Scottish football.”

As exciting as this is for Scottish football it is equally worrying that The FA seem reluctant to make any changes despite the increasing inadequacy of the processes involved at the top of the English game.

So united in support were the member clubs that all 93 supported each of Regan's proposals to streamline and modernise the governing body's decision-making processes during the Hampden meeting.

Rather than rest on his laurels, Regan realised on his first day in office that the processes were outdated and reform was needed.

The main changes include the reduction of the size of the SFA board from 11 to seven, including an independent member. The SFA say the board will become more strategic than representative and focus on "corporate strategy and top-line decision-making", also making sure the governing body plans for the future.

Two new boards will be created under the main board in time for the new season - one for the professional game and another for the non-professional game - with relevant representatives in each.

The much-maligned disciplinary procedures will be rewritten and a compliance officer will quickly decide whether cases will be heard by the new semi-autonomous judicial panel.

Five of the now disbanded committees - including the disciplinary and general purposes panels - were previously involved in a lengthy and often confusing structure for punishing misdemeanours, with cases sometimes taking several months to resolve.

Now a compliance officer will decide whether a case merits disciplinary action and three members of the semi-autonomous judicial panel will make "quick, up-front and transparent" rulings before the next fixture.

These are simple but effective steps that The FA could follow in order to drag the organisation into the 21st century.

Countless times last season the disciplinary process was shown to be flawed and inconsistent.

Whilst Wayne Rooney was rightly punished for his foul-mouthed comment at a television camera, Mario Balotelli and Micah Richards have, seemingly, escaped similar punishment despite being guilty of the same offence.

Under the new reforms by the SFA there will be a ban on managers attempting to influence match officials before a game, a change brought about following the referee strike in November.

The SFA have shown great humility in learning from their own mistakes and from other countries and perhaps it is time The FA followed suit.

It has become more frequent than it has widespread with the talk of match officials before a game and this needs to be stopped for the integrity of the sport.

The FA may feel that following suit would be detrimental to their pride and esteem as the home of football but the changes by the SFA have delivered a timely reminder of how important change can be.

With many still critical of The FA for not acting sooner and withdrawing from the World Cup bidding process at the first sign of corruption and the hypocrisy shown by David Bernstein, the FA chairman, for opposing the one-horse race election for the Fifa presidency; maybe its time to start regaining some faith in our game.

Is Crouch the latest player to join England exodus?

It is becoming an all too familiar story for the England football team when a player announces their decision to retire, with Peter Crouch rumoured to be the next.

If newspaper reports are to be believed then Crouch, the Tottenham Hotspur striker, will opt out of future England squads whilst under the management of Fabio Capello.

According to reports, Crouch felt humiliated at his exclusion from the squad for Saturday's lacklustre 2-2 draw with Switzerland at Wembley, with Capello preferring Bobby Zamora of Fulham as substitute striker.

Crouch, who has an average strike rate of a goal every other game, was believed to be reeling after being overlooked by the England manager and, if reports are true, is considering temporary retirement until Capello is replaced in July 2012.

It is a sad indictment of our national team when you have such a flurry of players believing that they are too important to sit on the bench for their country.

When England actually achieved success by lifting the World Cup in 1966 it was done with a group of players who saw playing for their country as the biggest privilege that could be bestowed upon them. It seems a far cry from the mentality of some modern day footballers.

Jimmy Greaves, arguably one of the greatest strikers the country has produced, didn't appear in that World Cup Final because Sir Alf Ramsey, the manager of England at the time, preferred Geoff Hurst.

It is hard to imagine the anguish Greaves must have been feeling at his omission but when the final whistle was blown, Greaves was one of the first to congratulate Hurst.

It is even more difficult to comprehend a similar gesture with the apparent discontent within the current England squad.

At the centre of these 'retirements' is a complete disregard for fellow professionals who have remained available for their country and continue to do so. Michael Owen, for instance, is one of the finest strikers this country has seen in the last 15 years and is the closest contender to Bobby Charlton's 49 international goals record.

Many will argue that he doesn't play regularly enough to warrant a starting place but is a complete exclusion from the squad wholly justified? Darren Bent, the Aston Villa striker, missed two gilt-edged chances on Saturday that would have victory for England.

We can only have hypothetical thoughts as to whether Owen would have scored at least one of them but one thing we can be sure of is that he is proven at international level.

If Owen was any other nationality he would be treasured by the fans. Miroslav Klose, the Germany striker, is remarkably poor at club level but has an imperious goal-scoring record on the international stage. David Healy, the Northern Ireland striker, is another example of someone who has the knack of scoring at international level but struggling at club level.

These comparisons are a little unfair on Owen given his superb career goal tally for both club and country, but the fact that he remains available for selection with the hope of one day being back in an England shirt is surely reason enough to disapprove of the attitude shown towards the pride of representing England.

Retirement should be the signal to the end of a players career or the signal of a prolonged club career, it should not be a card played to avoid embarrassment of being surplus to requirements.

FourThreeThree is back...

Back after a break to Australia. I know what you're thinking, I should have stayed.

Well if it wasn't for the chance to moan about the lack of leg room on the return flight, I would have done.

If Carlsberg did football blogs....this wouldn't be one of them.

The FA, Sir Alex Ferguson and Human Rights: An Overview

On Wednesday there was a certain suspense lurking in sections of the media, awaiting a ruling that would make headlines and create vociferous debate amongst men and women.

No, this ruling wasn't by The Football Association in response to Sir Alex Ferguson, the Manchester United manager, and his comments about Martin Atkinson, the referee in charge of United's 2-1 defeat to Chelsea at Stamford Bridge.

In fact, this ruling came from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which brought an end to females paying less for their motor insurance than men on the grounds that it was overtly sexist towards the male of the species.

The relevance of these stories being run concurrently will become clearer upon consideration of the Human Rights Act (1998) and that the ECJ could, should United's lawyers consider it appropriate, rule that post match comments are a breach of a person's Human Rights.

It sounds, on the surface, a ludicrous suggestion, the ramblings of a mad-man. But when you take into account this latest ruling and understand that insurance companies have statistics that prove, beyond any doubt or reason, that young male drivers represent a bigger risk than that of their female counterparts, it throws all logic out of the window.

The Human Rights Act (1998) gives further legal effect in the UK to the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Most notably is the freedom of expression and the freedom of thought.

Ferguson was clearly unhappy with Atkinson's performance as a referee and made his feelings known in his post-match interviews. Ferguson said, in an interview with MUTV: "You want a fair referee, or a strong referee anyway - and we didn't get that...I must say, when I saw who the referee was I feared it. I feared the worst." His views were reinforced by former Premier League and World Cup referee, Graham Poll, in an article in the Daily Mail in which he agreed that Atkinson had made mistakes during the game.

Some may argue that Poll is a fine one to talk, some may suggest that Ferguson's comments bring the game into disrepute, some may even suggest that it was just reward for United's fortune of having Wayne Rooney avoid suspension for an elbow on Wigan's James McCarthy at the weekend.

The Football Association, however, have deemed Ferguson's comments and have charged him with improper conduct. This is the same FA that decided to take no action against Arsenal midfielder Jack Wilshere after he publicly criticised referee Phil Dowd following their 4-4 draw with Newcastle United at St James' Park. This may have had something to do with the young midfielder being primed to make his full England debut a few days later, with any action potentially tarnishing The FA's image on the international stage.

If the Old Trafford lawyers hadn't thought of challenging this charge of improper conduct then they may want to reconsider after a careful revision of the Human Rights Act and with a helping hand from the European Court of Justice.

Respect is a two way street

In 1956 an autobiography was published with a chapter titled 'The Average Director's Knowledge of Football'. It consisted of a single blank page.

Len Shackleton, the former Newcastle United and Sunderland striker, nicknamed "The Clown Prince of Football", was renowned for his humour both on and off the pitch yet, 55 years on, that blank page of football still resonates with the majority of football fans and footballers.

The Football Association, quick to prove Shackleton aspersions correct, have warned players about their future conduct with improper comments made on Twitter and other social networking sites.

Former Liverpool striker Ryan Babel, now at Hoffenheim, last month became the first player to be sanctioned for comments made on Twitter when he was fined £10,000 for posting a mocked-up picture of referee Howard Webb wearing a Manchester United shirt.

As trivial as it may have appeared for some, The FA's sanction did seem to tie in with their 'Respect' campaign.

An FA statement read: "The FA has issued clarification to participants relating to the use of social networking sites, including, but not limited to Twitter, Facebook and internet blogs. Participants should be aware that comments made on such sites may be considered public comment, and that further to FA Rule E3, any comments which are deemed improper, bring the game into disrepute, or are threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting may lead to disciplinary action. Comments which are personal in nature or could be construed as offensive, use foul language or contain direct or indirect threats aimed at other participants are likely to be considered improper."

This was supposed to be a defining message, one that put to rest any doubts as to what sanctions there were for players who used social networking sites to air their grievances at the officials, authority or fellow professionals. But this did not happen.

Many questioned why Jack Wilshere, the Arsenal midfielder, was not given a similar fine to Babel's following his criticism of 'inconsistent refereeing' in the aftermath of his side wasting a 4-0 lead in the 4-4 draw at Newcastle United.

There was no significant difference between the two incidents. In actual fact, it could be argued that Wilshere's comments were worse as they undermined referees as a whole.

Those who were bemused as to how Wilshere escaped punishment for his comments were soon provided a sufficient explanation when it transpired that he would be making his full debut for England versus Denmark.

Heaven forbid The FA have a player representing the country who is being publicly reprimanded for stepping out of line. We know from experience that The FA would rather sacrifice success for their own self-engrossed reputation. Andy Carroll, the Liverpool striker, was due to be named in Fabio Capello's squad for the Euro 2012 qualifier against Montenegro at Wembley only for The FA to deem his inclusion as inappropriate because of reported misdemeanours in his private life.

You wonder what Shackleton would have made of the state of The FA today but, from this latest inconsistentcy, you get the feeling that page would remain as blank as it has been for the past 55 years.

Club vs Country: A Fan's Perspective

As another much-maligned international friendly has come and gone with the histrionics associated with the irrepressible 'Club Vs Country' row, it is the fans that have been forgotten.

Some club managers and the hierarchy within the Premier League will argue that international friendlies are a 'nuisance' and are 'too physically demanding on the players'. Whilst the latter is an argument that is fairly conceivable, the former paints an all too familiar picture of the declining importance of international football.

The England manager, Fabio Capello, and other international managers will argue that these friendlies are 'essential' and 'a chance to test new talent'. These views would, no doubt, concur with The Football Associations'.

Yet, in the ensuing debate as to whether club football is more important than international football, the importance of the fans and, moreover, their views have been shamelessly overlooked.

A reported 2,500 fans travelled to Denmark to support England in the first international of the calendar year, none of which would have thought it a 'nuisance'.

The importance of the supporter is often misplaced. Take away the supporters and the gate receipts fall which would be the catalyst of a spiral of ever decreasing interest. It may sound like a simplistic argument but the enthusiasm for the game from fans has been taken for granted, evidently in this latest row of 'club versus country'.

It is not just the clubs and the Premier League at fault for this air of arrogance. The players themselves contribute to this mindset with the increasingly frequent 'pick and choose' mentality of making themselves available for their country when it suits.

There is the obvious counter-argument that any player named in an international squad that complains of an injury requires to be checked and 'signed off' by the physio of the national team. This said, in the light of Dean Ashton's settlement which saw The FA pay compensation for his career-ending injury picked up on international duty, a firmly worded letter from the players' respective club is sure to make the national team think twice on the importance of the upcoming match; frequently friendlies.

Steven Gerrard, the Liverpool captain, seems to have the inevitable knack of getting injured prior to a friendly for England on the Wednesday but recovering in time to play for Liverpool the following Saturday. Its farcical and this is the behaviour of the England captain no less.

In a press conference held yesterday, Frank Lampard, the deputising captain and Chelsea midfielder, expressed that representing England is still "the proudest moment in a players career". This statement will resonate with some, mainly those of a time when representing your country really was the pinnacle of a professionals career.

Perhaps this is slightly unfair on those players who have pride in representing their country but it is hard to establish who those players are. After all, Gerrard is not the only player to have declared himself injured for an international friendly and then turned out for this club in the same week.

It is a sad indictment of the game, indicative of the culture and mentality of the modern professional and the greed within the Premier League. Lord Triesman, the former chairman of The FA, has reinforced this feeling in the past couple of days by insisting that Premier League officials felt that they were in competition with The FA. This is as absurd as it is worrying.

The club versus country row is not a new one but the injection of in-fighting between The FA and the Premier League, along with the disregard towards the famous 'Three Lions' shirt shown by some players is. These are rows that need to addressed promptly for the good of the game before the supporters decide to vote with their feet.

The fall-out begins following Torres' plea to leave

As Chelsea prepare to test Liverpool's resolve with an improved offer in the next 24 hours for want away striker Fernando Torres, fans have been quick to voice their disappointment.

Former Liverpool defender and Sky Sports pundit, Phil Thompson, speaking on Gillette Soccer Saturday, was damning of Torres' conduct and sees it as a "complete lack of respect towards Kenny Dalglish". Few could vehemently deny this undermining of authority.

What has most disgusted Liverpool fans, aside from the transfer request itself, is the silence following Chelsea's reported interest earlier in the week. No statement of intent was forthcoming as doubts grew as to where the Spanish strikers' loyalties lay.

Posting on social network sites and websites, one Liverpool fan said "I'm gutted. He's had nothing but love from the fans and this is how he repays us". The feeling of resentment towards the Anfield striker was not in short supply. These were sentiments echoed from many fans of the Merseyside club.

Gestures such as Torres' only serves to alienate fans and the faith shown in their players with loyalty becoming an almost archaic attribute in the modern day footballer.

As unfair as this may be on some players who have remained committed to their respective clubs for a prolonged period, we have now seen Torres join Wayne Rooney, of Manchester United, and Carlos Tevez, of Manchester City, in asking for a move away from their current clubs.

Rooney cited a vision of decline at Old Trafford as his excuse for wanting out, whilst Tevez complained of being homesick.

Torres has yet to give a reason for wanting to leave but one can only assume that he has become disenchanted with life at Anfield. If this is the reason then the timing could not have been worse.

Liverpool fans may have forgiven Torres had he demanded a move when the club was in turmoil and under the ownership of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, but he didn't. Instead he chose a time in which the club has agreed a £22.8m fee with Ajax for Luis Suarez, a signal of real intent from the club, and a time in which the club appears to be getting on the right track to salvage their season.

The usual conspiracy theory following a transfer request is that of the player hankering for more money. If this is to be the case then, yet again, it seems poor timing on Torres' part as his performances have been a shadow of his previous two seasons.

One thing is for certain though, Liverpool fans are not best pleased with their number nine. They feel betrayed, disrespected and let down. Not so long ago Torres had said that he would not play for another Premier League team as ' it was the least he owed to the fans'. In this instance they are joined by United fans and, to a lesser extent, City fans in this feeling.

Nothing, it seemed, could end the love affair between Liverpool fans and Fernando Torres but the romance is in severe danger of ending.

Should Torres still be a Liverpool player on Tuesday morning and Dalglish doesn't deem recent events to be a distraction then he should prepare himself for an extremely frosty reception at Anfield on Wednesday evening.