“Ridiculous” Roy and the Liverpool Boys

On the back of some fairly unconvincing performances, Roy Hodgson has released his latest England squad choices, and some things just get more bizarre every time.

Firstly John Terry was selected over Rio Ferdinand for the Euro's (wrongly IMHO), but in the wake of the FA charging Terry over the Anton Ferdinand incident, Terry has since withdrawn from international football therefore surely leaving that space free for Ferdinand? Nope, instead Hodgson apparently told a bunch of travellers on the tube that Ferdinand was done and wouldn't play for England again (shame he didn't bother telling Rio first), and instead called up Ryan Shawcross...

I like Shawcross as a player, and whilst options such as Phil Jones and Chris Smalling are injured, he's not a bad choice as a backup option, but surely Rio's experience and standing in the game offers more to the squad in the short term?

Ryan Bertrand has also received a call to replace the injured Kieran Gibbs, but do we really need three left backs in the squad? We've already got Ashley Cole and Leighton Baines, and whilst Bertrand can arguably be used in a left midfield position as well, it just seems like an unnecessary selection and we could arguably have used another option upfront instead.

There is however a better selection in midfield, with the inclusion of Aaron Lennon, Adam Johnson, Michael Carrick and Tom Cleverley (amongst others), but we unfortunately see the return of the ineffective James Milner and the horrendous call-up of Jonjo Shelvey!

Seriously, is someone down at Liverpool putting something into Hogdson's water, or is it simply a bizarre attempt to get revenge on Liverpool for dismissing him as manager by trying to prove that their players are good enough but he didn't have time to prove it? The truth is that his Liverpool signings were in the main awful, and not a single one of them merits a regular place there now (if they haven't already been moved on e.g. Poulsen), and most of the Liverpool players he has called up in recent months either aren't good enough (Downing, Kelly, Shelvey) or aren't ready (Sterling).

Shelvey is nowhere near England standard, and if I was unimpressed with Jake Livermore's recent call-up, I'm even more frustrated with this one. I'm all for bringing young talent into the England frame – IF they're good enough (or close to it), and Shelvey doesn't fit into that description in my honest opinion.

I'd rather have seen Rodwell given the call, and hopefully we'll also see Wilshere back to fitness and selection soon as well and we can forget all about this joke of a selection.

Moving onto the forward line and we were treated to Grant Holt's view of Hodgson's management ability with him branding his non-selection as “Ridiculous” and going on to criticise the further lack of call up's for players like Nathan Dyer and Danny Graham (I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before...).

Suffice to say that the outburst didn't help Holt in the selection stakes, with Andy Carroll again being the preferred 'big' man in the front line despite continuing last seasons form of not scoring for his club side (5 games 0 goals so far for West Ham), and having been injured for the past few weeks .

Compare this instead to Holt, who has scored 2 goals in his last 7 league games (nothing amazing to be fair) with both goals coming against 'big' sides in Liverpool and Chelsea. He's proven he's a premiership goalscorer, he's proven he can score against the top teams, but yet again he's not even given a minute's consideration by the England gaffer, and on that point I have to agree with Holt – Ridiculous...

The Fallout from the Euro's

It's been a while since my last article, mainly due to house moving, no internet and taking a short break from writing, but now all the other stuff is sorted I can get back to doing what I enjoy, which in this case is asking what the hell Roy Hodgson is playing at with his latest squad selection.

Having already had to put up with some poor football from a somewhat odd selection at the Euro's, Hodgson has decided to make some changes, and has replaced some of the completely useless players from that tournament – with completely unproven ones instead...

At first glance we see no Stewart Downing in there – hurrah, but who's been selected as his replacement on the left? Adam Lallana...

Now don't get me wrong, I think Lallana is a perfectly decent player from what I've seen of him over the last few years, but it's all been at a lower league level (CCC at best), and therefore I'd have expected him to have needed to have a decent few months in the top flight to show he can perform just as well at this level as he was in the lower leagues. Yet a couple of decent games later and suddenly he gets a call up.

He's then joined in the squad by another surprise addition – Raheem Sterling (replacing Ashley Young). Yet again we have a player who's been given an England call-up, ostensibly on the back of just TWO premier league games where he was good in one of them (vs Man City) and average in the other (vs Arsenal).

Sticking on the wing, James Milner again managed to make the cut (How?), despite looking completely off the pace for most of last season, doing nothing at the Euro's, and further nothing since then. He's a hard worker – great, but how about some quality and attacking threat instead of someone who's good at helping the right back defend?

Whilst I fully understand the logic in removing a couple of under-performing players from the squad, I then expected them to be replaced by players who've shown their ability at this level and arguably are more deserving of a call-up.

Players like Nathan Dyer, Anthony Pilkington, Aaron Lennon, Scott Sinclair, Victor Moses and Matt Jarvis. If any of these guys had been called up I'd have said “Well played Roy”, and given the guy credit for picking players who deserved a shot at playing for their country. Instead we got a completely raw 17 year old and a totally unproven CCC level player.

Moving on from the wing positions, we see further changes in the middle with the return of Michael Carrick, and the selection of Tom Cleverley and Jake Livermore. Well, 2 out of 3 isn't bad Roy!

Carrick should never have been out of the squad, especially after such a good season last year for Man Utd, and Cleverley was also unlucky in my opinion not to have been called up for the Euro's, and whilst his game is still developing, you can clearly see the underlying quality in his games. It's just a shame that this can't be said for the other new midfield inclusion – Jake Livermore.

Whilst Sterling and Lallana are virtually untested in the premiership, at least Livermore has had a bit more game time to showcase his abilities, the problem is that he's never looked anything but average in every game I've seen him in. He's another hard working 'grafter', who may not be especially strong in any area, but he'll run himself into the floor for you.

My issue here is that again there are other players who've either been more impressive or have more experience than he does that haven't even been given a look in, players like Rodwell, B.Johnson, Noble, Nolan, Howson, Gardner, Britton and Surman.

Being fair, it's not an awful inclusion (like Downing) but it's also very uninspiring as well, and a clear indication that the cagey, defensive focused football we've seen so far under Hodgson, has not signs of disappearing any time soon.

There's very little to cheer about as an England fan at the minute as even the recent 5-0 win over Moldova was more down to how shockingly poor the opposition were, than how well we played as a side, a fact which was driven home by the somewhat fortunate 1-1 draw against the Ukraine only yesterday.

At the time I didn't think it was a bad appointment, but the more I see of how things are developing, the more I think I was wrong. It appears we've got yet another 2-4 years of pretty poor international football to come, with yet again players seemingly picked either based on their club side, reputation or some other bizarre reason.

I don't agree that these choices are purely for 'footballing reasons', as if they were, we'd see a very different squad with a number of previously uncapped players being given a fair chance, and other players like Lennon coming back to where they really should be.

We have a number of quality younger players who deserve a shout, as well as a few older heads who've also still got plenty to offer if they aren't overlooked, the problem is by the time we may want to use them, the younger players will be old, and the older players will have retired...

From 'Arry to Andre...

Earlier today Spurs announced that Andre Villas-Boas would be the man to replace Harry Redknapp. It's a move that may surprise many after a torrid time at Chelsea, yet a certain percentage of the problem there was down to interference from above along with dissension amongst the players who didn't want to follow his tactics. Rumours even abounded that other coaches were advising the players to ignore his instructions!

Whatever the case may have been, things never really got going at Chelsea for AVB and this is now his chance to prove his detractors wrong and show that he does know what he's on about. The question is whether or not Spurs have the right squad to play his preferred style and tactics...

AVB tends to favour the 4-3-3, with one holding midfielder behind two more centralised ball players/attackers and the wingers flanking a lone front man.

In goal there's a real quandary, with Brad Friedel not at his best last season (and now in his 40's), Cudicini was similarly erratic, and the less said about Gomes the better. Potentially I could see all three keepers being moved on although one may be kept as cover (possibly Gomes due to his age being much lower than the others), and a new face being brought in

Defensively it's a bit of a mixed bag for Spurs. There's no doubt that there's some talented defenders in the squad, but many of the bigger names are also knocking on the wrong side of 30, and particularly with players like Ledley King who struggle to play regularly, there can be more chopping and changing than is good.

Kyle Walker will easily be first choice at right back, although with the sale of Vedran Corluka this week, cover is limited in this area with only Kyle Naughton (who impressed strongly on loan at Norwich this last season) as an out and out right back. Naughton himself is apparently a transfer target of both Aston Villa and Norwich, although his reputed £6 million asking price may be too high for both clubs.

Benoit Assou-Ekotto is again likely to be the first choice left back, although again this is another area where cover is limited, with only really youngster Danny Rose to cover if needed unless the decision has to be made to withdraw Gareth Bale from his more attacking role down the wing.

Centrally it's incredibly tough to call the starters as due to injury virtually all of the central players have suffered reduced playing time. Kaboul arguably improved enough last season to make it tough to leave him on the bench, but with names like Gallas, King and Dawson all competing for a place along with younger options such as Bassong and Caulker (who played very well on loan at Swansea) he could just as easily miss out. If AVB goes for youth over experience, we could well see some surprising choices in this area at the cost of 'big name' players.

In the defensive midfield role you'd argue that it would have to be Scott Parker, but AVB appears to prefer using younger players where possible, and potentially options like Sandro or the returning Tom Huddlestone could be considered instead of England stalwart.

Moving slightly forwards of this you have the ball playing midfielders, and assuming Spurs can hang onto both of them, expect to see Luka Modric and Rafael Van Der Vaart take these places. Steven Pienaar and the aforementioned Huddlestone or Sandro could also be used if injuries occur, but it will be a key job for Spurs to hang onto their first choices, although this could be a tough ask if strong deals are on the table for their services elsewhere.

Onto the wings and it's another obvious couple of choices, with Gareth Bale on the Left and Aaron Lennon on the right. Lennon however will need to improve his goal tally to stay there as it will likely be a more attacking role than he's previously been asked to play.

Cover in these wing positions is pretty limited however, with Pienaar potentially being an option, but only really leaving out of favour options David Bentley and Giovanni Dos Santos beyond this. Frankly I can't see Bentley getting anywhere near the first team, although Dos Santos could finally be given a chance to impress but again it would need injuries to do so. There's also the young talent of Andros Townsend, but he's likely to be loaned out again instead.

Centrally is where the key weakness in the forward line is going to be, as with Jermaine Defoe the only recognised striker on the books, cover is already non-existent and he really doesn't suit the role he'd likely be asked to play in a typical AVB formation. I expect this will be the first area in which a new signing will be made, and again it looks like Defoe's talent will be sat on the bench when this happens as well, which is a real shame for a great goalscorer.

Assuming this will be the case, then arguably AVB should look to move Defoe on for a good price, and then bring in 2 quality central strikers who can play how he wants them to. Adebayor would be the most obvious option, but whether or not the Spurs board would be willing to increase their wage budget to accommodate his expected demands is another matter entirely.

Potential First XI under AVB:

New Keeper

Walker, Kaboul, Caulker, Assou-Ekotto

Parker

Modric, Van der Vaart

Lennon, New Striker, Bale

New Look Liverpool

With Brendan Rogers now installed as the new Liverpool boss, a lot of questions are being asked about how he'll line his side up this season. Personally I think he'll maintain the shape he used with Swansea, he'll just have arguably better players doing it in most cases. Here's what I think will happen, feel free to tell me if you think differently:

Formation: 4-2-3-1

Keeper and Back Four

Reina

Johnson, Agger, Skrtel, Enrique

Hard to see any changes here unless Rogers feels that one of either Agger or Skrtel isn't up to the job and potentially offers playing time to Seb Coates who may fit the passing mould better.

Johnson and Enrique both provide attacking options down the flanks and Reina is still a top class keeper (occasional blunder accepted).

Defensive Midfielders

Rogers used the combination of Leon Britton and Joe Allen in this role at Swansea, neither of whom are particularly strong physically, but both have the ability to pass a ball, suggesting that strength isn't a key attribute here for Rogers.

If this is the case, I would expect to see a midfield two of Lucas Leiva and Charlie Adam, although both Jay Spearing and Jordan Henderson may be able to offer competition here for Charlie Adam's spot.

Attacking Midfielder

At Swansea it was Gylfi Sigurdsson in this role (at least for the 2^nd half of the season), and rumours are that it's a two horse race between Liverpool and Spurs for his signature. That being said, Liverpool already have the perfect option in their squad for this role in Steven Gerrard.

He showed in the Euro's that there's still life in the old dog, although how long he can keep this up and avoid injury is another matter, which would make the Sigurdsson signing even more sensible going forwards to account for this happening.

Beyond this, Maxi Rodriguez could be offered a lifeline, as could maybe Jonjo Shelvey (although I think Shelvey struggles at this level), but it's not the strongest area on the pitch squad wise.

Wingers

At Swansea it was Nathan Dyer and Scott Sinclair, Liverpool's issue here is that apart from a floundering Stewart Downing and a very young Raheem Sterling – they don't really have many options, however there is a caveat to this. Scott Sinclair was initially a striker when at Chelsea, who's since been moved out more towards the wing, which helps pay dividends when he cuts inside and attacks, so there's another option Liverpool can consider here – Luis Suarez

Suarez had a very mixed season last year, but showed one key factor – he's not prolific enough to play as a main striker, he works best behind a front man or slightly on the wing – exactly where I think he should be played.

That leaves the other side to consider and here I've gone for one of Liverpool's 'forgotten' men – Joe Cole.

Returning from his loan at Lille, Cole is arguably back to his best, and could offer a great attacking option on either wing, although I'd argue he may be best on the right, as this means Suarez can cut inside and attack on his favoured foot on the opposite side.

With Cole's ability and crossing on the right, and Suarez causing chaos on the left, it's going to leave more room upfront centrally for...

Andy Carroll.

Was there any doubt I'd select him here? The reasoning is simple – he's a target man and they don't really have anyone else anyway. Bellamy appears to be leaving shortly, Kuyt has already gone which leaves young options Dani Pacheco and Nathan Eccleston the only other players in contention......

Frankly I think this is one of the key areas Liverpool need to spend in, as if something does happen to Carroll either through injury (or he performs as he did for the majority of last season), they have no real options to change things around. Giroud would have been a perfect signing here, but Arsene Wenger has already wrapped that deal up, although Emile Heskey is apparently interested... (Shudder)....

Expected XI under Rogers

Reina

Glen Johnson

Agger/Coates

Skrtel

Enrique

Lucas

Adam

Gerrard/Sigurdsson

Joe Cole

Suarez

Carroll

Bench from:

Jones

Kelly

Henderson

Spearing

Maxi

Sterling

Eccleston/ New striker

That's Entertainment - Or is it?

With England crashing out yet again in the quarter final stages of the Euro's playing a brand of rigid, defensive (and fairly negative) football, for me it's brought the end to a season whereby I'm beginning to question what the purpose of football in the modern game actually is.

I've always seen football as being a form of entertainment, where although I want to see my team win, I primarily want to be entertained for the hour and half of the actual game. Yet with a growing re-emergence of a more defensive game in order to blunt the abilities of technically superior opponents, I'm struggling to get this entertainment more and more.

The problem is simple, managers are judged upon results - you don't get the results and you're out of a job. This has lead to more and more managers being unwilling to take a 'risk' and actually go out to play football against 'better' opponents, and instead they have lined their team up in an ultra defensive, counter-attacking manner, whereby they are happy to take a draw, but are mainly looking to snatch a win via set pieces such as corners or free kicks instead of through the actual passage of normal play.

There's no doubting that this can be effective, Chelsea won the Champions League final in this way, as did Inter Milan when they took on Barcelona in the 2010 semi-final, and indeed a couple of premiership teams in recent years have keenly taken to this way of playing the game.

I can share some sympathy with teams on a very tight budget who can't afford to bring in world class players to enable them to play a more stylish or attacking game who therefore use this style of play to get results and move up the tables to hopefully better finances, but to see sides like Chelsea who have spent an absolute fortune on some of the biggest names in the game play like this is somewhat embarrassing.

This becomes even more embarrassing when you then see sides like Swansea set out to play in the same manner as your Barcelona's and Arsenal's, but on a fraction of the budget teams like Chelsea have at their disposal. Why can they do it with their limited funds, yet the big spenders sit back and 'park the bus'?

In a troubled economy, we have to choose wisely how to spend our limited income in regards to entertainment, and I personally couldn't justify spending £40-50 to go and watch a team defend for 90 minutes. I want to see attacking football from BOTH sides, a game where one team may have the edge, but you see a variety of play from both including strong defending, slick passing, cool finishing and a bit of flair now and then.

Quite how season ticket holders at sides such Stoke can justify their expenditure is beyond me, as I wouldn't pay even a quarter of their prices to watch the football they put on display most weeks.

Maybe it's because I'm less concerned with the result, and more interested in the quality of play and level of entertainment on show. All that being said, as a Norwich fan I'm all too aware of what sticking to this ethos of playing football can cost as was shown during our 04/05 season when back in the premiership for the first time in a decade, where we looked to play good football even at the expense of results and ended up being relegated by doing this (along with a couple of other factors).

There has to be a degree of temperance in the way the manager sets out the side, but simply assuming the opposition are better and putting 10 men in defence isn't the way to go about it. I want to see managers actually coach their team to play 'better' football, instead of just parking their coach on the pitch...

The Alternative England – Part 2

Well, all the guessing is over, Roy Hodgson has selected his 23 man squad for the Euro's, and I'm going to see how close I got with my previous suggestions.

Keepers

Clean sweep here (after Foster ruled himself out), and very pleased to see John Ruddy get the call up, he's clearly going to be behind Hart in the pecking order, but will gain great experience and I wouldn't be worried if we had to call on him if Hart has a problem. Green is also a very solid 3^rd choice.

Right Backs

Glen Johnson the only true right back selected, although rumours suggest that Walker would have got the nod if not ruled out through injury. Out of the remaining defenders however, only Phil Jones can arguably play the role, which does raise the question over why maybe Micah Richards was left out.

Left Backs

As predicted Cole and Baines

Centre Halves

The big talking point here is the non-selection of Ferdinand, with John Terry getting the call instead. On the back of this last season and everything else that's going on, this seems a tad odd to me, especially after Rio had such a great season. Rumours suggest however that Roy is concerned about whether Rio can play numerous games in a short space of time, and he wasn't overly impressed on the suggestion that Rio couldn't play if Terry did. Looks like the better man may have lost out here. Lescott, Cahill and Phil Jones make up the numbers – again as I expected.

Central Midfielders

Barry, Gerrard, Parker and Milner.

So I got 2 out of 4 here, although I am very uninspired by the other 2 selections, Barry is nothing more than a very average plodder, and Milner has struggled to even get games this season, never mind perform well on top of this. A bit too much of the 'old guard' mentality with these selections. Let's just hope that Parker can get fully fit and stay fit, because the alternative looks a tad grim.

Wide Midfielders

Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Young and Downing.

SERIOUSLY? – STEWART f**king DOWNING made the squad??? On the back of his worst season ever where's he's done nothing right, looked like one of Liverpool's worst players, and has never convinced in an England squad every time he's played – DOWNING gets the call???

What an absolute shambles. Add in the omission of Lennon and A.Johnson, and our wing options look somewhat shaky. Arguably the worst area of selection out of the whole squad here.

Strikers

Rooney, Defoe, Welbeck and Carroll

I f**king knew Carroll was going to get the call over Holt despite everything Holt has done this year compared to Carroll, and frankly I'm too pissed off to go into much more detail here.

Congratulations Roy, on screwing up our already weak Euro chances with some truly awful selection choices. You have also proven the precedence that despite form and performances, if you're not at a 'big name' club, you won't get picked. Only 3 players out of the 23 come from sides outside the 'big' clubs, with Ruddy (Norwich 12^th), Baines (Everton 7^th) and Green (West Ham CCC), and even then Everton aren't exactly small. So in essence we've got 2 players from outside the usual suspects, and they're both keepers who won't play unless Hart is injured anyway.

It's a complete f**king joke, and makes a mockery of our National team. Players like Grant Holt have every right to feel gutted and like they've been kicked in the teeth, as apparently performing consistently well in the premiership against some of the best defenders in the game means f**k all if you're not doing it whilst playing for Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs or Man City - i.e. the top 6 sides.

As they would say in the armed forces “Same Shit – Different Day”.

Well that's me done with England for a while, I don't expect the manager to simply select the players I want or else, but I did hope that for once we'd have a manager who could look past names and clubs and pick players on merit, that have earned their place on the plane, and instead we've got a number of horribly under-performing selections taking the place of those that have had great seasons and justified their inclusion.

I bet Harry Redknapp is laughing his f**king arse off right now...

The Alternative England

With Roy Hodgson's appointment as the new England boss, discussions have been rife amongst football fans as to which 23 players are likely to receive the final call ups to play for England in the upcoming Euro's. There's some obvious suggestions, some less obvious ones, some bizarre ones, and some notable omissions as well, but I'm going to put forward my suggested squad – chances are it'll be half right anyway!

Goalkeepers

1. Joe Hart
2. John Ruddy
3. Ben Foster (If Roy convinces him) – if not – Robert Green

Hart was always going to be first choice, and bar some nasty injury he'll remain first choice for the foreseeable future.

John Ruddy has been getting more vocal support recently in the press and media, and as Norwich fan, I can fully understand why. The big man has been excellent for us this season, and whilst 2 clean sheets is poor in comparison to Hart's 17, you also have to factor in that Hart is playing for the potential title winners, with probably the best defence in the league in front of him. Compare this to Ruddy who's had a back four which has seen TWELVE different permutations across the season, and it's not hard to understand why clean sheets haven't been the easiest to come by.

Ben Foster has also had a very strong season for West Brom, potentially even better than Ruddy's at Norwich, but the key issue here is that Foster has previously declared himself out of selection for England, and unless his old gaffer can change his mind, then this selection could be somewhat of a moot point.

As backup in event of this being the case I've gone for Rob Green, this isn't because of the Norwich link, but simply because I think he's a very able keeper, and I also feel that the Championship is a more competitive league overall than the Turkish league where the other option in Scott Carson is playing. West Ham are on the verge of a premiership return (assuming they can beat Blackpool), and Green has proved his consistency for many years previously at this level, he'd also bring a bit of maturity to a relatively young keeper setup.

Right Backs

1. Kyle Walker
2. Micah Richards
3. Glen Johnson or Danny Simpson as Backup choice

Again, probably not too surprising here, with Walker winning a place in the PFA team of the year whilst still being relatively young and improving all the time, he's the obvious choice.

Richards is probably the most defensive of the three despite still offering an attacking threat, but what he can offer if needed is the extra strength and aerial power that Walker misses at times, and against much more physical opponents, this could be more valuable than Walker's attacking options.

My backup picks show again the different options available, with Johnson providing the strongest attacking threat from defence out of all the players, but trading this off with poorer possession and tackling stats.

Simpson is someone I feel deserves a mention here, as despite a good season at Newcastle where he's marked some top players out of the game at times, he's gone almost completely under the radar of most fans as an England option. I'd argue that this is primarily due to the performances of players like Walker, Richards and Johnson, but there's also another side to this with some fans not seeing him as a 'big enough name'. This sort of logic baffles me, as if you're good enough to handle premiership strikers and wingers each week, then you can handle players from Poland and Ukraine.

Left Backs

1. Leighton Baines
2. Ashley Cole
3. Kieran Gibbs as backup

Again, not much different to see here, although for me Baines has to be first choice over Cole, as he's proven stronger both defensively, and with his excellent attacking, crossing and set pieces this season. 

I actually this is an area there's a bit of a dearth of talent in, as Gibbs still really needs time to develop and get over his consistent injury problems. Overall options are very thin on the ground after these main three, and you need to start thinking about options like Warnock at Villa, Tierney of Norwich, Bertrand of Chelsea and Shorey at WBA, if you want alternatives. None of them are really up to the task in my opinion though - although with more development we could see Bertrand step up in the future but game time at Chelsea is very limited whilst Cole is fit.

Centre Halves

1. Joleon Lescott
2. Rio Ferdinand
3. Phil Jones
4. Chris Smalling  Gary Cahill

I must admit that I've surprised even myself here, as if you'd have asked me this before Christmas, then Rio Ferdinand probably wouldn't have been in there, but this season has seen a real return to form, something Man Utd badly needed due to the long term absence of Nemanja Vidic. Although Rio's legs aren't quite what they used to be in terms of pace, his passing, tackling and aerial performances have been almost as good as they've ever been, and I think his form and experience could be vital in what's otherwise a relatively inexperienced set of defenders internationally.

Lescott had to be first choice after an outstanding season at Man City, and although Vincent Kompany has been getting all the plaudits, Lescott has been getting on with his job – and doing it bloody well in the process. If anything, Lescott is almost inheriting Rio's mantle, by doing almost all the things that Rio has traditionally been recognised for – but doing for their biggest rivals! The downside however is that there's only a couple of years between them, so whilst we should make the most of this whilst we can, Lescott isn't a long term solution to our defence.

This brings me neatly onto Phil Jones, and if anyone represents the future of English defending it's this lad. Somewhat of a rarity in the modern game, Jones almost represents the classic 'utility' player, someone who can be put anywhere on the pitch and play well. Initially deployed by Blackburn in a defensive midfield position, it's arguably his performances when moved further back that he's had his biggest impact. After his move to Man Utd, even Ferguson seems unable to decide where best to use him, although had it not been for the form of Ferdinand and Evans (along with a couple of injuries for Jones), I think we'd have seen him at the back far more this season. Strong, composed, with a great reading of the game, Jones is probably the closest example to a Bobby Moore type defender that England have had in decades, and on the potential he's shown so far – he could go on to be just as big a legend.

Wrapping up what is essentially a Man Utd dominated defensive selection is Chris Smalling. It was a toss up here between Smalling and Gary Cahill as I've got a lot of time for both of them, but in competition for a single place, I think Smalling has the edge – defensively at least, and this has to take precedence over Cahill's goal offerings, come the World Cup in 2 years time however, then Cahill will likely have taken Rio's place anyway, removing the need to decide between both. One other bonus I think Smalling offers here, is that he's played in the centre with Phil Jones for the U21 side, and together they made a formidable partnership, and looking again to the future, this really is something we want to build on ready for the WC2014. ED - Due to Smalling's injury against Swansea, he has been ruled out of Euro 2012, and therefore Cahill slots in as replacement.

The notable omission here is John Terry, and let me be frank here – I think he's past it. So many times this season have I seen him beaten easily, especially for pace, his positioning has been dire at times, and no matter how much he and some of the pundits want to blame David Luiz – Terry has been shocking at times. Add in the upcoming court case with puts a dark cloud over proceedings, and I just don't see how he can travel.

Central Midfielders

1. Scott Parker
2. Steven Gerrard
3. Michael Carrick
4. Tom Cleverley

Scott Parker had to be first choice here, there was no question about it, as there's no-one else even close here in regards to the role Parker plays and the dedication and commitment he puts in every game. In the last friendly against Holland, Parker showed exactly why he should be one of the first on the place, with tackles, blocks and interceptions galore amidst a relatively poor first half for England. Had Parker not been playing, we could easily have gone down by 2-3 more goals by that stage.

Alongside Parker I've gone for another 'old hand' in Steven Gerrard. Frankly I think Gerrard's England performances haven't been good enough for a long time, so why the f**k are you picking him I hear you say? The reason is because I think Gerrard's natural game has been crippled either by the formation, or the fact he's been played alongside Lampard for so long. No matter what anyone says – THEY DON'T WORK TOGETHER! Take Gerrard out of that scenario and put him in his favoured role at Liverpool and we see a totally different player. Forceful, attacking, tackling play, with the ability to play great through balls or take chances himself. If we assume that Roy will play a 4-4-2, then whilst Parker is handling the defensive side of things in midfield, Gerrard can look after the attacking and creative side. Also, despite some saying he's nowhere as good as he used to be, I'd question how a player so 'out of form' can score 5 goals having only played a third of the season minutes wise, and create more clear cut chances during those minutes than pretty much anyone else. I don't think he'll still be in contention come the next world cup, but this is his final chance to truly shine on the world stage, and I think he deserves to get it.

That leaves 2 more central spaces, and logically I've looked to go for similar options as 'cover' players, the first of which is Michael Carrick.

Carrick has a problem, the problem is not his football – it's his image, as for some reason a lot of fans just don't rate the guy, even when shown in black and white the level of his contribution to the team. With the 2^nd highest passing accuracy of any of the midfielders in true contention for a place, Carrick offers great distribution, but whilst providing a bit of defensive security as well. Only Scott Parker tackles and intercepts more frequently than Carrick does, but Carrick also provides the aerial competition that Parker really struggles to offer. Add in the fact that he can score a few goals here and there, and that's he's generally very consistent, and I'd argue that there's nobody better to replace Parker in the defensive role than Carrick if needed – and that includes the horrendously slow plodding of Gareth Barry...

The final midfield place is a bit of a wild card in many ways, as without a single England cap to his name, Tom Cleverley would be a bold selection from Hodgson – bold, but not silly. Cleverley spent last season on loan at Wigan, where a number of strong performances caught the eye, and following a pre-season match against Barca on his return to Man Utd, lead Ferguson to believe that he could fill the gap left by the departed Paul Scholes. Early indicators were good, and strong performances in the first 4 games of the season seemed to suggest Ferguson may have been right, then niggling injuries struck, and it's been a long road to get back to fitness and to get his place back, especially due to the unexpected return of Scholes. His passing accuracy is 3^rd behind that of Carrick and Scholes, but he's also shown the ability to tackle and create during some all-action performances.

Notable omissions here come in the form of Frank Lampard, Gareth Barry, Paul Scholes and James Milner. Firstly, at 37 years old, Scholes is unlikely to be convinced to return for one last tournament, and his age also draws potential concerns about fitness, although he's proven these wrong so far since his return to Man Utd.

Lampard was a tough call, as he clearly offers the biggest goal threat at club level, yet has rarely replicated this internationally. Again, this could partially be explained by the pairing with Gerrard, but often Lampard has had the freedom to play his role much more than Gerrard has, and still hasn't capitalised on it. Again, at 33 he's unlikely to make the next world cup, and I'd rather give an up and coming player the chance here, than someone who's had repeated chances and failed.

Barry shouldn't be anywhere near the England side in my opinion, he's slow, clumsy, and most of his passes could be described as 'barbershop' i.e. Short, back and sides...Quite how he's managed to get the game time he has at Man City this season is a mystery to me, and his inclusion would probably be one of the worst choices should it happen, as there are better options in pretty much every way.

As for Milner, although some would argue he's a winger, I'd argue that his best performances came for Villa when O'Neill played him in the centre, but since then he's struggled for form and game time, and he just doesn't offer enough to justify his place at this time. If he'd stayed at Villa and maintained his form – he'd have already been in his seat on the plane...

Wide Midfielders/Wingers

1. Aaron Lennon
2. Adam Johnson
3. Ashley Young
4. Anthony Pilkington

Do me a favour, and ignore your incredulity at option 4 for the time being, I'll get to that in a short while, and lets look at the other selections.

Lennon for me is a no-brainer, I don't know how anyone can't think he shouldn't be going, and had it not been for an injury plagued season, he could have helped Spurs maintain their push for the title and Champions League football. One of the most accurately passing wingers available (only A.Johnson offers better accuracy), he combines this with speed and dribbling to great effect, and whereas a few years ago we'd have complained about his end product, he's improved on this massively, with crossing and distribution showing vast improvements across the board, arguably at the expense of a goal or two, but this is a trade that was well worth making. He should have the right wing spot nailed down if fit.

On the opposite side we should have Adam Johnson. Another player who hasn't had as much game time as he probably should this season, but whereas Lennon's loss was down to injury, Johnson's is down to formation and competition. Getting in a Man City team where you're looking for a place against the likes of David Silva and Samir Nasri is always going to be tough, yet when Johnson has been given the nod – he's performed. Accurate passing and crossing are on offer here, along with a genuine goal threat, as 6 goals in 1100 minutes of football is a tidy return, if he'd played more I think double figures would have been highly likely. The major downside here is that due to his highly attacking nature, he tends to lose possession more than other potential candidates, but I'd rather have Johnson doing something, than the likes of Downing doing jack all...

Ashley Young is my penultimate selection, and had it not been for recent controversy, I don't think I'd have faced much argument, however Young's decision in a number of games to go down under the slightest of contacts has left a bad taste in many people's mouths, and it's going to take some hard work to get people back on side after this, as once labelled as a 'diver', it's pretty tough to shake the moniker. That aside, Young offers a genuine goal threat, and with good close control, can make a mockery of more sluggish defenders. Indeed his shooting ability from outside the box is a highly valuable asset, as it means defenders need to get tighter to prevent this, thereby creating more room for the strikers to move around in. Assuming he doesn't trip going through airport security he should get a seat.

Now for the really controversial choice, and what are the odds that a Norwich fan would put another Norwich player in the England squad? The answer is the same as for any other option under consideration, I've picked on merit and form, not on name or club, and on this basis 'Pilks' deserves a look. Firstly, you remember how I've picked up on the crossing accuracy of Johnson and Lennon? Well they average 25% accuracy with their crosses – Pilks is 35%. This is a HUGE difference at this level, as even a few percent can be the difference between getting the ball onto the strikers head with the one chance you have to deliver it – or sending it behind the goal instead. What's more he's weighed in with 8 league goals this season. Bearing in mind that Norwich do not have the most technically gifted squad in the league, this is a very impressive return for a player who last season was in League 1 at Huddersfield! He's also naturally able to play on both wings, but usually the left, and isn't afraid to have a shot or take a man on. At 23 he's got his best years to come as well, and with options like Young, Lennon and Johnson, we have great potential for the world cup – and the next Euro’s as well.

Notable omissions include – Stewart Downing, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Theo Walcott

Firstly I'll deal with Downing. £20 million in exchange for 0 goals, 2 assists, 23% crossing accuracy and 77% pass accuracy. Absolutely awful return on their investment so far, and whilst Downing was much better last season, he's been terrible for Liverpool this year, and shouldn't get anywhere near the plane, the airport, or even a football pitch on this showing. Expect a big improvement next season or a cut price deal to offload him will be on the cards.

Now for the Arsenal boys. I'd like to have taken 'The Ox' as he's become known, but I just don't think he's ready, or that he can manage the full games and pressure he'd be under. Just like Walcott got taken years ago for no apparent reason other than experience, I think we'd be doing something similar here, and giving up a spot just for the hell of it. If he continues to improve and perform as he has done for Arsenal this year, then he's likely to be a shoe-in for the World Cup, but for now he's simply too young for sensible consideration.

Walcott is a totally different kettle of fish, and there's something important I have to say here – Walcott hasn't made my cut as a winger – he's got a spot amongst the strikers instead. He may have had a better season than last this year, but the truth is that his best position is not on the wing, it's as a pacey forward, something that should be backed up by stats such as the following: crossing accuracy – 13% and pass accuracy – 70%. Contrast this with this 8 goals and blinding pace, and we can see that he should be receiving the balls through defence – not supplying them. So without further ado, onto the final part – the rest of the strike force.

Strikers

1. Wayne Rooney
2. Grant Holt
3. Theo Walcott
4. Jermaine Defoe

That's right – No Andy Carroll, No Danny Welbeck or Daniel Sturridge, No Peter Crouch or Darren Bent and No Danny Graham either.

Rooney would be a given for virtually anyone, and whilst recent England performances haven't matched his club form, he's the most talented played in the whole squad, as well as the biggest goal threat as well. His 2 game ban is going to hurt us however, as it means that whoever plays in those 2 games instead needs to really perform or Rooney's inclusion could be moot anyway.

I've already covered Theo Walcott, and I want to leave Holt for last, so I'll move onto Defoe.

Defoe is probably the most 'natural' striker on offer at the minute (along with Darren Bent), but what's most impressive about Defoe is his performance with relatively limited game time. At under 1200 minutes this season, Defoe has been forced to play second fiddle to Adebayor and Van der Vaart in the Spurs pecking order, yet has managed 10 goals in that limited time. Only Wayne Rooney offers a better return in regards to goals per minutes played, and like Walcott, Defoe offers pace and movement. In honesty, Darren Bent is probably a tad unlucky to miss out here, but with his injury being a potential concern, along with a middling season for a poor Villa side, Defoe just has the necessary edge here.

As for the final choice – was there any doubt I'd pick Holt? I've made enough fuss in a couple of my other articles about his selection, and after another great performance against Arsenal, I genuinely can't see why some people won't even give him the time of day. He's the second highest goalscorer in the league behind Rooney, averages a goal every 155 minutes of play (compared to 110 and 117 for Rooney and Defoe), converts chances at 23% - the same as Defoe and 1% better than Rooney, and has also created a number of good chances for his team-mates this season. He offers as much body strength and aerial threat as the likes of Carroll or Crouch, and would offer a superb foil for the likes of Defoe and Walcott to play off. Let's also not forget that Holt has to score his goals against the likes of Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle, whereas strikers from those sides have to score against Norwich...in fact the only 2 of those he hasn't scored against are Man City and Spurs.

I've already listed my exceptions, but here's the reasons:

Carroll – Seriously? Has been s**t all season for Liverpool, and even when Suarez had his 8 game ban, Carroll couldn't take any advantage from it and perform in his absence. Whilst he showed the potential at Newcastle, one good game against a second string Chelsea side last week doesn't justify his selection. If however he can find some consistent form over the upcoming seasons, there's every chance he'll be in the World Cup squad, but on his form this year, and to paraphrase Simon Cowell “Absolutely, categorically – NO”.

Danny Welbeck was a tough call, not because I think he's a great striker, but because I think he's a good support player. Welbeck's had an awful lot of game time at Man Utd this season, yet has disappointed with his goal returns, and had it not been for his work rate and team play, he'd have been dropped and probably sold long ago. I'm still not sure how he's kept the likes of Berbatov and Hernandez out of the side as much as he has, especially following Berbatov's 6 goals in 4 games return (before he was inexplicably dropped again). In 4 games Berbatov virtually replicated Welbeck's goal returns for a full season – that's laughable really, and whilst Welbeck might make Rooney et al look better, being a striker is about scoring goals, and until he can do that consistently – next.

Daniel Sturridge was another difficult one, mainly because I think he's played very well considering how he's been played out of position all season. Like Walcott, Sturridge is not a winger, and although he went on a strong goalscoring run despite being stuck there, it began to take it's toll, and his form has dropped horribly since Christmas, with only 2 goals to his name. Whilst he's getting the game time at Chelsea, it's in the wrong position, and I'd argue that a move elsewhere or a change in tactics is needed before he can be in full contention here.

Peter Crouch (along with Carroll) is probably the main player many fans would take over Holt, and I can understand why to a certain extent, he's done ok for England before, hasn't had a bad season (brightened up by his 'once in a lifetime' wonder goal), and clearly won't be phased by the experience. My problem however is that he simply hasn't performed against ANY of the major sides in world football, so whilst 22 goals for England looks great on paper, they've been scored against 'powerhouses' such as Hungary, Estonia, Andorra and Belarus – oh, and don't forget 3 against Jamaica...Crouch takes longer to score than Holt, is less accurate both at shooting and passing, and despite what you might think – doesn't create as much either (although he officially has 1 more assist than Holt, Holt has created for many opportunities, shame the other Norwich lads couldn't finish them!). All that being said – if Holt wasn't fit or available, I'd take Crouch as his first replacement.

And that leaves me with Danny Graham. I'd like to come up with something better here, but the best I can manage is 'nondescript' in regards to Graham. I don't mean that in a nasty way either, simply that he just hasn't stood out in any single way this season, he's also seen a notable drop in form following the brace he scored against Norwich in Feb, with only a single goal since that point, and he's simply weaker in almost every way to Holt statistically, nor does he really fit a particular role within the squad. He's not a great hold-up man, he isn't an instinctive striker, or goal poacher, he's not a long range master, or great at playing on the last defender, he's simply just a solid striker. There's nothing wrong with that, and he deserves full credit for his goals this season, but at the top level you need something more, and whilst like Holt he's a very committed player, there's little else there to justify selection.

So that's the squad selected, my first XI would look like this:

Hart

Walker Ferdinand Lescott Baines

Parker

Lennon A.Johnson

Gerrard

Holt Rooney (Defoe)

With Defoe playing instead of Rooney for the first 2 games.

Controversial selections in some areas, but at least it's not the same old crap we've trolled out for years and won jack shit with.

Come on Roy, do me a favour here :)

Everyone else is doing it so why not England?

This is going to be my last discussion surrounding this subject, but as I've not really covered my view or reasoning in depth I'm going to take this opportunity to do so in the vain hopes that it gives at least someone involved with the England setup something to think about.

What am I referring to you ask? The selection of Norwich striker Grant Holt for the upcoming friendlies and Euro 2012 squad.

My initial reasoning is simply and easy to understand – he's the highest scoring English striker in the premiership this season behind Wayne Rooney, and has achieved this scoring goals against most of the top 6 sides, and still contributing strongly in the games he hasn't got on the score sheet.

For me, form is extremely important and something we arguably don't give enough respect to when choosing international line-ups. A player may have been brilliant previously, but if they're badly off-form for their club side and missing numerous easy chances or simply being anonymous - how can we justify their selection for the international team? Scoring a hat-trick six months ago is great, but if following this they've performed poorly and spent more time getting the ball back from the stands than the back of the net, then they simply can't be relied upon in what are arguably far more pressurised games, where you're not only looking for perform for your own clubs fans – but those of the whole nation.

On this basis, a player who has consistently and strongly performed across the whole season has be given full consideration, and whilst small blips of 2-3 games of poor form can be tolerated here and there, if this has been the case for the whole season then serious questions have to be asked.

A key example of this is with Liverpool striker Andy Carroll. His big money move to Liverpool has been a virtual disaster so far, and whilst he's shown previously that he can perform strongly, on his current form he shouldn't even be near the changing room, never mind the first 11. Yet Carroll is seen as one of the big 'players for the future', someone who in 2-3 years time could be England's first choice striker – maybe so, but until he stops playing like crap every week for Liverpool, that should be nothing more than a mirage, or some distant goal for him to personally target.

Holt's form over the season HAS been consistent, with the longest spell without scoring being just 4 games, and even when he's been rested as part of Paul Lambert's tactical shuffling, he's never let his head go down or dropped his effort levels.

Holt also holds another potential ace up his sleeve in the fact that he's actually the most efficient English striker in the league, with a shot to goal ratio of 29.3%. Now to put this into context, Wayne Rooney's is sat on 20.6%, Danny Welbeck's is at 15.5% and the aforementioned Andy Carroll has a shocking 8.2% ratio. On this basis Holt would usually score once for every 3 shots (approx), compared to Rooney needing 5 attempts, Welbeck taking 6 and Carroll a lamentable 12. But what about Holt's most similar rival – Peter Crouch? Well Crouch has a 21.3% ratio, so like Rooney he's going to need at least 5 shots to score.

This is of particular interest when you consider that international games tend to have less chances than many domestic league games, and therefore every shot is vital, ergo a striker who converts with less chances is an incredibly valuable asset.

My other main reasoning behind his selection is hinted to in the title of the article, in that if you look at all the other teams in the Euro's, in fact if you look at most international sides, they all have one thing in common – a strong, powerful striker who's skilled in the air or at holding up play somewhere in their squad. Whether it's Giroud for France, Pavlyuchenko for Russia, Bendtner for Denmark or Samaras for Greece, there's always a striker that offers a physical presence and aerial threat. Even Spain who are noted for playing the ball on the floor in their passing/possession game have a striker who is potent in the air with good body strength in Fernando Llorente. Many of these strikers are also highly competent with the ball into their feet, and for those who've watched Holt this season, they'll see that he's no slouch here either.

Having a player of this nature means that if the opposition are cancelling out your normal tactics and things like through balls and possession play isn't working, you can add this physical threat and change your game-plan accordingly. To quote a well known BBC pundit - “You need a Plan B”, and without someone like Holt, our other options are all too similar to be able to do this.

Defoe and Bent are natural strikers with pace and precision, yet neither is great in the air, nor are they the strongest physically. It's a similar situation with younger options like Sturridge and Campbell, and even though Danny Welbeck can perform the role to a certain extent, it's clearly not playing to his strengths, and I'm not even going to suggest restricting Rooney in this role...

That leaves 2 viable options IMHO – Holt and Crouch. Holt has scored more goals in less games in the league than Crouch, with a better games to goal ratio (2.13 for Holt vs 2.69 for Crouch), and we've already mentioned that Holt has the better efficiency on top of this. Crouch however has the experience, and with 42 caps already earned over the last 7 years, some would argue this makes him the more natural choice.

I can fully understand this logic, but Crouch has never been prolific with his best return being over a decade ago at Portsmouth, and aside from a recent wonder goal, he's not set the league alight this season either. I'd also like to point out that despite Crouch having a reasonable goalscoring record internationally, he's only done so against the 'poorer' international sides. Goals against Croatia and France are the two real highlights, with the remainder coming against the likes of Macedonia, Jamaica (x 3), Belarus (x2), Andorra (x 2) and Estonia.

Where are the Spain's, the Brazil's, the Italy's, the Argentina's, The Germany's???

Where are the big international teams in his scoring list?

The simple answer is they aren't there, as despite Crouch having played against all of them – he's never managed to get on the score sheet when he did. Part of this may well be down to how England performed as a whole, but the fact remains that he only really scores against relative minnows and does jack all against the big boys.

We have nothing to compare this to with Holt as he's never been up for consideration before, but with 2 friendlies against Norway and Belgium, we have the chance to see how he does against 'lesser' opposition before being thrown in against the real European heavyweights. This is the ideal time to see what he brings to the table instead of Crouch, and strong performances in both games should back his superior league form to give him the nod over Crouch. If not we've always got Crouch there as an option.

The fact is that regardless of anything else, Holt has earned his chance in the national team, but whether or not he would prove to be another Geoff Hurst, or simply another Michael Ricketts – we'll never know unless he's given the chance, and his non-selection in the squad for both the upcoming friendlies will prove once and for all that the big name clubs and big name players get preferential treatment over players who've got the form and work ethic – just not at a fashionable or successful enough club. Let's face it – if he can score against Man Utd and Chelsea whilst playing for Norwich, surely he can score against the likes of Moldova or the Ukraine when playing for England???

Big Clubs, Maybe – Big Fans, Maybe Not

As a Norwich City fan, I was interested to hear that our new kit for the upcoming 2012-2013 season was going to be showcased this week. This along with an extended sponsorship deal with insurance giants Aviva (formerly Norwich Union), should have been a very positive step from the club.

However after watching the relatively uninspiring video, which considering last years excellent one was poor in comparison (despite a nice little section with Stephen Fry), I then found that the same problem which occurred last season, had been repeated again this year - in that apparently fans of my body size aren't welcome to buy the clubs replica kits...

Firstly let me say that I am tall, I am broad, and I am definitely overweight. I make no bones or excuses about this, some people choose to drink, others to smoke or take drugs, whereas instead I simply like to lead a sedentary lifestyle and eat well whilst doing so.

I don't go binge drinking and starting fights on a Friday night, nor do I encourage the illicit drugs trade and steal to keep up a habit, yet in some ways it feels like I get more persecution for my lifestyle choice than either of the above examples.

In response to complaints I've made about being unable to get a football shirt in my size on the regular Norwich City forums, instead of support I've instead received a barrage of abuse about losing weight and offensive terms relating to this. Seriously are people that offended by 'larger' fans that we're treated almost like lepers?

It's not just people who are overweight like I am though, as there are those who are of generally bigger builds, particularly people who work out a lot with weights or take part in some of the more physical sports like boxing or rugby that have this problem. We just can't get the sizes we need to fit our bodies, and whilst I can take a bit of stick about “who ate all the pies”, how about you give the 6ft tall, heavily muscled MMA fighter behind me that hassle instead? No? Thought not...

With obesity being a growing problem not just in the US, but very much in the UK as well, I'd have thought that simple economics would come into play here, in that supply is highly related to demand, and if there's more people needing bigger shirts, then surely more clubs should be able to supply them?

Instead of taking advantage of this area of the market, the message we're actually getting is “tough shit”.

How can some highly intelligent, highly skilled marketing and economic experts who work for the clubs get this so badly wrong? I don't expect the club to order in 10,000 shirts each of size 6, 7 or 8XL, but what the hell is wrong with actually assessing potential demand of these larger sizes with the fans and then simply ordering a small amount of each in based upon this feedback?

We know that this would likely come at an extra cost (both due to needing more material and with having lower order numbers per batch), but in most cases we'd be happy to pay a bit more to be able to wear our clubs shirt with pride whilst helping them financially in the process.

When I first raised the issue 2 years ago, you could go online and buy Chelsea shirts up to size 8XL without a problem, so why could they cater for the larger fan and not us?

I'm sure that we've all also seen the large, bald Newcastle fan who seems to attend every game without his top on – maybe in reality it's because they don't offer a shirt that fits...

This really shouldn't be about whether or not you agree with people being overweight, heavily muscled or simply having an unusual build, but about all fans being given the same chance to support their team, and instead of this the message appears to have become “Fatties and Fighters not welcome”...

What makes a 'big' club?

Earlier this week I received a link to another blog where a table claiming to show who the 20 biggest teams in the league were, I was automatically sceptical before even looking and unfortunately my hunch was proven correct when I saw the list which contained a number of 'dubious' inclusions.

But I then paused because in actual fact NONE of the selections were dubious, because they were all conforming to some unknown factor that the author had established to decide what made a 'big' club, and this is where the inherent flaw in the article lay.

Everyone has a different opinion about what makes a club 'big', is it attendance? Trophies won? League History? Ground size? Finances????

How do you pin down all these potential factors to come up with a fair guideline to mark clubs against? In my honest opinion – you can't, all you can do is come up with a subjective opinion which clearly defines why you feel this is the case and provide relevant evidence to support that opinion.

Indeed, many of possible criteria themselves hold pitfalls for the unwary. Take average attendance for example, some may say that the higher the average attendance – the bigger the club. But what about competition in the local area? Many of the larger cities have 2, 3 or even more clubs who regularly play at the top level, so in those cities where there's only 1 club with high attendances is it due to the size of the club or a lack of options?

Leeds are a prime example of this, coming in 4th in the Championship's overall average attendance table this season with 23,451 per game, but would that be lower if there was another decent side in the area for fans to choose between, or would be see a closer split?

This is the problem that the Sheffield clubs have faced in that's there's a number of clubs in close vicinity to provide competition, with Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday, Doncaster Rovers, Rotherham United and Barnsley all within 15-20 miles of Sheffield itself, and whilst the two Sheffield clubs have the lions share of the supporter base, you have to wonder whether their averages of 20,424 and 18,150 would turn into 38,574 if there was only a single club in the City.

The counter to this would be places like Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Birmingham and London, where their respective competing sides regularly manage high attendances despite the high level of competition and quality of their local rivals.

So already on the first potential criteria point we're getting further factors to consider...

I also don't place as much value on history as other supporters may do, as I genuinely don't see what relevance winning the league in 1907 has in relation to the size of a club at the moment. More modern success however plays a stronger factor, as having won leagues, cups and European glory in the last 15-20 years is much more relevant to me, than a side having done it 40 years ago, but being pretty poor since.

What this would mean is that sides like Preston, Burnley and Huddersfield would be marked much lower by myself than others who more strongly consider their league titles and history, whereas teams like Arsenal and Man Utd would be much more highly marked due to their recent success and performances.

Finance is a tricky one to consider, as being able to attract the best talent is a strong indicator of the size of a club, but frankly this tends to be split into four areas – money, history, team quality and manager quality. That being said, a player may like the club, their current squad and even the existing manager, but if you're offering them a relative pittance to what they can get elsewhere, you're likely to find they'll take the money in most cases. Money talks in the modern game, and therefore the teams with money to burn have to score higher here than those living on past triumphs. Hence why Man City and Chelsea are likely to top the marking chart here.

I could go on all day with things to take into account, but in truth you'd get bored (and so would I eventually), and we'd still probably be no closer to making a definitive list.

In my mind, we should only be looking at a time span of a generation (25-30 years), as beyond this we're verging too much into history without enough modern relevance, therefore I'd put my cut-off at 1982. I totally appreciate that this removes a number of classically brilliant teams such as the Busby Babes and the great club sides of the 50's, 60's and 70's, which helped establish the 'size' of the modern clubs we now follow, but the game itself has changed since then, and the likes of Messi, Ronaldo and Rooney aren't likely to give a damn about whether you won the league and European cup in 1952 when considering a potential move...

I also think that results speak more strongly than attendances, so winning a league or cup title means more than having a high attendance for the season, which again means that sides like Newcastle and Sunderland could be lower in the rankings due to their relative lack of success despite great support.

Anyway, enough about that, here's my highly subjective list of the top 20 teams in the football at present:

Man Utd
Arsenal
Man City
Chelsea
Spurs
Liverpool
Newcastle
Aston Villa
Everton
West Ham
Norwich
Blackburn
Leeds
Fulham
Birmingham
Stoke
Sunderland
Bolton
Middlesbrough
West Brom

There's bound to be some raised eyebrows with some selections (especially Norwich in 11th), but this is purely my personal opinion, using the factors I consider important when considering the size of a club, chances are you (and half the footballing world) won't agree, but that's the fun of it, there is no right or wrong answer, just each persons view which gives us something to tirelessly debate in the pub after the match...

Foul Play At The Top?

Earlier this week following the Man Utd vs Fulham game (where Fulham had a clear penalty shout turned down), we saw comments from Patrick Vieira suggesting that there is an advantage that Man Utd are given by referees in regards to penalties against them. This is something that many neutral fans have believed for a long time, and not just about Man Utd but all of the 'Big 4' sides, the question is – Is there any truth to the suggestion?

In order to examine this I compiled stats from the 02/03 season, all the way up the the current season, to establish how many pens each side had been given, both for and against, and then compared this against the league average. Understandably there were some strong variances especially with sides only playing a single season or two in the Premiership skewing the odds slightly, but not enough to make a massive difference overall.

So who has the least penalties given against them on average?

Q.P.R.

The problem here is that so far they've only played 30 games in the top flight, so even a single penalty given either way can cause a big variance, which would make their percentage increase from approx 5.3% to around 7.9%

So taking this into account, who's next?

Man Utd

Now, there's a surprise...

Yes, what the rest of the footballing world thought is quite correct, Man Utd statistically get less penalties given against them than any other premiership side – and that's based on 10 years worth of games as well. Man Utd have a penalty awarded against them in just 6.8% of games, so approx 2.6 penalties against them each season (which would have to be rounded up or down to 2 or 3 per season). Their current total of 3 against so far this year suggests that they're bang on target, and in actual fact another penalty against them would put them above their usual average – wonder if it will happen?

So how about the rest of the traditional big four? (I'll add Spurs & Man City in as well)

Chelsea – 7.4%
Liverpool – 8.9%
Arsenal – 10%
Man City – 10.5%
Spurs – 11.3%

The league average is 11.98% which puts every one of the top 5 sides under this, meaning they have less penalties given against them compared to their opponents.

But let's also be fair and look at the counter-argument to the stats, which is that each of the top sides in general have better quality defenders who are generally less likely to foul opponents in the box giving cause for a penalty. However there's a problem with this, and that is that other sides have managed similar stats (albeit for less seasons overall), despite having generally having 'poorer' defenders on show.
QPR as already noted are lowest, filling up the gap below the average are:

Blackpool – 7.9%
Swansea – 7.9%
Middlesboro – 8.7%
Everton – 8.7%
Southampton – 8.8%
Bolton – 10.5%
Derby – 10.5%
Fulham – 10.5%
Hull – 10.5%
Leicester – 10.5%
Wolves – 11.2%
Blackburn – 11.6%

Not exactly the cream of the defences is it?

How about the other angle? How many penalties are the top sides given in their favour?

The league average is 11.5% and the big four again beat this...

Man Utd – 14.5%
Arsenal – 14.2%
Liverpool – 14.2%
Chelsea – 13.7%
Man City – 12.1%
Spurs – 11.3%

Notice however that Spurs are actually just below the average compared to their title rivals.

The argument here would be that these sides have better strikers, therefore with the opposition having worse defenders there's more chance of being given penalties - but again the other sides in the equation disprove the theory:

C.Palace – 31.6% !!!
Blackpool – 21.1% !
Burnley – 15.8%
Swansea – 15.8%
Hull – 13.2%
Sheffield Utd – 13.2%
Aston Villa – 12.9%
Newcastle – 12.3%
Blackburn – 11.6%

Again, we're not talking about world beating strikers at these clubs, so the previous argument regarding the quality of striker vs defender doesn't hold too much water relatively speaking.

There are only 7 sides in the period analysed that beat the averages in both the for and against columns and they are:

Arsenal
Blackpool
Chelsea
Hull
Liverpool
Man Utd
Swansea

If we then take out the sides with only a single season, or just 2 seasons in the top flight and you get:

Arsenal
Chelsea
Liverpool
Man Utd

So the 'big four' sides all appear to get more penalties given in their favour and less against them – again not something most fans will probably find difficult to believe.

The sides that really don't have things go their way:

For Against
Charlton – 9.5% 13.2%
Norwich – 7.9% 13.2%
Reading – 9.2% 15.8%
Sunderland – 10.2% 16.5%
Watford – 7.9% 15.8%
West Brom – 7.5% 14%
Wigan – 10.2% 14.3%

So my own team Norwich City, have some of the worst 'luck' in regards to penalties overall (something I've also suspected for a long time) - The same with many 'small' clubs...

What this illustrates is that over a single season, a side with 'lesser' players can occasionally get some sort of parity with the big sides, but the general rule of thumb seems to be that the top sides get more penalty decisions go their way on average - with Man Utd leading the pack.

This is also the case this season, with Man Utd leading the overall table, which if we convert %'s into decisions, gives them +4 beneficial decisions overall in regards to pens (based on them being given 9 penalties for instead of their 5 penalty average, and them being bang on with their against tally).

So the next time a Man Utd fan tells you that it's just an urban myth that their side seems to get preferential treatment in regards to pens – direct them to these stats – and then smile to yourself...

Bye Bye Boas

Less than a month ago I posted an article around Fernando Torres and warned that changes were needed to get him back to form, one of which would likely be for Roman Abramovich to decide that enough was enough and for him to swing the sacking axe – guess what? I was right...

I've seen this coming for months, so the only really surprising thing to me is how long it seemingly took to make the decision. From day one AVB displayed a level of arrogance that makes even former mentor Jose Mourinho look humble, and yet displays on the pitch have never risen to match it.

I know that there's a lot of shocked Chelsea fans out there who can't understand this decision, and see it as a case of player power winning out over the manager who was desperately trying to make a long term change at their club. I see things in a different light.

Firstly I think his team selections have been highly questionable on a number of occasions, particularly with proven, quality players being left out for no apparent reason, a formation that doesn't get the best out of the players available, and what can only be described as the worst Chelsea defence since the days of Michael Duberry playing for them!

Never mind spending £18 million on Lukaku or £12 on Raul Meireles, how about spending some money on some decent defenders? John Terry has looked poor for a long time and is no longer the dominating figure he used to be, Luiz appears to have fallen out of a time machine where he was last seen playing for Brazil in the early 80's – no defence, but good going forwards, a fact which could arguably be applied to Bosingwa as well.

The January signing of Gary Cahill was a good first step towards solving the problems, but it was already 4 months too late, and even if they'd signed the likes of Pique or Vidic, it would have been irrelevant with the dross alongside them being the issue instead.

Similarly in midfield there were some truly odd changes, not least of which the dropping of players like Lampard and Malouda, who apparently have been penalised for being older players, regardless of the fact that both of them had hit double figures for goalscoring for the last 2 years. Malouda in particular has suffered here, as with the signing of Juan Mata, AVB had decided that Malouda was done – as even Daniel Sturridge and Anelka have spent more time on the wing than Malouda.

I've covered the misuse of Torres already, and as briefly mentioned earlier – WTF was the signing of Lukaku about? You don't pay £18 million to sign a player just to sit on the bench. It's absolute nonsense, especially when Drogba was away at the ACON, Anelka had disappeared to China and Torres was struggling, you'd expect the guy to be given a chance to shine, instead he got 10 minutes against Swansea and 15 minutes against Norwich – both as a late sub.

The formation was always the same 4-3-3 that he liked to use at Porto, but when up against better teams that knew how to deal with it, he had no clue how to change things to maintain the advantage, nor did he care that players like Sturridge were being forced out of position to accommodate it.

It's actually a testament to Sturridge's talent, that he did so well considering this choice, although his loss of form and goalscoring over the last two months should have been a warning sign that there's only so much you can get away with, but of course this would have meant changing the formation – not happening was it AVB?

The big talking point now is going to be who is AVB's replacement, and as it appears that England have interest in looking at non-English managers, so in my mind this would be the ideal time for Abramovich to call upon Frank Rijkaard.

Although currently managing Saudi Arabia, they've just been knocked out of the world cup qualifiers, so a move may be on the cards for him anyway, and the Chelsea job is arguably a perfect fit.

Whilst Guardiola is getting all the publicity, lets not forget that it was Rijkaard who pretty much built the Barcelona team that is the talk of the town. A manager who knows that you need a balance of youth and experience, he's not likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater and he has the credentials to stand up to ANY player in the modern game.

Whoever the selection ends up being, they've got to know that League and Champions League titles are required to stay in the job beyond a single season, and if they fail to deliver we could be discussing this topic all over again next year...

From the ”Wally with the brolly”, to the “Prat in the Hat” and now a total “Psycho”...

Following the recent resignation of Fabio Capello (Thank god), England U21 boss Stuart Pearce has been given temporary charge of the England team and today released his first and possibly last squad selection in readiness for our friendly against the Dutch.

Whilst many of us were hoping for some big changes and removal of dead wood, instead we got a very mixed bag, most of which consists of the usual suspects...again...

My first surprise was in regards to the Goalkeeper selections, whilst Joe Hart is our obvious number 1, the other two places are very much up for grabs and on this occasion have been handed to Scott Carson and Rob Green. As a Norwich fan, I've always had a lot of time for Greeno, the problem is that he's never looked the same for England as he has for his club sides, and he's also currently playing in the Championship.

Now I don't have a problem at all with selecting players from the Championship – as long as there aren't better or similar alternatives in the Premiership, or at least in one of the high standard European leagues such as Spain or Italy, and here's where I have my first issue – there is better or similar available.

I've already stated my position as a Norwich fan, so it should come as no surprise that I'm championing the selection of Norwich keeper John Ruddy for England. He's been in excellent form all season and performed consistently well, drawing praise from managers and pundits alike, and yet despite this consistent form and playing at the highest league level we offer, he's not seen as a better choice than Green – never mind Scott Carson...

Carson first appeared on the scene just under 10 years ago, as a promising young keeper at Leeds, since that point he's travelled a fair bit round the country and despite a couple of good seasons here and there, has struggled to maintain form and has also made a number of high-profile errors during this time, including a torrid performance for England against Croatia.

Having been sold in the summer by West Brom to Turkish side Bursaspor, his chances looked very limited, and yet despite playing in a relatively poor league at a side that's struggled badly this year and currently lie 9th in the Turkish league behind 'giants' such as Eskisehirspor and Genclerbirligi, he's somehow seen as a better option than Ruddy is...

I'm really struggling to understand the logic that's being applied here. Both of the keepers selected ahead of Ruddy have made bad errors in their limited England games, both are playing in worse leagues and haven't displayed the same form as Ruddy has all season, and whilst I can live with Green's selection as a more 'senior' keeper at the age of 32, Carson's selection in front of Ruddy is simply baffling.

Leaving the keeper situation behind for now and moving onto the defenders, and I have to say that I'm generally pleased with the selections Pearce has made..

There isn't a single player who really shouldn't be there, and the inclusion of players like Jones and Smalling who I think will help form the backbone of the English defence for the next 10 years (injuries and form allowing) is a very positive step. It's somewhat of a blessing in disguise that John Terry got injured before the team choice was made otherwise I think he'd have been included despite average to poor performances this year and the court case hanging over him which could easily have destabilised team morale.

Moving into the midfield and this is where the cracks re-appear.

First into the firing line is Stewart Downing, who despite some strong games last season at Villa, has been a total damp squib since his arrival at Anfield over the summer, and with a single goal to his name this season and no assists, it's a shocking return so far for the £20 million Liverpool paid, and certainly not the sort of form that should make international selection a consideration. He's never really looked right for England either, and in my mind clearly isn't our best option on the left side of the pitch - or the left side of the changing room for that matter...

Downing is joined by 2 other members of the 'old guard' in the shape of Liverpool team-mate Steven Gerrard and Man City's Gareth Barry.

It's fair to say that Gerrard has been one of the stand out midfielders produced by England in the last 20 years, however his obvious talent has been derailed in recent seasons by a string of injuries restricting his playing time. Liverpool's talisman has only managed 11 league games this season and although he still doesn't seem like he's back to his best, I can understand his inclusion, particularly in the absence of Frank Lampard, as their constant internal battle to be the key attacking midfielder has caused no end of problems for England as they simply can't play together whilst getting the best out of them.

I don't however understand Barry's selection. If we're playing a holding midfielder then one of Pearce's other selections in the form of Scott Parker offers a much better option, and I'd also rather play Phil Jones in the role than I would Barry. His tackling is average at best, his passing isn't anything to write home about - as it's usually sideways or backwards, he has no pace and hasn't looked anything special for years now, I'm actually surprised he's got as much game time as he has this season at Man City.

A couple of positives to take out of the midfield options however are the inclusions of both Tom Cleverley and Adam Johnson. Both have been restricted in playing time, Cleverley through injury and Johnson through rotation under Mancini, yet both are clearly talented players and deserving of their chance. The problem is likely to be that they won't get to play however, as the manager appears to want to stick to what he knows, so it's probably going to be Gerrard with either Parker or Barry in the centre which leaves Cleverley out, and Downing and Walcott on the wings which rules out Johnson.

I quite like Walcott being in the squad, I just don't like him as a midfielder. Walcott's best games have pretty much always been from playing upfront, either for Southampton or England (Wenger seems reluctant to give him a chance there), and that's exactly where I like to see him. His distribution is hit and miss and sometimes his dribbling gets the better of him, but stick him on the shoulder of the defender, play a good ball past and see if anyone can catch him...

The remaining midfield spaces go to James Milner and Ashley Young, again both have struggled for strong form this season, with Young in particular suffering from both form and injury problems. When he's had a good game he's been brilliant, outside of this it's been a bit disappointing. Similarly Milner hasn't recaptured the form at Aston Villa that saw him recalled to the England squad, although this can be somewhat explained by him being moved wider at City than he was at Villa.

Neither of them are bad selections, and certainly an on-form Young can be a strong player, the question is will he be given the chance and be on form if he does?

I would have liked to have seen Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain given a call-up if I'm honest, he's been electric for Arsenal over the past month or so and although he's still very raw, the potential is clear to see, and he certainly offers more threat down the left than Downing does.

I'd also have liked to see Josh McEachran given a chance, as I mentioned briefly in my article on Torres, I think this lad has the potential to a be a world class superstar, and his loan to Swansea is not only giving him much needed match fitness, but it's in a side that fits perfectly with the passing ethos he's so talented at.

It's arguable whether either of them are truly ready for the international stage, but if nothing else the experience would have been valuable for their development.

Finally we have the strikers, and again I see a player on great form with an excellent scoring record this season - ignored completely. I am referring to another Norwich player – Grant Holt.

The big man has been vital for us this season, with outstanding performances against very good defenders, he offers something that none of our other options do. Often misclassified as a simple 'battering ram' by many, or described as a 'classic English no 9' by others more in the know - including potential England manager Harry Redknapp, Holt has the ability to hold the ball up, be strong against even the biggest defenders, has great ability in the air and is no slouch with the ball at his feet either.

He'd be a perfect foil to many of the other players we normally select, but apparently being the joint top 3rd English goalscorer in the league (behind Wayne Rooney and Danny Graham) and being on a great run of form matters not if you don't play for a 'big name' side...

Instead of Holt, Pearce instead decides to call up Fraizer Campbell...

Now I don't think Campbell is a bad player, but he's only just come back from over a year out injured, and he's also a very similar striker to the other inclusions of Daniel Sturridge and Danny Welbeck, so why select Campbell instead of giving Holt a chance? Out of the 5 strikers selected, Campbell has be classed the 5th choice option, and it also means that if we want to change the style of play, we don't have a striker to naturally play the role that Holt can.

Previously we've had Crouch or the lamentable Heskey to play as hold up men, yet now it would have be either Rooney or Welbeck to take over the job if needed, and this doesn't play to either of their best abilities.

Darren Bent makes up the 5, and whilst I can't argue against his goalscoring record in the league, he's been very limited for England, and he also relies heavily on getting decent supply as he's not the type of player to go chasing opportunities like Rooney or Welbeck will. It's not like we're overflowing with top class options here so Bent is a fair choice, but not giving Holt a run is annoying.

Chances are that even the better selections made by Pearce may get a limited chance, as if his team selection is anything to go by, he'll be choosing mainly what he knows rather than taking the opportunity to see what other players can offer.

We all know what the likes of Rooney, Gerrard and Barry offer, so we learn nothing by playing them, whereas giving the chance to players like Johnson, Cleverley, and Jones could help us in the future, not to mention seeing what players like Oxlade-Chamberlain, Holt and Ruddy could have offered.

It's a badly missed opportunity in my opinion, and Pearce has simply taken the safe option, which from a man known as 'Psycho' who was never afraid to get stuck into a challenge, his relatively limp selection is both a disappointment and surprise...