Run with Eric:
Sport

Just noticed this on the BBC about the race for countries wanting to host the 2018 Football World Cup. I have one main concern with the proposed host nations. Who?

It's encouraging - very encouraging - that smaller nations are striving to host such a major event. Ambitious building projects bring in capital, the country improves etc. etc. Basically, hosting the World Cup energises the country in exactly the way hosting the Olympics does not.

However, it seems to be getting less about the football.

Eyebrows were raised when the USA hosted the global tournament in 1994 because their chances of passing the group stages were slim, effectively killing any local atmosphere for the more interesting knockout stages (it also didn't help when an unnamed American expert said 'soccer' was the fourth-most popular sport in the country after baseball, basketball, American football and ice hockey - add that one up). To be fair, the USA got to the last 16 - i.e. the second round - before losing only 1-0 to eventual winners Brazil, but fans the world over were still far from convinced with the country's supposed love for the sport.

Eyebrows were raised yet further, somewhere into the fringe, when the 2002 World Cup was offered to South Korea and Japan, but again a surprise was in store: joint hosts South Korea reached the semi-finals, beating Portugal, Spain and Italy on the way. Fair play - but two goals in five and a half hours of football in the knockout stages showed their lack of real talent. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Still people remain unconvinced by smaller footballing nations hosting the World Cup and yes, I am in that category (uh, in that I'm unconvinced, not a small footballing nation).

Now we have Qatar and Indonesia wanting to host the 2018 World Cup. Neither has competed in the tournament ever before, although Indonesia technically did in 1938 when they were the classed as the Dutch East Indies. A rich footballing history there, then.

Qatar, meanwhile, has a population of only 1.3 million and will struggle to persuade players to play in a sweltering Arab desert in the middle of summer. Even the proposed underground stadium - an admittedly cool idea (pardon the pun) - will only host 11,000 fans. That's just not feasible.

(Khalifa Stadium's nice though.)

And yes, Japan, South Korea and the USA are all bidding again. God help us.

Of course it would be short-sighted to suggest only the best of the best footballing nations should host the World Cup. It is important to give these smaller teams the chance to improve their sporting prowess as well as their infrastucture (look at the Italian rugby team improving since the Six Nations). But surely one prerequisite should be that they're good at football. What's the point letting Indonesia host the tournament if they're just going to be humiliated in every match?

It is no longer about the football. It's about the money. Good for a country's infrastructure and development, yes, but not so much for fans all over the world.

Shame.

Ronaldo to Real, eh? And Kaka too. Not to mention Manchester City signing Gareth Barry. But did you hear about Burnley snapping up Tyrone Mears from Derby?

Watching the big-money buying antics of Real Madrid certainly provides some entertainment for the long summer football-less months, but the fun is short-lived. The real fascination comes in watching the teams without silly money scrape together their back-of-the-sofa coppers to buy Aberdeen's reserve left-back. Why? Because these teams need value for money, and there's a great game to be had, both for the clubs and for those of us watching, in predicting who can provide it; the player who not only helps the club to win matches, but at a cut-price rate.

Which is why it's most interesting at the moment to watch Burnley, Birmingham and Wolves – those teams newly promoted to the Premier League. Even though we're some 37 days (and impatiently counting) from the opening weekend, you can tell a lot from the way a club will go about its top-flight adventure by its close-season purchases.

Look at Derby two years ago, for example. With a notably weak squad, they hardly ventured beyond the High Street, with perpetual Welsh disappointment Robbie Earnshaw the only major signing. There was never any ambition. Famously, the Rams were relegated as early as March, and finished the season with a League record low of 11 points.

At the same time, Sunderland sought to reaffirm their place in the top flight with a spending spree, including Craig Gordon (£9 million), Michael Chopra (£5m) and Kenwyne Jones (£6m plus Stern John on an exchange deal). The Black Cats survived the drop.

But despite Sunderland's successful dealings that year, it's not all about spending a lot of money; it's about spending wisely. Hull went bargain basement this time last year, getting players on loan and free transfers, and enjoyed an incredible start to the season – and even if it did go a bit pear-shaped after that, they still stayed up.

So which of our new teams this year are shaping up well in the transfer market? Let's take a look at their chequebook stubs.

BURNLEY

Preparing for their first outing in the Premier League, the Clarets have been relatively quiet in the market to date. Only three players have made their way to Turf Moor so far this summer, as manager Owen Coyle chooses to keep faith with the team that won the Championship play-offs.

Burnley have, however, paid a club record transfer fee to bring Scottish striker Steven Fletcher from Hibernian for £3m.

Potential bargain: David Edgar. The 22-year-old Canadian defender was sent off on the last day of the season as Newcastle succumbed to relegation, but he received praise from Kevin Keegan and Glenn Roeder and was named man of the match in a 2-2 draw against Manchester United.

Potential turkey: Steven Fletcher. Can Fletcher live up to the pressure of being Burnley's most expensive ever signing? Hibs legend Keith Wright openly questioning whether he is ready for the best league in the world won't help his confidence.

WOLVES

Last year's second-flight champions have been very busy, signing six players. Most promisingly, they've broken the bank on Kevin Doyle, paying Reading, who bought him for just £78,000 four years ago, a reported £6m for his services – a Wolves club record. Reading team mate Marcus Hahnemann has also arrived on a free.

Potential bargain: Nenad Milijaš. Voted Most Valuable Player in the Serbian Superliga last year after 37 goals in 97 appearances for Red Star Belgrade, Milijaš has also scored twice in ten matches for Serbia. And he's a midfielder.

Potential turkey: Ronald Zubar. The former France Under-21 and Guadeloupe international incurred the wrath of Marseille fans after some costly defensive errors. Three million Euros may be too big a fee.

BIRMINGHAM

With more money to spend than their promotion buddies, Birmingham have sought to shore up their defence with some big-name Championship purchases. Roger Johnson, Cardiff player of the year for two years running, has arrived at St Andrews for £5m, joined by 22-year-old Coventry captain Scott Dann for a reported £3.5m, rising to £4m.

Potential bargain: Joe Hart. One of England's best 'keepers on a season-long loan? Yes please.

Potential turkey: Lee Bowyer. Bowyer came on a free transfer, so at least he won't be an expensive letdown, but is he still good enough to play at this level? The jury's out on that one.

Do you think, after such sports-related injuries as tennis elbow, runner's knee and PlayStation thumb making their way into medical parlance, we will soon be talking about people suffering from selectors' headache?

If so, Geoff Miller and his cohorts must have been fighting over the Paracetamol yesterday, when they met to decide upon a final 13-man squad for the first Ashes Test against Australia (here it is, by the way). They probably weren't helped by the utterly insane run chase undertaken by Peter Trego and Somerset. Even though the 13-man squad can be changed for future matches, it can't have been an easy decision.

It can't have been easy, for example, to leave Steve Harmison out of the side. He bowled superbly for the England Lions in Australia's warm-up game, hurrying the batsmen with his pace and bounce and exposing some real flaws in the famously unorthodox technique of opener Phillip Hughes, dismissing him twice for seven and eight respectively. He bowled brilliantly, just as we all knew he could, but in the effective shootout between Harmison and Durham team mate Graham Onions, who also bowled well, Onions got the nod.

Ricky Ponting spoke out against Harmison's omission, but perhaps oversold him a touch. "He bowls at over 90mph," said Ponting, "and with his height, it's a pretty handy package." The thing is, though, Harmison doesn't bowl at over 90mph - not any more. And when he's not at his best, he's at risk of looking tame.

The 13-man squad is, as Aggers has smartly noticed, a balanced one, with flexibility allowing different selections depending on the conditions. If it's overcast, Onions will take the ball alongside Broad, Flintoff and Jimmy Anderson, with Graeme Swann likely to be the lone spinner, but given Sophia Gardens' - sorry, the Swalec Stadium's - aptitude for spin, it's likely that England will field two spinners, and in the thankful absence of the not-yet-ready Adil Rashid, they will be Swann and Panesar.

The question, of course, is whether Panesar has the nouse to spin out Australia's batsmen. He hasn't developed as well as we would have hoped in the last couple of years, and still sends down stock delivery after stock delivery, like some sort of gravy salesman. Until he learns the importance of variation, he's not going to pose the sort of threat he should.

Australia have a much bigger problem. Their only specialist spinner, Nathan Hauritz, has been very out of touch, and it looks increasingly possible they won't even pick him for the Swalec Stadium Test.

This is surely unthinkable.

The pitch won't just take spin - it will positively demand it. It's no coincidence Glamorgan were fined two points for a "poor" pitch that took too much turn (which naturally didn't help the controversy over the pitch's selection for the first Test). Quite simply, Australia need a specialist spinner, and Hauritz is the only one they have. Michael Clarke and Marcus North are both good quality part-time spinners, but they won't be bowling to take wickets, and I certainly can't see them taking five-fors.

They have to pick Hauritz despite his downturn in form. That's all they can do. Australia's dearth of spinners is good news for England though, especially with the rejuvenated Swann - who, by the way, I have been backing for an international call-up for at least ten years - being the leading Test wicket taker this year. It's enough to make you think Glamorgan's spinfest was picked for reasons other than money.

Maybe not.

I had the chance to listen to Ricky Ponting's press conference yesterday and I was impressed by his combination of honesty and tact. I don't especially like the guy, but it was refreshing to hear one piece of level-headedness in particular.

There was a lot of talk in both Ponting and Strauss' conferences about 'aura', and whether Australia have lost it. Strauss said they had. The Telegraph, and probably numerous other papers as well, splashed this across six pages, most of which were dedicated to calling Strauss a silly boy and telling him to do his talking on the field. Some of these words came from Geoffrey Boycott, who should perhaps heed his own advice and shut the hell up, or at least do the tiniest bit of research before putting his uninformed views to press.

The reason I say this is because Strauss didn't come out with a prepared statement that Australia had lost their aura. He was asked whether he thought they had, and said yes. Which is true. They have. He also made it clear that this was in no way an insult to the Australian team; merely an inevitable consequence of the players being so new to Test cricket. The 'offending' statement can be seen on video here.

The point is that Strauss was only answering a question, not making a statment of his own. That's not arrogant, or foolish. It's honest. And yes, they do differ sometimes.

So where does Ponting come into this? Because he was asked four or five questions about what Strauss said, and after answering straight questions with straight answers - such as saying England didn't have an aura themselves, a statement he only made when asked that specific question - he questioned the context of Strauss' statement.

Was Strauss asked a direct question about Australia's lack of aura, he asked? Yes, he was told. Well, Ponting said, we can't take that out of context then, can we? He was just answering a question. We all have to do that. You have to be careful: the press will blow things out of proportion.

And he was right.

---

Don't forget to look for live updates from the Test match on inthenews.co.uk.

England's Test and one-day squads to tour South Africa clearly show the selectors taking everything into account. They have one eye firmly on the future, looking to develop younger players. They have one eye on the past, looking at previous tourists ready for an England recall. And they have one eye on the present, glued to this season's performances in the County Championship. We're talking three eyes here, all looking in different directions.

Which may explain why the selectors seem to have lost sight of their objectives. There's no doubting that the Test squad for this tour represents a monumental shake-up, with new players being brought in and what is perceived as chaff being ruthlessly chucked away. Oh yes, you won't see any aging Test match failures in this squad. You won't see any Ian Bells, any Paul Collingwoods, any... oh.

Yes, the under- and overachiever, the gruesome twosome, the most painful partnership you'll ever have to watch, continue to hold down Test places in spite of their increasing years and decreasing contributions. Hold on, you might say – Bell scored two 50s in the Ashes. Yes, but he's still a top-level bottler of the same ilk as Hick and Ramprakash who is terrified of taking responsibility in a batting order. Well, hold on yet further, you might add – Collingwood saved our skin in Cardiff and was one of the highest run-scorers in the recent ICC Champions Trophy. He also did nothing for the rest of the Ashes, and one-day form is no indicator of Test match ability.

Which brings me onto Luke Wright. The Sussex slogger is by far and away the most baffling, absurd and ire-inducing inclusion in the 16-man Test squad. I almost feel sorry for him, because I think the whole thing is a joke that's gone on for too long and one day he'll realise he's been played for a sap.

The simple fact of the matter is that Luke Wright is not an international cricketer, and certainly isn't anywhere near good enough to play at Test level. He can slog the ball, but no better than your average blacksmith (Ian Blackwell ahoy), and he can – apparently – bowl, although all evidence to the contrary suggests it's a miracle he makes it to the crease without falling over. But he is, to all extents and purposes, a club cricketer with big arms. National selector Geoff Miller said they don't see Wright as "a like-for-like replacement" for Andrew Flintoff. Damn right he isn't. Flintoff could play cricket.

Coming to a Test match near you

Ravi Bopara, meanwhile, has been given the boot after one poor series, in which he arguably batted in the wrong position (he's a middle-order Test batsman, not a number three). His immediate omission from both the Test and one-day squads is a travesty. Still, he's young and highly talented, so I have faith he'll bounce back.

The same, sadly, can't be said of Owais Shah, one of the great talents of late never to fill his boots. Told he had four games in the Champions Trophy to save his place, Shah duly hit 44 and 98 against the two best bowling line-ups in the world, including a matchwinning knock against South Africa. It was too late. He was always going to be dropped. He's been lied to.

He's not the only one. Steve Harmison's omission is understandable, but the selectors haven't been straight with him. They at least owe him an explanation. You're past it. You're no good away from home. Hearing you crying into your pillow about how much you miss Freddie might disturb the younger players. But instead of an excuse Geoff Miller provided a lie – that he's not been consistent this season. Harmison took 51 Championship wickets at 22 runs apiece (Liam Plunkett took 49 at 24).

Ah yes, Plunkett: the man on form. The selectors' one eye on this year's County Championship averages fittingly lacks depth perception, failing to see that Plunkett doesn't have the tactical nouse to think out a world-class batsman on a flat wicket. As for Sajid Mahmood coming back into the frame, well – we've slipped back in time. Mahmood and Plunkett last played for England in 2007, alongside Hoggard, Harmy and a plucky Chris Tremlett, not to mention Monty Panesar, then being hailed as a future world-beater (interesting to see how that turned out).

Undoubtedly, the squads could be worse. It's encouraging to see Adil Rashid picked over Panesar, and Jonathan Trott's inclusion in the one-day squad is a long overdue one, even if it does represent a cost-cutting measure whereby players stay at their parents' houses (a quarter of England's squad was born in South Africa).

But the inclusion of previous disappointments Mahmood and Plunkett suggests we've gone one step forward, but two years back in time.

Someone, somewhere, needs to work out the Duckworth-Lewis rule and explain it to people before using it.

The West Indies are the latest team to lose out as a result of confusion, having accepted the offer to go off for bad light, thinking they were ahead of the rate. It turned out they weren't, and England won by one run. Completely unfair on the Windies, of course, who weren't even being naïve but were operating under a different set of rules.

Another game ruined.

The bigger question for me, though, is why they went off in the first place. 27 needed to win from 22 balls? 3 wickets left? Game on. It'd have to be pitch black to call that one off in my mind. And for the sake of 3 1/2 overs, you really do think they could have played on in the supposed gloom.

Officials need to either think up a simpler alternative to the Duckworth-Lewis system or explain it to teams more clearly, and umpires really need to think about what constitutes sufficient bad light to end a day's play. A cricket match shouldn't end abruptly because it's a little murky.

Manchester United 3-2 Bayern Munich (agg 4-4) (Bayern Munich win on away goals)

The first time in four years there haven't been three English teams in the Champions League semi-finals.

The first time in four years there haven't been two English teams in the Champions League semi-finals.

The first time in seven years an English team hasn't been in a Champions League semi-final.

Well, at least people will stop talking about how, Barcelona aside, English teams put their European rivals to shame.

As for Ferguson after the game, I could rant about how disgraceful a human being he is, but instead I'll just remind how Manchester United are the worst culprits for crowding around a referee to get a man sent off and when Bayern Munich do it, his response is "Typical Germans."

The man's an arse.

What a week of European football. Controversial goals, controversial free kicks, controversial controversy. Also, inside sources reveal some English bloke played for Milan against Manchester United, but goodness knows why they think that’s important.

Nope, it’s the Premier League that’s really intriguing me, and specifically the chat about a fourth-place play-off for that final Champions League spot. Is it a good idea?

In short, no. Shorter, N. The only way I could making this even briefer would be to punch the original exponent of the idea in the face.

Putting aside the argument that 38 games should be enough to decide the standings without the need for a play-off, it’s utterly ridiculous that a team finishing seventh, potentially some 20 points behind fourth, could play in the damn CHAMPIONS LEAGUE. It’s absurd enough that a team finishing fourth can. At least change the name of the tournament to ‘The Also-Rans Midweek Kickabout’ or something.

The play-off idea really might happen. For it to go any further, 14 of the league’s 20 teams need to back the idea, which is interesting considering 14 of the league’s 20 teams won’t be in any way affected. Predictably, those in favour include Martin O’Neill (Aston Villa are seventh) and those against include Rafa Benitez and Arsene Wenger (Liverpool fifth; Arsenal third).

It seems almost too obvious that the final spot shouldn’t go to fourth at all but the FA Cup winners, opening the race for a Champions League place wider than a play-off would and giving the tournament more importance. Hell, play tiddlywinks for the spot if you have to. Just don’t give it to fourth.

None of the contenders even want fourth, it seems. The best teams drop points now and then, but even as a fan you have to ask the question: based on this season, do any of Liverpool, Manchester City, Spurs or Aston Villa really deserve to rank alongside Europe’s league champions? Really?

I try to avoid self-publicising on this blog (well, apart from the About Me section, obviously), but I would like to point people towards this - my weekly Premier League predictions blog on fourfourtwo.com.

This week I let the predictions become a thinly-veiled attack on a certain French footballer (which, if this is anything to go by, is a nice way of putting it (nasty words within)).

So... yeah.

So, tomorrow's football.

For those caring less about England's friendly with Brazil and more about a game that actually matters, the eyes will presumably be swivelling towards the first leg of Europe's final World Cup qualifiers, and specifically Ireland vs France. Can the Irish overcome the former world champions to reach the finals in South Africa? Was it right for the play-offs to be seeded so they had such a tough game? And is there any basis of truth in this exchange at all?

Elsewhere in Europe, Ronaldo's Portugal have a tricky encounter against Bosnia-Herzegovina, erstwhile European champs Greece look to restore some pride against the Ukraine and Russia take on Slovenia.

But to be honest, I don't care. Because tomorrow, World Cup history could be made in a completely different part of the world. So does anyone know a pub anywhere in the UK that will be showing Togo vs Gabon?

After an epic two-year tournament, the African qualifying stages come to an end tomorrow with a flurry of teams trying to book a last-minute berth. Some of the big names are through (Ghana; Cote d'Ivoire); some are not (Nigeria and Egypt both need to win and hope results go their way).

The biggest fixtures, though, come in Group A - the Group Of Death.

Only one of the group's four teams can make the World Cup Finals, and three qualify for the African Cup of Nations. So when Gabon, a medium-sized west African country with around a million and a half inhabitants, none of whom have played in the World Cup Finals before, drew in their group Cameroon (featuring Samuel Eto'o, traditionally Africa's best team), Tunisia (regular qualifiers) and Togo (uh, Emmanuel Adebayor), it's fair to say they had the shortest odds on making neither tournament.

But amazingly, Gabon have a real chance. A chance to stop the likes of Samuel Eto'o and Alexandre Song playing on the world's biggest stage. A chance to stop Morocco even playing in the relatively minor African Cup of Nations.

A chance for this group of amateurs and semi-pros, whose most well-known player is probably Daniel Cousins of Hull, to play in the World Cup Finals for the very first time.

All the Black Panthers need to do is to beat Togo - which they did 3-0 at home - and hope Cameroon manage only a draw away to a Morocco team they couldn't beat on home turf. Gabon may need a result to go their way, but success is within their grasp.

So if you see me in a pub in Portsmouth tomorrow only keeping an idle eye on the England or Ireland game while frantically refreshing my phone's internet browser, you'll know why. I'll be keeping tabs on a team on the brink of making history.

Thanks to the exploits of a certain Adil Rashid and a slightly less certain Ryan Sidebottom, it was an exciting finish to the first one-day international between England and Australia at the Oval – but let's get one thing clear.

This one-day international was not the Ashes. In fact, it was nowhere near the Ashes. If the Ashes series this year was a rollercoaster ride of emotion and Hollywood heroics, this match was a broken ghost train on Blackpool Pier.

The fact of the matter is that the first of this autumn's seven-match series was a poor, unexciting match for the spectator from start to (about ten overs before) the finish.

Many people can be blamed for this: Messrs Collingwood, Bopara and Clarke for a start, all mistiming the ball and scoring at a rate to make Geoffrey Boycott impatient. But if we're talking anticlimaxes, we have to point the finger at the tour's schedulers.

Up until now, the one-day internationals have always been played prior to the Ashes Test series, and that's absolutely the way it should be. An Ashes summer is all about that treasured urn, and so the fight for it should be left until last. You don't get it out the way; you build up to it, and treasure it like that last Rolo.

The problem is that schedulers, apparently knowing little about the game, seem to automatically assume the shorter form of the game is more exciting for spectators. It was decided long ago by these people that when it comes to cricket formats, shorter is better - like a genetic engineering maverick cheating at a limbo competition.

But they are forgetting this is England vs Australia, a cricketing rivalry older than time, and fans don't want to see one-day thumb wars; they want to see epic five-day battles between two mighty opposing armies.

The schedulers are, in fact, guilty of underestimating or even patronising the fans. Despite how it may often appear, even the Barmy Army know their cricket, and appreciate a gritty battle for domination as much as anyone. It may seem surprising at first but they're more interested in England grinding out a difficult last session than playing and missing at medium-pacers in bright yellow jumpsuits – and that's why attendances for international 50-over games are on the wane.

It is true that Twenty20 continues to thrive. But the 40- and 50-over formats are struggling, and needed a confidence boost from the ECB a month or so ago when they confirmed the existence of a Sunday League for all counties next season, to stay alive. The reason seems to be that 40- and 50-over games strike an unhappy medium: neither drawn-out tactical battles or 20-over slogfests, they take up a whole day and often end in a massive anti-climax (albeit not in this game, admittedly).

For the schedulers to end this Ashes summer with a 50-over competition, and one dragged out to a yawn-inducing seven matches as well, was a thoughtless mistake. Does anyone really care once the Ashes have been won or lost (and think what the ODI crowds would be like had England lost)? It's a question that needs to be asked. Playing the one-dayers before the Test series whets the appetite - playing them after is a bloated dessert nobody can stomach, let alone finish.

It also seems that if the schedulers do know little about the game, they know even less about the British weather. It may be that they wanted the Test series to be played earlier in the summer so they would be least affected by rain – a noble pursuit, but one that almost seems to contradict nature and the history of cricket.

But why has the one-day series been arranged so that the matches move gradually northwards? After the first four matches take place in London and Southampton, the series moves on to Nottingham and finally Durham, deep, by that point, into September. The likelihood of these games being rained off increases exponentially with every day and every mile.

All in all, it's a crazy cricketing summer – but perhaps not for the right reasons.