The magic of the FA Cup

This morning I got up and decided to peruse the television channels, and was excited to see that ESPN was showing a live FA cup game: the replay between Middlesbrough against Bristol City. I had tuned in at the start of the second half and Bristol City had a 1-0 lead.

I love watching the FA cup. Especially when it's a Premiership team pitting its wits against a team a couple of divisions below. Middlesbrough are 12th in the Premier League and Bristol City 5th in League 1 (37 places below). And what I saw was a team who fought hard for every ball, a team encamped in their own half doggedly defending, and a team who could counterattack well. In short, I was impressed.

If you don't understand the prestige, the passion and the beauty of the FA cup you would probably wonder how it was even possible. But year after year there are shocks as the underdogs pull off mighty victories, or at least come agonisingly close. I love watching those games. Like a few years back when David Seaman of Arsenal pulled off what is possibly my most favourite save of all time against Sheffield United of the division below. The ball seemed destined for the net but somehow Seaman's big hand prevented it from crossing the line.

Shocks are a part and parcel. So are the romantic images they conjure up. The FA cup is a magical competition.

Today is Valentines Day, and so I was hoping that little known Bristol City of the West Country could add yet more magic to footballing folklore. But then Mark Viduka headed home a Downing cross from close range, and so it was 1-1. They then came close on two occasions of taking the lead as first. Downing's shot hit the base of the post, and Adam Johnson (formerly on loan to Leeds this season, doh!) crashed a long range effort into the cross bar.

And then it was extra time. Yakubu was brought down in the box and had the perfect opportunity from the penalty spot: but one of the poorest penalties you'd ever see was saved. Was it going to be little old Bristol City's day? But then Yakubu scored from close range...surely it was all over? Then with only a couple of minutes left and I was pumping in the air in a short fit of underdog excitement. McCombe turned home a cross leaving Bristol City in delirium.

3 and a half hours after the start of their locking horns and the sides were effectively level at 4-4 with penalties to decide the winner. Penalties were being taken, and at 4-4 in penalties it looked odds on that Yakubu would put his earlier miss behind him, take the last penalty, and send Boro into the 6th round. Instead he hit the post!!!! Sudden Death!!!! Mark Schwarzer pulled off his second great penalty save, proving his heroics for Australia against Uruguay in qualifying for the world cup were no one off. Then 19 year old Adam Johnson stepped up with no fear, and sent the hearts of little old Bristol City crashing to the floor.

But what a magnificent match. And what a magnificent advent for the cup. This is what it is all about. This is what makes football all worth while. The showponies and largesse of the premiership almost brought down to size. An exciting start to the day. Pity the underdog couldn't quite pull through!

Our World Cup Squad:

The Black Caps squad for the world cup has been announced:

Stephen Fleming (c)

Shane Bond

James Franklin

Peter Fulton *

Mark Gillespie

Michael Mason *

Brendon McCullum

Craig McMillan

Jacob Oram
Jeetan Patel

Scott Styris

Ross Taylor

Daryl Tuffey

Daniel Vettori

Lou Vincent

* Fulton and Mason have not been included in the Chappell Hadlee series and will be available for their respective provinces.

It's about what was expected - apart from the shock inclusion of Darryl Tuffey. The rationale from Bracewell is that he is the perfect replacement for Kyle Mills because he can swing the ball away from the right hander and has been in good domestic form. He's certainly a preferable option to Adams who I believe is really not up to the rigours of international bowling. Yes he used to have the x factor of having the happy knack of taking wickets but he's erratic and generally shows poor line and length. Who are the other options? There is Chris Martin who is not suited to one day cricket. Then there is Chris Harris who could be useful on the slow West Indies pitches and has been in great form for Canterbury. Unfortunately international teams are well used to his style of bowling and thus he holds little danger to them. He would have the advantage though of strengthening the squad's batting depth. Still, overall, I believe Harris to be the past - though I'm not sure that Tuffey is the future!

Is it right that they only have one batsman as backup? Given that bowlers are the ones to break down more often it's probably a wise move. But one backup is kind of light. Having said that if we have a couple of injuries/loss of form the likes of Vettori and Franklin can go up the order to take their place. What of McMillan over Marshall? I think that's the correct decision. The only thing that would tempt me to take a Marshall (and it would be Hamish), is his ability in the field. McMillan has shown in the CB series that he is worth his place. Just as Lou Vincent has proved me wrong to a certain extent, and started getting some consistently reasonable scores.

I also hope that Fulton's exclusion from the Chappel-Hadlee is not an indication that he will not be starting at the world cup. We need Fulton's classy brand of cricket, and Fulton does need game time.

I hope that New Zealand stop's its obsession with hitting boundaries and realises a high run rate can be made up of lots of singles and twos. It's one area we have always seemed to lack in, and it's high time we started improving in this area.

And before I finish my post I just want to scream three words: ASTLE ASTLE ASTLE! Why has everybody stopped talking about his decision to retire? It was on the tip of everyone's tongue for a sum total of about 3 hours and then it was forgotten. Why retire in the middle of the series? Why not have the world cup as a swansong? Was he pushed out? Is he bitter with Bracewell? Is he making a point against the rotation policy? Or was he purely and simply just fed up with cricket? I don't really know but I sure as hell wish people would talk about him more. Oh well I'll just go back to daydreaming about his swashbuckling 222 in the test match against England a few years back!

Cellphones and Children.

Cellphones are wonderful technological devices. They allow instant communication via text messages and phone calls. And the newfangled ones can even take photos and videos. They are indeed a device that could be said to have revolutionised the modern world.

But they are also very dangerous, especially in the hands of children.

In some ways it is good that teenagers have cellphones. Parents can see their kids go off to parties in the knowledge that the simple 30 second process of their son or daughter writing a text can let the parents know that she or he is ready to be picked up. In other words communication between parent and child of where exactly both are, how much longer they will be etc is much improved.

That's the main advantage, but it's pretty impossible to force a child to only use a cellphone to talk to their mum or dad, and that's where the potential dangers lie.

Often a sixteen or seventeen year old child can be bored and decide to send a random text to a random number. Don't believe me? I have anecdotal evidence that it happens all the time. My mate in Auckland received a series of texts from what turned out to be a bored and pregnant 16 year old girl. In the weekends with what was then free vodaphone to vodaphone texting he would receive a barrage of texts saying "what are u up 2?", "why won't u talk 2 me", "I'm watching NZ idol", "do u hav a bf?" etc. He responded to a few out of vague curiosity but soon became annoyed with the incessant texts, giving her the cellphone number of two others on vodaphone, who then became the recipient of these frequent messages. I myself once had a text from someone professing to be a bored 17yr old girl in the South Island.

My point here is that random texts can go to anyone: a grandmother walking her dog, a paedophile, just anyone. People with sinister motives could easily take advantage of the situation. Starting off just sounding friendly, to meeting up, to being kidnapped. And these youngsters are probably too naive to even think of the consequences of sending off a bored random text. And it's not just 16 or 17 year olds who might be doing this - it's whoever has a cellphone. And that may mean anyone over the age of about six.

Which leads me to my next point. It is patently ridiculous that children as young as 6,7,8,9,10,11,12 have cellphones. Why would they need one? It's taking away the control of parents, it's giving them a tool that can easily be manipulated to others sinister uses. And it has brought about the advent of cellphone bullying at school. And these bullies can even hide behind anonymous numbers. It's easier for parents to monitor their kids on the Internet than it is on a cellphone.

Not to mention the harmful biological effects of cellphone use. A harm that is apparently a lot worse to children. Starting off with a cellphone in your pocket at the age of 8, and continuing through the rest of your life, can lead to problems such as infertility. The penetration of radio waves into the brain can lead to poorer concentration and memory. There are a ridiculous number of diseases or syndromes that children are at higher risk of developing simply because they want to use a cellphone. Most often choosing to do so for the sad fact that it is a fashion accessory, they think they look cool with a cellphone in their hands.

Finally, what about the costs accrued by the children or their family? First of all there's the cellphone itself, and whilst some have the basic no flaws kind there are many 12 year olds out there with swanky expensive ones. A lot better than my simple device. And they don't even need a phone let alone one that can make videos! Then there's the text messages, the phone calls etc. Some children spend crazy sums of money on using their phone. No wonder they end up getting part-time jobs too early in life. Missing out on the simple pleasures of childhood in order to finance the cellphones they don't need, and which are harming them. I once watched on TV about how this youngster aged about 16, who should have known better, racked up a bill into the thousands of dollars for one month's usage. The parents had been stupid enough to think that particular plan would be the cheapest - instead they were looking at a huge bill. The kid had downloaded vast quantities from the internet and the parents had the temerity to suggest it was the fault of the phone company for not informing them of every single charge every step of the way. I'm sorry parents but it's your own fault. You should never have let the kid use the phone to go on the internet! Even now, I only spend between $10 and $15 on my phone per month. $10 on 500 texts which I normally just avoid going over. And perhaps a couple of dollars on checking voicemail or making a quick urgent call. Many of these children are spending a lot more than me.

Cellphones with young children is another sad indictment on society in our self obsessed world. Parents need to realise the many societal, biological and financial harms they inflict, and take a good hard look at not allowing a child to have a cellphone until a certain suitable age (14?). And also looking to minimise their use.

I didn't have a cellphone until I was 2nd or 3rd year uni which was significantly later than most, and now I use it all the time, but they were never as prevalent among youngsters as they are today. It would be nice if children reclaimed their childhood and they or their parents said no to cellphones until at least 16, with the possible exception of urgent communication.

Bridlington Town

I'm originally from a farm just outside the town Bridlington (Brid) in England. Andrew Falloon has been asking who is actually my local football team. Bridlington Town I told him. Somewhere in the lower levels of the English football pyramid. Upon further questioning he realised I knew bugger all about them and he has kindly done some research for me :)

Apparently the 'Seasiders' are in the eighth tier of English Football. A pyramid that looks something like this:

(1) Premiership

(2) Championship

(3) League 1

(4) League 2

Then below that:

We, Bridlington Town AFC, are currently in the Northern Premier Division One or the eighth tier of the pyramid.

And we are last with only one win under our belts

But that's pretty good considering there are 24 tiers and literally thousands of clubs in the English football pyramid!

The Commonwealth Bank Series.

The other finalist of the Commonwealth Bank Series has at last been found. And unfortunately that team is England. Needing to beat Australia and us in their final two matches (and hoping we failed to beat Australia), all these eventualities have transpired leaving New Zealand with a weaker preparation for the world cup, and the ignominy of going home ahead of what is a pretty average England side.

I've just watched our crucial game with England. And a bitter event it was too. It was a great start from the Black Caps as first Franklin delivered a maiden, and then Bond (after sending down a wide) destroyed Vaughan's stumps with a devastating, swinging delivery, reminiscent of the ball that dismissed Gilchrist back in the VB Series of 2001. But after picking up three reasonably early wickets we allowed Strauss and Collingwood to develop a strong 100+ partnership, both (I think) their top scores throughout the series. From this point on we never seemed to exert enough pressure as Fleming's captaincy, which is often (rightly) so highly praised, did not come to the fore - hindered by some relatively lacklustre bowling and fielding including the unusually weak link Vettori. After the important and potentially decisive dismissal of Flintoff we should have been able to restrict England to a score of 230 or so. Instead we let it drift to 270, including 16 off the final over which left Bond with the still impressive figures of 10-2-46-4!

But the worst aspect of our performance was that we got ourselves into a very dominant position with the bat, only to throw it away. For most of the innings we were clearly on track to win the game, but were guilty of letting ourselves meander through certain stages of the innings when calculated risks were the way to go. Especially as we had the luxury of having seven wickets in hand for the final ten overs - we hadn't made the most of this. For example our first 50 runs came off 6.5 overs, but our 100 wasn't up until 19.3 overs despite the loss of just 1 wicket. We allowed Flintoff and Panesar (admittedly two excellent bowlers) to be all over us, to intimidate us. Right until the last few overs we appeared comfortable but therein lies the problem. When do the Black Caps ever win a game with a fair few overs to spare? They seem to like to do it the hard way. The way that gives us all nervous wrecks. The way that a couple of bad overs and a winning position can become a losing one.

Fleming has to take a lot of the blame. Yes today he scored well for the first time this series, making quick early runs, but he simply lost his way. 106 off 149 is pretty damn pathetic. And this includes the fact that his first 29 were a run a ball, making his remaining 77 a useless strike rate of 64.17. He slowed down to ensure he made his century which was a selfish action, he should be playing for the team rather than his own gratification. He didn't even make up for it after reaching the milestone, a soft dismissal occurring as he finally tried to lift the ante - far too late on in the piece. He was also instrumental in what I perceive to be the game's turning point; the running out of Taylor who was looking good. Perhaps it would even have been better for Fleming to sacrifice himself. It's easy to criticise but Fleming really needs to account for his actions.

The Black Caps also need to think about their batting order, and being more flexible in different situations. Styris did his best out there today, and it wasn't bad, but just back from injury and a slow runner between the wickets, perhaps it would have been better for an in form Jacob Oram to take his slot and try and press home an advantage. Was Fulton the right man at 3 after such a good start. His strategy of slow, steady accumulation before accelerating to the close is better suited to when we are in trouble. Today he could have dropped down to accommodate the exciting Taylor. (It took a lot of guts to say that with Fulton my blue eyed boy from Oxford, just outside View Hill where my folks live, lol!).

Suffice to say today's result angers me. I would have loved to see an exciting finals series between us and Oz. And in a way we deserved to be there after having close losses to Australia in comparison to England's big ones. Yes England beat them - but even that, some are suggesting - could have been Aussie not exactly trying their hardest! We almost chased down 344 against Oz for goodness sake, and probably would have were it not for the rain delay that slowed Oram's momentum. But that's all hypothetical and possibly sour grapes. England are in the final now instead of us; and I'm bitter. But there's still the Chappell-Hadlee series, and of course we'll win the world cup!

Religion

Now that I've decided this blog will take on a new direction, why not begin with the big questions! Is there a God? If so what is he? Are morality and religion inseparable?

My personal perspective is that there is no God. To me we have undergone an evolutionary process over billions of years to where we are today. Experiments replicating plausible pre-biotic conditions, such as the Miller-Urey experiment have shown that organic molecules can be formed from inorganic precursors. Phospholipids can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, ribozymes can be self replicating. Without going into much detail, it is obvious that science continually discovers more and more about how life could originate. The scientific process is a wonderful thing that repeats experiments, undergoes careful methodology, and continually teaches us more and more. Over the years many so-called miracles that have been ascribed to 'God' or some sort of religious intervention have subsequently been explained by science. I believe that science can ultimately prove everything that occurred from the probable "big bang" to where we are today.

To believe in God is to believe in a magical creature. To me it is more feasible that the likes of Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley are part of a wizarding network continually hiding its abilities from the prying muggle world than the idea that there is a God. The idea that someone or something exists outside time and space and metaphorically waves his wand to set Adam and Eve and the snake on their merry incestuous way (creationism) or that he created nature in all its complexity with some kind of purpose in mind (intelligent design) seems as primitive as the idea that the world is flat. Genetics quickly demonstrates the absurdity of religion.

If there is a God I don't like him much. Who would like someone who allows the poverty and famine in the third world? Who allows children killed in unnecessary wars the world over? Who allows the continual pain and suffering of the disabled? The standard answer is that God gives us free will and we can do what we want with it, then he judges each and every one of us either assigning us to heaven or hell (or purgatory). The moralistic non-believer sent to reside in hell alongside the mass murderer. Oh but actually, if that mass murderer happened to repent before he died, he's not even alongside you, he's gone to visit the saints in heaven. Does God think that eternal life in heaven compensates for pain in the real world? And then if there is an afterlife, what is the point of real life? Why don't we all speed up our deaths so we can all have a big reunion in the sky? If there is a God, I seriously don't rate his sense of humour.

I would seriously love to believe in God. To die and yet still have life. To live perpetually in a heaven of wonderful literature, all the people I liked, a few sports games to keep me entertained, and a fantastic lover etc etc would indeed be marvellous. But reality, science and common sense suggests its a load of cobblers. Something to act as a crutch to help people live their life at ease as they have the prospect of heaven to look forward to.

There probably was a great man called Jesus Christ, who lived a saintly life helping people in need. I expect that this then got blown out of all proportions, and now we have a novel called the bible. A novel with some interesting characters like the prophets, a bit of magic, a few parables. All very novelistic.

And which religion is right? Are any of them? Oh and why don't we kill each other to assert that one is better than another.

One question then that we need to ask is: do christians and religious people have a monopoly on morality? The answer is a definitive NO!

Fundamentalists correctly perceive that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society, but they erroneously believe that God is the only possible source of such standards.

The Divine Command Theory argues that the essence of morality is to follow God’s laws. This argument is an attractive one because it makes morality objective, it does not suffer from the foibles of culture and individual choice, of moral relativism. The framework for morals is clear: something is right if God commands it, wrong if God forbids it. The theory also helps explain why anyone would be motivated to behave morally. Implicit in the reasons for behaving morally is the Christian principle that behaving morally, or following God’s rules, will get oneself a place in heaven. But this appeal for heavenly reward subjugates morality to a kind of expediency. The irony is that for the christian acting morally one is looking out for their interests because it gives them a path to heaven, and thus their morality may be superficial.

The next thing you have to look at is: “is conduct right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is right?” In the first case, if conduct is right because God commands it then morality is trivialised as being arbitrary. For example, although God’s command “Though shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13) seems perfectly congenial to humanity, since God is free to establish whatever set of moral principles he chooses, he could just as easily have commanded “Thou shalt kill whoever you dislike”. This belief that God could have chosen an alternative moral code could destroy whatever basis one had for worshipping him; one should not praise him when he could be equally as praiseworthy for doing the contrary. Furthermore, God’s arbitrariness eliminates the logical validity of God being good, because if something is good because God commands it, then God is good because God commands it, an unfortunate tautology.

So does “God command it because it is right”? This presumes a standard of goodness independent from God. In other words, it requires a belief in God as the moral enforcer. In his infinite wisdom God recognises that stealing is wrong, and so he commands everyone not to steal; he sees that adultery is wrong, and so he commands everyone to be faithful. In God’s omniscience, he imparts his wisdom in the form of the scriptures. However, this leads to a new problem, if God is not the author of moral law, then there must be an independent standard of ethics existing outside God’s will, by which he could evaluate rightness and wrongness. Thus, the validity of the theological conception of right and wrong is brought into question.

And regardless, God's laws are riddled with contradictions. He espouses both that: “Thou shalt beat him with rod” and "don’t do what you hate.”

Morality and religion are independent. Everyone has equal access to moral truth. And perhaps socio-biology provides the answer with the idea that moral instincts are contained within our genes and these survive through evolution.

There are many arguments against religion. I have merely touched on a few while I penned this short post. Who out there is going to proffer some opinions on these big questions?

My blog takes a new angle!

This blog shall change from catering to the minority interest of in depth sporting analysis to a blog which shall contain my opinions on anything (including the aforementioned). This will give it a broader interest to everyone. I'm sure that you will all love it, and the more disagreement and debate that gets going the better. I shall endeavour to post 2 or 3 times a week and not to let it slide :)

Let the games commence!

Ashes latest

Well finally another Ashes blog session. The first test proved to be a decisive Aussie victory, England never fought back from dismal bowling performances from Harmison and Anderson. The strangest thing in the first test was the Aussie decision not to enforce the follow on. England had been crushed in the first innings, only lasted a couple of sessions and were miles behind, yet Australia decided to bat again. It was a decision they could have rued. Conceivably the end of the test could have seen England holding on with 9 wickets down and the Aussies praying for extra time. It never eventuated, and the inevitable victory came but the decision was an immensely weird one.

Maybe the Australian Cricket Board wanted them to bat again so that the test would last longer and therefore provide more revenue. Maybe the Aussies didn't want to tire the bowlers, although how bowling a team out in about 2 sessions constitutes getting tired out, goodness only knows.

The second England innings, the afternoon session at least, did provide England with a glimmer of hope for the rest of the summer as both Collingwood and Pieterson made 90's. The only other thing to note was how important Aussie winning the toss seemed to be to the general outcome of the game. All in all though, a very one sided affair in Brisbane --- on to Adelaide.

The second test came and again, much to the chagrin of most cricket nuts, no Monty Panesar! Definitely an example of negativity from an England side lacking in confidence. England did though, after a shaky start, give their fans something to cheer, making 551-6 dec, albeit at a rather slow run rate. Still - it was positive to see England getting the upperhand. Collingwood and Pieterson starring in a magnificent partnership, Collingwood making a double century (206) and Pieterson dismissed for 158, for the third time in his test career! The declaration was made late on day 2, England hadn't really pushed the scoring along but the declaration was a positive mood, in an attempt to look at levelling the series.

But Aussie hit back, easily passing the follow on figure, and finishing up only 38 runs behind after the first innings. It could have been so different had Giles not made a hash of a catch off Ponting, with Ponting continuing on to score another 100+ runs. Hoggard was the hero with 7 wickets. Hoggard is a magnificent bowler who rarely gets the plaudits he deserves. I however rate him very highly, and it's lovely to see a Yorkshireman do well! At the end of the second day the Poms were smiling, especially after picking up an early wicket before stumps but of course (as explained above - this didn't last long!).

Going into the final day the most likely result was a draw, England had a lead of 80 or so runs with 9 wickets in hand. However on the last day, a combination of negative cricket which involved looking to survive rather than score runs, and a rejuvenated Shane Warne (as well as an early dodgy decision by the umpire against Strauss) - conspired to make England have a dismal collapse, and fold to give Aussie a straightforward run chase, and a six wicket win. The about-face which occurred was nothing short of incredible leading many to call the match as one of the biggest turnarounds in cricket, with the likes of Warne and Ponting calling it "the best ever test match".

So with a 2-0 lead to Aussie, England require 2 wins and a draw from the last 3 tests to level the series and retain the ashes. About as likely as the Pope renouncing his Catholicism.

But never say never!

Let's see what Monty can do (or have we billed him up too much?)

Ashes: Test 1 Day 1:

Aussies majorly on top. Great toss for them to win especially as they will have Warne bowling in the last innings. 300 + losing only 3 wickets...they could be on for 600...

The Ashes

Don't worry: part 2 of Leeds current state is coming soon but I must quickly mention the Ashes before it starts in earnest tomorrow.

The Ashes has been built up and built up. The tension is mounting...but will it be an anti-climax? Surely there will be entertainment, intriguing battles, intensity, classic commentary calls and high quality cricket, but in Australia, with them smarting from last time out, and with a quick look at their squad - it's hard to see past Australia (fresh from a virgin ICC Champions Trophy win in an anti-climactical final) obtaining the coveted urn.

One thing's for sure - I'll be glued to that TV as much as I can!

The key men are Ponting, Hussey, Lee, Warne, Flintoff and Pieterson in my view.

Anyway - forgive the bad grammar in this post and join me in saying: "bring it on"!

Leeds Current State Part 1

Well I rarely post these days despite there being many things to say about many things. I am making this post at the request of Michael Nemman who asked me to make a post on what is happening at Leeds. Maybe he just wants to send me further into the abyss! Anyway- this is just for you Michael: my sole blog reader lol.

It'll be quite short too. I can't be bothered writing as much as the topic deserves!

Leeds United: Play off finalists to relegation dwellers. How the tides have changed. Why has it happened, and what about the future?

Part 1

The first point that must be noted is that Leeds had a very average end of last season, meaning that any realistic chance we had of catching Sheff Utd up for the automatic promotion place was scuppered pretty quick. We were in too strong a position from earlier in the season to miss out on the playoffs though. Kevin Blackwell had proved the previous season that he was not very good when it came to the home straight. We did manage to get the 'job done' in the Semis against Preston but the NZ televised final was abysmal. Despite having high calibre strikers Hulse, Healy, Blake, Cresswell (suspended) we played one man up front (Hulse) and packed the midfield with 5 men, mainly defensive minded. Blackwell decided that with Butler back from injury, and Crainey (leftback) suspended - to put Butts in central defence with Gregan and put Killa on the left. So to accommodate Butler who is average we had to put our best defender at leftback, and play the two old men in central defence together. Madness. We were shellshocked. Our tactics were far too defensive, and were well beaten by a fresh, hungry Watford we had out-performed earlier in the season, and managed by Aidy Boothroyd, who had been Blackwell's right hand man until he left for down south. Hulse had no service. He had been scoring infrequently during the second half of the season, some said he was carrying an injury but it certainly wasn't helped by a lack of service from midfield.

So post playoff final blues carried on into next season. We have had our worst ever start to a season. What happened.

Had our squad been severely weakened? No.

We had lost the quality Hulse to Sheff Utd for a profit, but we still had the quality Healy, Blake, the relatively new Beckford snatched from the Rymans League and Mooro who few Leeds fans rated. In Midfield we let Douglas and Miller back to the teams who loaned them out (Blackburn Rovers and Man Utd respectively) but neither had set the world alight. We also got in Westlake from Ipswich who had a good reputation and the quality Nicholls from Luton. Stone was back from a season long injury too. Although he was to pick up early injuries.

And in defence we had pretty much a back four we'd played a lot with: Kelly, Butler, Killa, Crainey (Gregan to step in as back up regularly). We had lost Harding, Pugh and Walton but they'd rarely played anyway despite the fact some of them maybe should. Harding we made a loss on after paying over the odds for him in the first place due to tribunal, and Pugh wasn't given enough of a chance and went for a pittance. Walton - local lad - was off for half a mill to Charlton (who promptly loaned him to Ipswich), he'd been played a few times in midfield even though he was really a central defender. But this defence we'd played with a lot became shaky. Crainey has always been castigated by the Elland Road faithful and some blamed him.

We had some close losses and after a poor start Ken Bates acted: sacking Blackwell.

Let's analyse this a little further.

Last season we had had some lucky wins, we had picked up points which suggested we had overachieved. We didn't play as well as our points total suggested. It seemed that this season the luck was being turned on its head. Close wins had become close losses. It seems Blackwell hadn't become useless overnight.

It's all about momentum. We started badly. We got into a malaise. Our confidence was down, our rhythm was affected. Butler was also, it became apparent, a poison. Supposedly our captain he was the main man who created internal ructions in the team. The big incident surrounding a golfing trip but I'm not going to post hearsay here. Let's just say reliable sources point to Butler as a poison. And yet Blackwell loved Butler, always picking him, getting help from him for selections. The Blackwell Butler love-in really affected the team. Blake was heard muttering in public about how we needed a new manager.

I thank Blackwell for what he did. He took a poisoned chalice of a job, worked hard, stabilised us in the first season of relegation, and took us to the playoff final in our second season. He's a good man and I'm grateful for his work. I like the fella. But perhaps he's not right for the manager of Leeds.

His mistakes? The Butler love-in to start with. Also - his love of playing seasoned journeymen. He was always reticent to play the youth and when he did he was too quick to criticise them. He didn't seem to apply the adage: 'if you're old enough you're good enough'. He also lacked some man management skills. And there were certain players he didn't play who we were crying out to play. Matthew Spring hardly had a look in and he went on to play a major role in Watford's successful season and is now succeeding in the Premier League. The same could be said of Marlon King who we loaned from Notts Forest. Also Danny Pugh. And he shot Harding's confidence.

So yes, Blackwell certainly had his flaws but he also had his plusses, namely he'd made a good few signings like Derry. Indications he was more of a coach than a manager.

He also played 4-5-1 a lot. Many fans castigated him for this. They were gagging for 4-4-2. However under John Carver as caretaker manager 4-4-2 didn't work. We may have started with a great 3-2 over Birmingham but then received a few poundings. Perhaps Blackwell was right to play his 4-5-1. We would be tight and we would win more than we lost. Last season we were lucky on a few occasions, this season under Blacky we were unlucky instead. So Carver the new Caretaker Manager failed. He presided over some shocking displays and Bates hand was forced again.

Part two to follow...I need a break from writing this...

Euro 2008

Qualifying starts in earnest tonight.

Can't wait!

There are 7 groups, 6 of them comprising 7 teams, the other group comprising 8. The top two teams in each group will join co-hosts Austria and Switzerland to make up the 16 tournament hopefuls. I just hope for the 'home' nations to do well for once. Wales and Northern Ireland never seem to qualify for a big tournament and it has been a long time between drinks for Scotland. Even the Republic of Ireland haven't had any major tournaments to look forward to since World Cup 2002. Trouble is they're in some very tough groups. Republic of Ireland and Wales share the same group with Germany and the Czech Republic, Scotland have France, Italy and the Ukraine to contend with, and Northern Ireland have Denmark, Spain, Sweden and Latvia. Even England are not a shoo-in with difficult games against Croatia, Israel and Russia in prospect.

The Euro 2008 Official site is a magical site. Check out all the groups there, all the info you could ever need to know, it's as addictive as the World Cup official site!

And most of all, cheer on the Republic of Ireland against the Germans at 6:30am Sunday morning, (3/9), ESPN. Be there or be square!

Tevez to West Ham?

Don't tell me this is true. What would that footballing genius want to do at the (S)Hammers? Only a second season back up in the prem and maybe getting Tevez and Mascherano. Unbelievable if true!

Well a busy transfer window about to come to an abrupt halt. Jonathan Douglas coming back to Leeds this time on a permanent deal. Doesn't fill me with huge excitement but not a bad squad player. Will have to be a first time regular for a while I imagine, what with the state of our midfield. Hopefully Killa will be staying put. And where's the loan goalie we need, sending back Warner is bad news but apparently his wages were too high for us...

Well I'm editing this now a couple of days later to say YES it has happened. I think there's something fishy going on. MSI owned Corinthians their former club (the reason this broke club could have great players in the first place). It is rumoured that Abramovich is the money man behind MSI and so he set off the chain of events to prevent Tevez and Mascerano making their way to Man Utd or Arsenal, bring them to London to acclimatise and see if they're worth taking off West Ham's hands at the start of next season (Mascherano would make a perfect replacement for Makelele). How else could West Ham afford their so called "undisclosed fee" as they are worth much upwards of 30 million pounds in combination. The other thing to note is that MSI are attempting a takeover at West Ham, so perhaps this is something to do with that. Whatever the reasons - there is something fishy going on!

The depressing reality.

Leeds United: 4 points 4 games.

3 games in a row we concede in the last 7 minutes (2 of those in injury time) to salvage QPR a draw and hand victories to Palace and Cardiff.

Our major signing of the summer Kevin Nicholls hasn't yet played a game because he suffered an injury in pre-season and will be out for roughly 3 months.

Steve Stone starts our first four games and is the one to demonstrate the creativity that we need. Result? He's now crocked and will be out for about 3 months.

Horsfield, the target man we bring in on loan because Cresswell is out for the first couple of months got himself sent off against Palace after only 15 minutes and is now serving a 4 match ban.

Our ins and outs over the summer have been modest. Westlake has come in from Ipswich with Harding and cash going in the opposite direction. He seems like a decent player. Carole from Brighton also looks lively. We sell Hulse for a profit, and he goes and scores in Sheff Utd's opening game of the Prem season against FA Cup holders Liverpool. Warner has been in goal, on loan because Sully has a dead leg and has made some important saves. And yes we got rid of some deadweights.

After making the play-off final last season. After being 90 minutes away from the premiership latte sipping showponies...we are back in the Championship mire.

Supposedly we have played quite well in most of our games. Last season some of our fans considered us lucky to have made the playoffs after playing badly. Well I'd sure prefer that scenario.

We have too many key men injured. We are lacking a cutting edge in front of goal. We are making basic mistakes in defence in the dying minutes after defending admirably up to that point. These often from our so-called star Matthew Kilgallon we are all so desperate to hold onto.

Oh well, at least we beat Chester in the league cup.

Roll on Sheffield Wednesday and no doubt another depressing afternoon.

The Length of My World Cup Blog

Was approximately 36 000, yes that's right, THIRTY SIX THOUSAND words!

That's quite a marathon methinks! Something to look back on in years to come though. Who needs to buy a book on World Cup 06 when you've got the William Fussdogg blog lol!

Italians Delight!

Well it is just over a week since the World Cup ended, and so I will write my belated summary of the final. I am just about getting over the fact that I will have to wait another 4 years till the next one. Instead I must concentrate on the upcoming football season and trust that my beloved Leeds United can regain their place back in football's elite where they belong (although I do so in great faith rather than expectation!) , hopefully we don't suffer too much of a hangover from our devastating loss to Elton John's lovers in May! It is sad as always that the World Cup is over.

Italy 1-1 France, 1-1 a.e.t, 5-3 PSO

The match began in an enthralling, exciting fashion, with the potential to make farcical some critics comments that we were in for a dour affair. The first point to note was worries that Henry would have to be replaced as he looked in some pain after only a minute or so, however he managed to shake the injury off. After only 7 minutes referee Elizondo, who didn't endear himself to some English fans by sending off Rooney in that fateful game, adjudged that Materazzi had fouled Malouda in the box, and pointed to the penalty spot. The decision was a bit controversial with replays still proving a little inconclusive as some angles appeared to suggest he may have tripped himself up, others indicating Materazzi clipped his heals ever so slightly. It was a tough call to make in the circumstances but it certainly wasn't a dive. Regardless, Zinedine Zidane in his final professional match stepped up to take. And with great gallic flair, composure, and an element of cockiness he chipped the ball sending Buffon the wrong way, the ball clipped the underside of the crossbar, bounced over the line, and bounced out. The goal was awarded, replays showed the ball had certainly crossed the line, but it was quite an extraordinary penalty to witness! Zidane became the fourth man to score in two different World Cup final matches (after Vava, Pele and Breitner), and the fourth man to score 3 goals in World Cup final matches (after Hurst, Vava and Pele).

After the opening goal it soon became a frenzy of Italian attacks. Pirlo and Gattuso were complementing each other nicely in the midfield, and corners, free kicks and crosses were being whipped in with dangerous regularity. On 19 minutes a pinpoint Pirlo corner gave Materazzi to redeem himself in emphatic style, powering a header past Barthez to bring the Italians level. Thuram was defending well as he headed one dangerous cross behind for a corner as well as making a couple of vital sliding challenges to thwart dangerous moves. Toni almost gave the Italians the lead with what would have been a perfect replica of the Materazzi goal - this time it slammed into the crossbar however. The half ended 1-1. The early opening goal had given the game life, but with the equaliser an early second half goal also seemed needed from a neutral's perspective.

This never came however, and whilst it was the Italians who had been dominant in the first half the tables were turned somewhat in the second. Henry who had been quiet in the first half burst to life first sending the ball flashing past the upright, and then doing well to keep control as he dribbled it past 3 Italians only for his low cross unable to pick out a teammate. Italy still looked dangerous from set pieces.

Roughly on the hour mark De Rossi and Iaquinta came on for the Azzurri to replace the disappointing pair of Totti and Perrotta. De Rossi had been banned for 4 games after a despicable elbow to the face in the game against the US, but now he was in the World Cup final. Diarra, who had barely played at this World Cup or for France internationally in general, was called upon to replace Vieira who had sustained a hamstring injury.

On 62 mins Toni thought he had scored as he expertly executed a long distance header from another pinpoint Pirlo cross, however the offside call was made. Was it offside? One man was clearly offside as the ball was played, yet it was not he who headed it, nor was he interfering with play. Toni, the man who headed it, could possibly have been offside, but if so it would have been by the virtue of a few meagre millimetres, it was equally plausible that he was perfectly level. Henry also forced Buffon to parry but the game was degenerating into a scrappy match in the final 20 minutes or so of the 90, France had just about had the better of the second half.

The 30 minutes of extra time saw few chances. Ribery poked the ball agonisingly wide on one occasion, Zidane had a wonderful chance to sow the game up as Sagnol's cross found his head, only for Buffon to pull off an excellent save, made all the more fantastic by it's vital nature. A World Cup final, so much at stake, and there he was looking as good as always!

On 111 minutes something crazy happened. Suddenly Italians were running up to protest to the ref and the first reaction was, what the hell?, is this the Italians getting all uppity over nothing, are they trying to cheat, what the hell is going on? But then there were the television replays and the world could see what one could only describe as a moment of unmitigated madness, craziness, ridiculousness as Zidane simply lost the plot. There was an altercation between the two goalscorers Materazzi and Zidane, to start with physically the altercation was minor but it resulted in Zidane giving Materazzi a vicious headbutt to the chest, sending him sprawling. Referee Elizonda consulted his fourth official who advised the red card. A well deserved red card it was too. Clearly Materazzi had said something, it must have been something pretty damn bad to cause that reaction. But whatever he said, whatever, there are no excuses. This man is a professional footballer, in a World Cup final, playing his last ever match, he should be able to stop himself doing such a thing. It was a crazy moment, and one simply has to castigate Zidane. To me it is pretty much irrelevant what Materazzi said, players try to taunt others all the time. From before a match even starts till at least when it ends. Surely Zidane could have waited till the end of the game and then chinned him one!??

Speculation was rife as to the nature of the insult. One source seemed to suggest Materazzi was using Zidane's Algerian roots to call him a terrorist. Others said it was something to do with his mother and sister being whores. Others that he had wished death on his family. Zidane himself a few days later alleged that Materazzi had repeated the insult 3 times. This to a man whose mother had only just gone to hospital. Lip reading experts found different things but the fact remains that Zidane had reacted in a completely unacceptable way and later apologised to the children of the world but said he did not regret his actions. To me not regretting it is crazy, if he hadn't done it he would have remained on the field for the last 9 minutes, and would undoubtedly have been one of the penalty takers in the shoot out.

Anyway, so the match went to penalties. Italy have a worse history on penalties but on this occasion they converted all 5 with delightfully struck penalties. France converted 3 of their 4, the crucial miss coming from Euro 2000 golden goal hero, Trezeguet, who hit his into the crossbar. Like Zidane the ball came down, but unlike Zidane's it never crossed the line.

The whole of Italy were sent into delirium. It had been one of the best World Cup final matches for a long time, open and exciting.

Did Italy deserve to win the World Cup? Probably not, but no-one did! No country deserved it, there was not one team who simply blew all and sundry away.

In a way Italy did deserve it. They finished top of a very tough group but they were given the luck of a controversial penalty winner against Australia, and had an easy run to the semis with only the Ukraine to beat (though of course that's not their fault!) In the final they just about deserved it for the marginal offside call.

Would France have deserved it? They had turned on the style late on against Spain, and then against Brazil, and a bit against Portugal through the knockout matches, but they'd also been poor in the group stages.

No-one really quite deserved it, however someone had to win. And it was Italy. Just like in 82 with their leagues facing a huge scandal, they won the World Cup.

The history books will simply note.

World Cup 2006. Winners. Italy.

But I will remember it all!

WORLD CUP FINAL!

France Vs Italy

So after a month of action we are down to one game. After some spectacular goals, lots of yellow cards, a tournament that started out so promisingly and lost a little bit of its bite is down to one game and one game alone. It is naturally a little sad that the World Cup is at its end, unfortunately I will have to focus my mind more on the tribulations of Leeds now. For whom incidentally I predict a tough old season finishing mid table - we really needed to win that play off final!

The World Cup Final is a replay of the Euro 2000 Final which France won by a golden goal from Trezeguet. Also a replay of World Cup 98 quarter final which France won on penalties. Previous matches at the tournament which have been repeats of earlier matches have all seemed to go the way that history suggested, is this to be the same?

France: Looking to finish off in style for Zizou. They have an average squad of 30 years and 10 days which is a helluva lot, one of the oldest semi-final squads for years. But with the likes of Thuram, Gallas, Makelele, Zidane, Vieira, and Henry down the spine no-one will write them off. Can Henry reproduce his club form? One reason he finds it difficult is everything goes through Zidane. The danger of this ploy is that they flop when Zidane is not on form. This is the World Cup Final though – expect him on form! Playing the lone striker can be frustrating too. And how will Domenech manage his troups. Only Saha is suspended but this may be a blessing in disguise. They are bound to use Trezeguet in the super sub role because of this, and given his prodigious abilities who knows if he can repeat the trick of Euro 2000!

Italy: Their whole squad exudes excellence. Buffon in goal and Cannavaro at the back, stupendous in defence thus far. Not to mention bulldog Gattusso in defensive midfield, and Pirlo who has been great. Totti on form would be scary too. Pity Nesta who is currently injured. Question marks over the attack in Luca Toni who has not quite been on song at this world cup. But they do have able players on the bench to score goals like Gilardino, Del Pierro, Inzhagi and Joaquinta. Italy have tended to play with one up front but they play with a lot of width and someone from the midfield invariably comes up into the front line.

It’s a huge game of course. I have a feeling Italy will win. I don’t mind who does, it would be nice to see Zidane finish a winner but they won it a lot more recently than the Italian success of 82, ironically when their league was again embroiled in scandal. Hopefully it will be a cracking game.

Hosts finish off in style

Germany 3-1 Portugal

An open and enterprising game that whilst goalless at half time burst into life in the second period.

Both teams looked to attack throughout the game. As per usual Portugal saw a lot of the ball, constantly making those neat passes in and around the midfield and on the edge of the box, but never seeming to have the desire to attack at real pace and with any directness. Pauleta, again employed in the lone striker role, did something we haven't seen much from him in this tournament, going off on his own little dribble to set himself up for a shot - but still he was unable to add to the 1 goal he scored after only 4 minutes against Angola.

The first half was not as good as the second but it still afforded some entertainment - Sebastian Kehl having a good shot in the penalty area that was deflected wide for a corner. Schweinsteiger then played in Klose but his shot was blocked. Pauleta had a great chance after a fine ball from Sabrosa saw him attempt to curl it round the imposing figure of Kahn, a good save resulting. Kehl also tried an audacious lob over Ricardo but he was acrobatically up to the task. In fact Kehl who had barely seen any minutes during the World Cup was having an excellent game while Ballack's injury kept him warming the bench. Podolski hit a stinging free kick that Ricardo did well to deal with and Deco was afforded too much space in the penalty area and blazed over.

The second half though saw 4 goals. After 10 minutes or so Schweinsteiger smashed a dipping swerving shot which moved around in the air so viciously, and was hit with such venom that Ricardo was left with little chance. Schweinsteiger had been left out of the semi, and despite most viewing him as a key man in the German team had had less game time than expected. Here he was letting everyone know that he was still around! Thereupon ensued chance after chance. Lahm volleyed over before a Schweinsteiger free kick induced Petit to slice the ball into his own goal. Portugal would really have to fire now. Deco had a good shot but Kahn was equal to it. In fact Kahn was in fantastic form throughout the match, trying to make the point that he and not Lehmann should be first choice.

Scolari brought on Gomes for Valente, followed by Figo for Pauleta. Figo had been left on the bench but here was the chance for him to bow out in style. Figo almost immediately set up Ronaldo but his shot wasn't quite up to the task. Then seconds later and Schweinsteiger was celebrating another wonder goal, curling in a long range effort which left Ricardo with no chance. There were still a couple more chances for the Portugese including a decent free kick from Ronaldo but finally on 88 minutes Portugal got their consolation. Figo floated in a lovely ball for Gomes to head home as the two subs combined.

Kahn was denied a clean sheet but he had an amazing game. Schweinsteiger was inspired. Ronaldo showed the most positive intent for Portugal, Deco made some wonderful long distance passes inch perfect.

Kahn, Figo and Pauleta announced their retirement from international football and the Germans took 3rd place.

Team of the Tournament

As is customary among football critics/ pundits/ journalists/ commentators (yes I consider myself among this crowd!) I shall here and now make up my team of the tournament thus far. This could possibly change after the final game, if someone puts on an amazing performance in the final who hasn't been included among my team they may yet force their way in. The World Cup Final is the biggest stage of all so brilliant performances count for more there.

Goalkeeper:

Buffon (Italy): Pulled off a series of amazing saves and has only been beaten once, this by a fluke Gilardino own goal for which he had no chance. He has been consistently brilliant throughout - a little like Kahn 4 years ago, although lets hope he doesn't do a Kahn in the World Cup Final and undo much of his good work by being at fault for the oppositions opening goal!

Note: A very important part of a goalkeepers game, often overlooked, but to which I subscribe to - having been alerted to this fact a few years ago when I heard Schmeichal talk about it - is to organise the defence. As Schmeichal said, if the keeper has no saves to make he's done his job even better because he's got the defenders working well in front of him. Buffon has also been exemplary in this regard although he does have an excellent defence in front of him who could probably perform that job anyway!

Second Choice: Jens Lehmann (Germany) who has had a sterling tournament.

Honourable mentions: Kawaguchi (Japan) who pulled off some fabulous saves in the group stages, Petr Cech (Czech Republic) who had a magical game against Ghana and could have been in line for the keeper of the tournament award had his side progressed a few stages further, and Ricardo (Portugal) who was mammoth in the penalty shoot-out against England as well as pulling off crucial saves in normal time, particularly against Holland and Germany.

Right back:

Zambrotta (Italy): Yet again demonstrated his class especially bombing forward but also in the bread and butter jobs of the defence.

Second Choice: Willy Sagnol (France): Performed consistently well throughout the tournament with only one or two small mistakes noticeable.

Honourable mention: Cafu (Brazil) - an elder statesman of the game who never fails to impress.

Centre backs (pick 2):

Cannavaro (Italy): An absolutely immense tournament - hasn't put a foot wrong so far, my player of the tournament without question thus far.

Thuram (France): Has played well all World Cup but gets in to the team by virtue of his semi-final performance against Portugal.

Second Choices: Ayala (Argentina): I nearly put him in the team ahead of Thuram but with so little between them the defining factor came down to the facts that Argentina were eliminated in the quarters, and also that he was one of the unfortunate ones to miss a penalty in the shoot-out against Germany.

Lucas Neill (Australia): Also not a popular choice I imagine but this man rarely put a foot wrong. Just like his fellow centre-back Craig Moore (Aus)

Honourable mention: Marquez (Mexico) - Always led from the front and played exceptionally against Argentina in the second round including scoring a goal. The only blot on his copybook was conceding the penalty against Portugal.

Left back:

Phillip Lahm (Germany): A vintage tournament from Lahm who scored the first goal of the tournament with a cracker and who looked great overlapping on the flanks in each game. His defending was great bar a couple of mistakes against Ecuador, and showed his versatility in the 3rd/4th play off playing right back.

Second choice: Miguel (Portugal): A physical player who impressed going forward and in defence although he did unluckily concede a penalty against Portugal for handball.

Midfield: I'm going to play 5 across the midfield, not because I believe in that system but because it's so hard to only pick 4 and some of the supposedly best strikers in the world have not stood up to be counted. Allow me to pick more centrally minded players on the wings, remember that the fullbacks I have picked can create the width. Remember that I am trying to accommodate the best players of the tournament as well as have a formation that can very roughly work!

Right wing:

Deco (Portugal): Not a traditional winger but his vision has been superb throughout the tournament with pinpoint passing, and lovely interplay. Scored a great goal against Iran and has been the main player for Portugal.

Central Midfield (3 of them):

Zidane (France): Gains his place courtesy of his quarter-final appearance alone. In the knock-out stages he has been inspirational, his vision is still there, and he can create chances for his team-mates.

Pirlo (Italy): Has been consistently excellent scoring and creating throughout the tournament.

Gattuso (Italy): Simply outstanding in the defensive midfield role, cannot fault him, he turns up everywhere and beats off some very strong competition for that defensively minded role.

Left Wing:

Maxi Rodriguez (Argentina): Shone, scoring 3 goals in 5 matches including a wonder goal against Mexico, and always looked dangerous. Not a typical winger type but I'll have him here and he can go up to help the attack to make a bit more of a 4-4-2 if necessary.

The unlucky midfielders to miss out:

Ronaldo (Portugal) - OK I don't really like the guy but on pure footy talent his lightning pace and exciting dribbles make him a worthy contender.

Makelele and Vieira (France) are both brilliant at breaking the play up and setting the team on their way but this is what I have the even more impressive Gattusso for. Vieira also showed an eye for goal that was a little surprising.

Luis Figo (Portugal): A couple of unsavoury incidents notwithstanding Figo still let his class shine through as he bowed out on the world stage

Nakamura (Japan): Tremendously good effort from this man, lovely passing, very impressive.

Kaka (Brazil): In a team of individuals Kaka always impressed.

Joe Cole (England): At times looked quite exceptional, but only at times!

Striker:

The world cup has been disappointing for the efforts of the strikers - with one game to go the top scorer has 5 followed by 7 men on 3.

Klose (Germany): You can't argue with 5 goals plus he has created for his strike partner Podolski proving he is not just a finisher. He was a trifle lucky to have 5 world cup goals to his name in 2002 but he's really proved himself this time around.

Unlucky:

Torres (Spain) scored 3 goals in exactly half the number of minutes Klose was on the pitch but he scored them in only the first two games and one of them was a penalty, his goal against Ukraine absolutely brilliant. He played an exciting brand of football but was unusually subdued against France in the second round.

Crespo (Argentina) - also socred 3 and regularly made an impact.

Henry (France) - scorer of 3 crucial goals but never looked as good as he does when he plays for Arsenal.

Players who might have had a chance had they played more:

Tevez (Argentina) for me appeared an outstanding talent but he came off the bench in all matches bar the quarter-final in which he started.

Lennon (England): don't laugh but I really believe more game time and he could really have stamped his mark on World Cup 2006. Of course he would - he's a Leeds boy at heart!

Fabregas (Spain): Played with great maturity but apart from the fact he only ever played relative bit parts in matches his team didn't progress past the second round.

Robben and Van Persie (Holland): Looked magical on occasions.

Ivory Coast players like Zakora, Kone, Toure who were unlucky to be in such a hard group all could have come mighty close had they played an extra game or so. The same could have been said for Michael Essien.

So the final reckoning for me was:

Buffon
Zambrotta Cannavaro Thuram Lahm
Deco Pirlo Zidane Gattuso Rodriguez
Klose.

Whaddya reckon? I possibly got it slightly wrong but I think I've made a good fist of it!

Who will take 3rd?

And more importantly who cares? Often deemed the most pointless match of the tournament it is still a match to savour, especially for someone like me, mourning the fact that the end of the tournament is nigh!

This is the kind of match where men who are 50-50 chances of playing will be given the opportunity to rest. Would Ballack have missed the final with the inflamed knee that is keeping him out of this match? I think not! No doubt there will be a few changes. Miguel has also been ruled out through injury.

A nice gesture is that Lehmann has agreed to stand aside and allow Oliver Kahn one last World Cup game as he wins his 86th cap. Klose will have the opportunity to extend his goals tally, Podolski may try to catch him up.

Surely the game promises to be an open affair? Surely the shackles will be released? I certainly hope so, last tournament's 3-2 win from Turkey over Korea at the same stage was a highly entertaining affair.

As to who will win: who can say, as to who I want, who can say that either? I would like to see lots of goals. I think overall Germany may edge it.

Portugal have only been in this territory once before (1966), Germany have appeared in the 3rd/4th play off 4 times.