Wembley Stadium - Why the FA should NOT sell the home of football.

No matter how many millions Shahid Zhan offers the FA for Wembley the answer should be a resounding NO. England is the home of football. From a purely football fan's point of view. Wembley is the home of English football. The home of English football should not be owned by a businessman who's primary motive is that of an American Football team. Now from the view point of a businessman. It cost £800 million to build Wembley. Shahid Khan's offer is £600 million. Minus a whole quarter from the original investment - it makes zero sense.

Now of course I am going to go into more detail then this by simply put, two concrete reasons why selling Wembley stadium is ludicrous.

I see myself as a bit of a purist when it comes to football. I feel the history of our game is being pushed further and further into the background and that simply should never happen. Now, Wembley Stadium only came into ownership of the FA in 1999, so for the vast majority of time, Wembley has been owned by an outside party. The ownership is not the problem here, the problem is the bidder. I personally have nothing again Shahid Khan or any of his business ventures, I feel however that selling to the billionaire could damage English football substantially. Simply put, the future of the home of football would be in the hands of a man who wants to use it as an American football stadium. Khan's offer would currently see the FA still able to host major cup finals at Wembley and a selection of England internationals; with the money from those events going to the governing body.

However Khan is a businessman. Say once the original contract signed with the FA runs out, Khan doesn't feel like doing business anymore and he wants total control of Wembley so he receives 100% of it's revenue. The FA will be powerless to stop him. THEN say his beloved Jacksonville Jaguars have a huge game which falls on the same day as a major international for England, which game do you think he will host at Wembley? All very hypothetical yes, but the possibility should never be there. England should not be playing their football away from their home, while American football is taking place under Wembley's arch.

Plenty of pundits and fellow Journalists have used the argument that not many of the world's elite have their own national stadium. Germany? No. Spain? No. Italy? No. The list does go on. Now, a national stadium is not essential to a country's success, a success that England have gone without since 1966. Wembley Stadium is a venue players and fans alike from all around the world dream of visiting. Right now, English football is looked down upon in a way unlike we have ever seen. Our football is shocking, our fans are embarrassing and our attitude is stuck in the past. What do we, as a country, have going for us? We have an iconic stadium which is envied the world over. Obviously Khan isn't going to airlift the ground to Jacksonville, but that isn't the point. A landmark of the game would have been struck from the map the second the new landlord decides that football is not longer the primary sport of Wembley stadium.

Staying on the topic of a Khan owned Wembley. I personally have never gotten into American Football, and a huge reason for that is the over riding sponsorship influence. An influence that has slowly leaked it's way into football. Sponsors are everywhere in the American sport, and as previously mentioned, that sport will be Khan's priority for Wembley. What happens when a multi national corporation with bottomless pockets comes along and hands Shahid a blank cheque for the naming rights of Wembley stadium? After all, Metlife, AT&T, Fedex, all major companies sponsoring stadiums the size of Wembley over in American within the NFL. Where do the Jaguar's play? The recently renamed TIAA Bank Field, you guessed it, the ground is named after the bank that sponsors them. This is the second time during Khan's ownership that he has sold the name of the ground, he isn't above it. That simply CAN NOT happen to Wembley.

Moving from pointing the finger at Khan and moving it to the FA. Without a doubt, the story pushed to the press will be that the windfall will be used to benefit grass roots football and all that comes with that. However, over the years the FA have not filled us with confidence that they will stick to their words in any way shape or form. Erratic behaviour over the past decades have lead the public to see the people making the decisions in a very negative light, and has cost the FA the trust of the people. It is 100% right to want to improve facilities for young players all around the country, building all weather pitches, providing coaches and equipment for local sides. It's what has been cried for by players across the land for years. But with the amount of money in the game right now, do you not get the idea it would have happened by now if it was going to, at all?

Solid reasoning that speaks to the football fans out there, now for the business people.

"The FA will take £600 million, clear the debt that Wembley played a part in causing, and then redistribute it within the game." Well this just isn't true at all. The money deposited to the FA's bank account will be substantially smaller then that. £112 million of public money was provided in order to finish construction of the new Wembley. That public money was donated to the FA, but not for a definite purpose so that total would be available to redistribute into grass roots football should the FA take the offer.

However, £78 millions from Sport England; £18.5 million from the department of culture, sport and media; and £16.2 million from the London Development agency were all donated for a specific cause. To build a beacon for English football upon historically significant ground. A beacon which would be under the ownership of the English Football Association who will have the opportunity to use it to move the game in this country forward.

That ideology would die the second the deed was signed over to Khan. Meaning the money invested by the previously listened organisations would be returned. That just leaves the debt still within Wembley. At one point that debt totalled over £400 million, but has now been whittled down to around £140 million. The sale of Wembley would not change this fact, and the influx of funds would have to go towards paying off the debt. Once you do the maths the only sizeable amount left of the £600 million offer is the public money, which as mentioned, would be left to redistribute into grassroots as stated. However once again, the FA have done themselves no favours and any statement made by them must be taken with a pinch of salt at this point. Would we see any of that money in grassroots? It's up in the air.

A statue of the late great Bobby Moore stands outside a ground which symbolises the home of not just English football, but the sport as a whole. Where this great game was invented. Although this new instalment of Wembley may not carry the same history as the old. The arch after all, is no twin towers. But Wembley will forever be Wembley. At this point the relationship between the English Football Association and the English fan is dwindling. The sale of Wembley might just be the nail in the coffin. Sahid Khan said that people opposed to his deal need to 'see past their emotion.' He clearly doesn't know English football. We have little all else to go on!

So... simply put.

To Whom It May Concern,

Don't you dare sell Wembley.

Yours faithfully,

The future of English football.

Who should start in the World Cup? - Marcus Rashford

The cycle of English football fans:

Step 1: Get let down and knocked out of a major tournament early.

Step 2: Realise just how average the side is and how far behind the Three Lions are from the worlds elite.

Step 3: Draw the easiest qualification group for the next competition.

Step 4: Qualify with ease.

Step 5: Regain confidence.

Step 6: Learn all the words to 'World in Motion' for the tenth time.

Step 7: "We're gonna win the World Cup!"

Step 8: Draw the opening game.

Step 9: "Quarter finals would be an decent finish."

Step 10: Scrape through the group in 2nd place and draw an average side in the next round.

Andddd repeat.

For English football fans it's becoming harder and harder to watch the national side. Many people will admit to not watching the qualifiers, not caring about the friendlies, or showing no interest in the side at all. The Three Lions have became the laughing stock of the international set up. Not because Southgate's side are losing game after game. But more because of the style of our football and the incredibly miss placed over expectation of our fans. We're boring. We're repetitive. We're generations behind the elite of world football.

I am not immune from this. I will be, like millions of others, watching the World Cup wearing the new shirt I've spent £50 on (That is a completely separate issue.) Singing God Save The Queen at the top of my lungs everywhere I go. Convincing myself that this tournament will be different to all the rest. And then, finally, I'll be writing on this blog about what exactly went wrong when we're knocked out in the second round.

In the 90's we had a wealth of the best strikers in Europe. Shearer, Fowler, Cole, Ferdinand and Sheringham. Surely success was a given? A 1996 European Championship semi-final defeat was the best we could manage. Then came the 'Golden Generation.' Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham, Terry, Owen and Rooney just to name a few. A catalogue of the best the Premier League had to offer in one side. Quarter final defeats in the 2002 and 2006 World Cups. The same fate in Euro 2004. Total failure to qualify for the European Championships in 2008 and the Golden Generation failed. Now we have the current generation. Perhaps the most underwhelming England squad in mine, and most fans lifetimes. Now that is doing a disservice to the likes of Harry Kane and Raheem Sterling who are currently ripping up the Premier League. But with the likes of Jake Livermore making the squad, Harry Winks earning a cap after a handful of good games for Spurs. Nathaniel Chalobah and Ruben Loftus-Cheek touted for the plane despite both being judged as 'not good enough' by Antonio Conte at Chelsea. I mean... it's not exactly the debate of the early 2000's when Sven had to pick between Lampard, Gerrard and Scholes in the heart of his midfield is it?

Now I do have a point and I'm getting to it.

I was listening to talkSPORT the other day and the question was who will be on the plane to the World Cup. Talking about attackers, Harry Kane is a certainty. You'd imagine Jamie Vardy would be also. This was what the presenters were suggesting. England usually take three or four out and out strikers on the plane with them, and the options for those slots were being suggested. Glenn Murray at Brighton. Andy Carroll from West Ham. Daniel Sturridge, currently on loan at West Brom. Jermain Defoe at Bournemouth. No disrespect to any of these players, I would celebrate a goal scored by any and all of them with everything I have. But they seem to pale in comparison when compared to the previously mentioned shoe ins. But one man was left from the list, and that man was Marcus Rashford. If you ask me, the youngster is an essential part of not only the squad, but the starting eleven.

Why exactly?

Well if I had published this piece last week you might need some more convincing. 'Rashford hasn't started since Christmas' would be most peoples response. That is very true, the influx of star power at Manchester United has seen Rashford's game time drop like a rock in the ocean. This isn't a knock on the speedy forward however. Jesse Lingard was turning heads in the first half of the season. With his brilliant goals and his shocking dance moves. He also is struggling to get a start. Jose has such a vast supply of attacking brilliance in his squad, that it's only natural that the youngsters would miss out. That brings me to Saturday 10th March. Manchester United vs Liverpool.

Perhaps the biggest game of the season on our shores. And Jose made the big decision to start the local boy. He came on against Palace the Monday before and was a catalyst in his sides comeback, from 2-0 down to win 3-2. Rashford was fronting up against fellow English youngster, Trent Alexander-Arnold. Playing left of a front three, besides Lukaku and Alexis Sanchez. Despite not being a natural winger, Rashford is gifted with such pace, and an ability to read the game players 10 years his senior would dream of having. So it came as no surprise that, despite his lack of starts, he came flying out the blocks. The greats take their opportunity when it is given to them, and that is exactly what happens from the first whistle. Two goal kicks from David De Gea; followed by two flick on headers from Lukaku. Pretty basic up to this point. Twice Trent A.A allowed Rashford to cut onto his right, and twice he was punished. Two clinical finishes gave United a 2-0 lead over their biggest rivals, and it was the local boy who had done it. Rashford was, and is a match winner. And that is what Garath Southgate NEEDS in Russia.

Harry Kane scores goals. But at Spurs he plays ahead of Christan Eriksen, a midfielder who can pick a pass as good as anyone in the world. Add Son Heung-Min and Dele Ali to the mix and Kane has constant supply. It's not like that with England. Put Southgate's men against Germany and Kane won't get a sniff. Do you know who just might? Rashford. At just 20 years old (1 day older then me... I'm not jealous at all!) The United man is still filled with such hunger that seems to die down as players get older. But despite his youth, he's made 70 first team appearances for one of England biggest clubs; as well as 15 England caps. Vastly experienced when compared to many his age, combined with the hunger of youth, he has a unique advantage. Drifting onto Alexander-Arnold against Liverpool was no accident. He knew the 19 year old would have a rick in him, he's still learning after all. He knew if he came at the full back, he might just be allowed to cut inside and from that point on it was curtains. As a natural striker you'd almost expect Rashford to come inside, into the channels between the centre back and full back, playing off the through balls from midfield. But he saw an opportunity and took advantage of it, it may seem so slight but it proved huge.

Over the past two seasons in particular, Jurgen Klopp's Liverpool have proven just how scary pace down the flanks can be. And this time around Salah and Mane have been terrorising defences, but also exciting the fans. Nothing quiet gets a crown to come alive like seeing your winger in full flight, burning past defenders. Raheem Sterling's incredible growth under Pep at Manchester City this season makes him a certainty for Southgate's team you'd imagine, and down the opposite side, Rashford is the only option in my eyes. No one who is even being considered for the squad is as direct as Rashford. He will just as easily get his head down and leave a full back in his dust as he will drill the ball into the bottom corner.

This brings me back to my point earlier about Harry Kane. Spurs' number 10 needs the supply, an excellent finisher no doubt but without support he can be snuffed out. Any defender will tell you they HATE dealing with a player with pace who knows how to use it. Rashford can create chances for himself. His raw physical abilities, pace, size and strength. When combined with the knowledge and know how to read the game and take advantage (proven against Liverpool) makes for a match winner. A game changer.  Now I hate to do this to you, but cast your mind back to the summer of 2016. England vs Iceland. Perhaps the lowest point for England in the last two decades, yes I'm including 2008. Marcus Rashford was introduced in the 86th minute, and created more danger in four minutes then any other player in white did in the whole 90. He instantly showed drive, and a desire to get in behind, which was non existent leading up to the change. Now, two years on, the desire remains but his knowledge of the game has grown substantially.

In the summer of 2018 Marcus Rashford will no longer be the 'new kid on the block'. But the proven goalscorer, constant threat, and injection of life England need. A world class attitude, after not starting since Christmas 2017, shows a maturity beyond his years. A fan favourite no doubt, and a player who will just continue to get better. With a run of games on his back, heading into the world cup, Rashford will be flying long before he gets on the plane. After his performance against Liverpool, how can Jose leave him out? Answer, he can't.

Kane might be the star of the show come Russia, but my money is on Rashford stealing it.

English youth football - Why isn't this a bigger deal?

On the 11th June 2017 England reached their second ever men's World Cup final and their first since 1966. However unlike that famous day at Wembley, this final saw the under 20's take on South American side Venezuela... and they won! That's right, England are world champions! So why isn't this everywhere? Why do so many people not seem to care about history being made in English football? Simple. In this country, we don't take youth football seriously.

Now this isn't everyone, I for one am a firm believer in youth internationals and think they should be taken just as seriously as senior internationals. They help to prepare younger players for international football, where a mesh in styles makes it a completely different animal to the domestic game. Also preparing the future first team players for the travelling involved with qualification for major tournaments and the tournaments itself will make the experience much let daunting. Most of all however the experience gained by youth internationals is one which could set the precedent for the years to come, it could be a sneak peak into the countries future successes on the world stage.

Now with the FIFA U20 World Cup and the UEFA U21 European Championships you would expect to see the winning nation's senior side mirroring it's youth systems success a few years on, and on plenty of occasions that is correct. Italy perhaps being the prime examples, between the years of 1992 and 2004 Italy won 5 out of 7 under 21's European Championships. The next competition they won? The 2006 FIFA World Cup. The best way to look at this is to see the group of players that featured in Italy's youth successes leading up to their 4th world cup win. Starting with their 1996 tournament success, the man named player of the tournament that year was none other then Fabio Cannavaro, the future Italian captain who would lift the World Cup for Italy a decade later. In that same side we saw great AC Milan centre back Alessandro Nesta, who played a crucial role in the Azzurir's senior defence for 10 years to come. And of course, Francesco Totti, the Roma striker who has just announced his retirement a very impressive 21 years after scoring the winner in the semi finals of the 1996 Under 21's European championship on the way to winning the competition. Now to the year 2000, straight out of the block can you guess the scorer of a brace in the final and winner of player of the tournament as well as the golden boot? Andrea Pirlo. The midfielder went on to have an incredible career at the top, playing for the likes of Inter Milan, AC Milan and Juventus, during the 2006 World Cup Pirlo was voted as the third best player in the competition, showing his success on the national stage. Much like Pirlo a future anchor in Italy's midfield featured in the before mentioned tournament, Gennaro Gattuso. The hard tackling midfielder went on to feature 73 times for the senior side and was named man of the match in the 2006 World Cup quarter final, proving to be a very important part of that side. And finally onto Italy's 2004 Under 21's European Championship win which saw Daniele De Rossi, Alberto Gilardino and Andrea Barzagli all starting in the final two years before playing a part in Italy's World cup win, with Gilardino, much like Pirlo 4 years prior, winning the golden boot and title of best player of the tournament.

Italy are a prime example how success on the youth level can translate to success at the senior tournaments, but they aren't the only example. Germany are the current World Champions after winning the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil, just 5 years prior at the 2009 Under 21's European Championship, they managed to roll over England 4-0 in the final (We'll get back to that later). In that final Mats Hummels, Jerome Boateng, Mesut Ozil, Howedes and Manuel Neuer all started, these same five players also started the 2014 FIFA World cup Final. Sami Khedira also started in the youth final and despite not featuring from the start in their World Cup winning performance, was a big part of their overall campaign. During Spain's most successful period in their history, winning three major senior tournaments back to back to back and making history in the process, their Under 21 side also won the European Champions in 2011 with Juan Mata staring. The current Manchester United midfielder won player of the tournament, and just one year later scored in Spain's 4-0 win against Italy during UEFA 2012 European Championships final.

Italy, Germany and Spain are the three most recent sides to translate youth success into senior titles. Until Portugal's European Championship win in 2016, the previously mentioned nations were also the only three sides to win a major international competition in the previous decade, proving that success at the youth level can be a sign of things to come. So why aren't more Englishman sighting the Under 20's World Cup win as a look into the future? Why, do we not have the confidence that this group of players can end what is now over 50 years of hurt? Simple, England and the FA don't take youth internationals seriously. Remember the U21's 2009 European Championship I mentioned earlier? When a German side made up of 5 future world champions beat England 4-0? This was the first final ANY England side had reached since the 1980's, which is a major achievement. Well lets look at that England side. Now at the time of writing this, 14th June 2017, England have just faced and lost 3-2 to France in a friendly in Paris. Do you know how many members of the 2009 under 21's side were a part, not of the starting eleven, but of the twenty three man squad? Zero. Overall nine of the German players from the match day squad in 2009 featured in their most recent squad, but zero for England. The players who were seen as the future of English football have, in the most part, done nothing of real note since their losing effort against Germany in 2009, with only 6 of them ever playing for the senior team, three of which playing within the last 12 months but as of right now, not a single member of the 2009 Under 21's side is a part of the England squad.

Okay but a bad history of translating youth success into senior success isn't everything, a lot of very talented youngsters break through the ranks every year around the country, the likes of Marcus Rashford and Dele Ali are two prime examples. Recent research has valued Ali as the second most valuable player in Europe (trailing only to Neymar) and the Spurs midfielder is the current PFA Young Player of the Year! Now Marcus Rashford, despite a relatively slow season, scored 5 goals in his first 11 league games for Manchester United and shot to stardom very quickly, being touted as the leader of England's next generation of front men. However this is my problem, Ali and Rashford are 21 and 19 years old respectively, and yet despite the Under 20's World Cup taking place, as well at the Under 21's Toulon Tournament both of which England won, neither Ali or Rashford were featured in the squads. Also in two days (16th June 2017) the Under 21's European Championships for 2017 gets under way, the tournament which has shown a bigger glimpse into the future then any other, and yet again, neither Rashford or Ali are featuring. This takes it right back to my very first point, neither player is going to these tournaments because the FA do not see youth football as a priority. Now with Dele Ali it is different, he is a guaranteed starter in the England team so to some degree you can understand his involvement being solely with the senior team. But Rashford does not start for England and rarely features at all, so you'd think the opportunity to win some silverware and be a focal point for the youth sides going into competitions would be a great opportunity for the teenager to get some experience on the international level, putting him in a much better position for the future. But no, instead he sits on the bench for the senior team. And this is why expectations are virtually none existent coming from the Under 20's World Cup win, yes it's a great achievement, but how can we tout these players as the 'future of English football' if the best young players in England right now don't even feature in the squad despite being eligible?

As soon as a player is seen as 'good enough' he is forced into the senior squad whether he's ready or not. Player for the senior sides at a younger age is fine, there is nothing wrong with that, what is wrong with it however, is if sitting on the bench watching a senior friendly takes precedent over playing in a youth world cup final. Players being made unavailable by their club, the FA or simply not being interesting in featuring in youth internationals is exactly why winning the Under 20's World Cup means nothing. The 'next generation' of England players will likely have a handful of Under 20's and Under 21's caps between them purely because it isn't treated with the respect it deserves, which is the respect other countries treat it with. Footballing giants like Germany use the youth systems to build teams, to build players and to give them the experience that will help them drastically in the senior competitions to come. England use youth football as something for EFL players and Premier League kids to feature in who will likely never get a real shot at the first team.

But yay... England are world champions.

Spurs to Wembley - Is this a good move for anyone?

Tottenham today confirmed that they will play their home games during the 2017/2018 season at the home of English football while White Hart Lane is being worked on. Wembley stadium is one of the biggest and most iconic football grounds on the planet and is viewed as a coliseum for the biggest teams to compete for the biggest prizes. The English national side are the only team who have ever called Wembley home, until today. The opportunity for Spurs to play their home games at Wembley is huge for both the club and their fans however, for the newest tenants of Wembley stadium and English football as a whole, is this a wise move?

The North London club are no strangers to Wembley stadium, after playing their European home games their during the current campaign as well as reaching a number of finals and semi finals over the past several years. What is interesting about this is how poor of a record Spurs have had at their adopted home. Since the new Wembley stadium opened in 2007 Spurs have won just two out of a possible ten games played at the national stadium, with just one win there this season during their European run. When you compare that to Tottenham's home record this season, you can see why this may be a huge issue which has been overlooked by the men making the decision. Spurs are currently battling for the title, and they have done this by turning White Hart Lane into a fortress, not losing a single game there in all competitions this season, their only home defeats coming when playing at Wembley. This home record has been paramount in Spurs putting up a serious challenge for the title this season, and it goes back even further then that. After losing at home on the opening game of the 2015/2016 season Mauricio Pochettino's side went undefeated at home throughout the remainder of the campaign, and much like this season their home form helped build towards a very impressive run. With the majority of points won by Spurs over the last two seasons coming from home games, and with next season shaping up to be potentially massive for the club, is it smart to move into a stadium which has seen such poor performances from Spurs during the last decade?

Now this point has less to do with Spurs and more to do with the sides that will have to visit Wembley throughout the season to face them. With Wembley still set to be used to host the EFL Cup final, as well as the FA Cup final and Semi-Finals, is it fair for Tottenham to be playing these massive games at home, should they reach them? Wembley is supposed to be a massive day out for both the club and the fans, and playing in front of 90,000 people instead of the smaller grounds around the country is a test in itself. Which poses the question, is it entirely fair for Spurs to have an entire season's experience playing in front of that crowd in potential preparation for a huge cup tie towards the end of the season? As well is it being unfair to opposing sides, you have to ask yourself, is it right for any side other then England to call Wembley home? As previously mentioned playing at the national stadium is effectively a reward for a very successful cup run, and playing on neutral ground ensures no advantages going to either side during the 90 minutes. For players, the chance to play in the iconic ground is a career highlight, either with their club or after being called up to the national team. With Spurs however becoming an official tenant of the stadium for the next year, will it lose a bit of that sense of occasion a trip to the home of English football has, as every Premier League side is guaranteed to visit Wembley in the next twelve months, regardless of performance of success on the field.

West Ham United. Coming out of the 2015/2016 Premier League season the Hammers were incredibly optimistic about the upcoming campaign, after a very impressive 2014/2015 season and an upcoming move to the Olympic Stadium, renamed simply the London Stadium. On paper this seemed like a brilliant move for all parties, the board and owners got a great deal for the stadium, there are more seats and therefore more fans can see their side play week after week, and the players get the chance to play in a truly incredible stadium, one which, if the previous season was any indication, could be home to some big moments in the coming years. However this couldn't be further from reality. This season West ham have won just 6 games at home in the league, and the performances at home as a whole have been incredibly poor when compared to when they played their home games at Upton Park. Not only have the players struggled to perform at the new ground, the fans have also found the move tough. With a huge running track separating the fans from the action, the drop in atmosphere from last season has been huge, and you wouldn't be surprised if that was a major factor in the poor performances of the players. Despite the incredible facilities and opportunities West Ham now have at their disposal, the majority of true fans and I'm sure even a number of players would have, in hindsight, preferred to have remained at Upton park. The could be a problem Spurs will have to face next season, Wembley might be incredible, but it isn't Tottenham's home. Will the fans be able to provide the same atmosphere in a vastly bigger venue? Will the players settle in and feel at home? Or will they, like West Ham have this season, struggle to turn their new home into the fortress their previous ground had become.

You have to wonder if, when making the decision on their immediate home, the board of the North London club took any of the factors I have just mentioned into consideration. If recent history has anything to tell, it's that moving into a shiny new stadium may be great on paper, but when the whistle blows it is a very different animal. As well as this, was the FA's decision to even make this a possibility ever second guessed, and if not why? Surely I can not be the only one who feels the home of English football, of the oldest federation in WORLD football should be treated as something special and not just the home ground for a local club. We'll see over the next twelve months if Spurs handle the move well, and it might even be a great thing for English football, giving many more people the chance to visit Wembley! And then they can do it the year after as well... and the next two after that... When Chelsea move in for three years starting at the end of Tottenham's tenure. Great.

England - When is the real 'golden generation' going to begin?

As qualifying for thist years European Championship draws to a close, England boast the only perfect record in qualifying, with 10 wins from 10. A strong qualifying campaign is, for most teams, a sign of intent for the major tournament, however for England, its been quite the opposite on more occasions then most. The best example of this in recent years is perhaps the 2010 World Cup in south Africa, despite a very strong qualifying campaign and a new manager in Fabio Capello who had appeared to rejuvenate the three lions. However, just one win in the tournament and a 4-1 humbling by the Germans showed how far behind we appear to be compared to the rest of the top sides and that our strong qualifying counted for nothing! This underachievement at major tournaments has because a far too common occurrence for the nation which invented the sport, and is even worse when you consider the players who have pulled on the famous white shirt in the last 20+ years!

Since the turn of the millennium, the national team haven't progressed past the quarter finals in a single major competition, with many of those eliminations coming against side which we Englishmen compare ourselves to, but seems to be years ahead of England in terms of ability and progression.  One other thing that happened at the start of the 2000's was perhaps the worst thing that could have happened to the current crop of talent, that certain English side was declared as the 'golden generation' this put much unneeded pressure on the players, and made the poor performances at major tournaments an even more bitter pill to swallow. Players such as Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard, Frank Lampard, David Beckham, Michael Owen, John Terry and many many more players where tipped to lead the 1966 World Champions to glory, but under performed when it mattered most!

With countries such as Germany, Spain and France in the last 2 decades taking advantage of a generation of amazing talent to push themselves to the top of the footballing world, you have to wonder if the three lions are capable of achieving a similar task. When you consider the caliber of players to have played at Wembley and failed to deliver on the big stage in recent years, you have to wonder if our current crop of talent, who are seen as being not even half the side we had 10 years ago, have the slightest chance at competing next year in France or in future tournaments.

Lets not rule out the current squad without taking a look at the key members. Of course the highest goal scorer in the history of the national side is the current captain, Wayne Rooney, with 50 international goals. With Daniel Sturridge (when he's fit), Harry Kane and inform Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy adding more options to the England attack, the three lions certainly still have their bite! When you add in the attacking threat from the wings, with Raheem Sterling and Theo Walcott being the stand outs for those roles, England have got pace in abundance. The worry for this English side comes from the back, I would personally not put a single midfielder in the current England squad, into the side we fielded ten years ago, with the stand out player on form at the moment being Ross Barkley, who has been incredibly inconsistent in the past few seasons. With defenders such as Gary Cahill, Chris Smalling, Ryan Bertrand and Nathaniel Clyne, Roy Hodgson can field a strong back four, but one which pales in comparison to English defenses of the past! One final positive is the strength between the sticks, Joe Hart has been a stand our goal keeper in the Premier League for years, and number two Jack Butland looks destined for greatness.

Despite not losing a single competitive game in 2015, I can't see our current crop of talent getting anywhere near the top spots in world football. In the future, a new generation may come along and push England towards greater heights but right now... It looks like we might be waiting a while for the true 'Golden Generation'.

Premier League vs La Liga - Which is the best?

For years, the English premier league as been the undisputed king of football. Producing the best teams, the best drama, and the best competition. However over recent years the quality of football coming from our shores pales in comparison compared to that of the likes of Spain's La Liga.

In the 2007 - 2008 season the English premier league had all four representatives in the UEFA Champions League quarter finals, and three of the four teams in the semi finals where also from the premier league, the exact same scenario took place in the following season. However in the 2014 - 2015 season not a single English team made it past the first knockout round. However in the 2013 - 2014 season, the final of the champions league included two Spanish teams, Real Madrid and Athletico Madrid. and in the 2014 - 2015 season Real Madrid and Barcelona both progressed to the semi final of the competition, with the Catalan giants eventually winning the competition.


The English top flight boasts to have the best competition out of Europe's elite, poking fun at leagues such as the Bundesliga & La Liga for constantly having one or two front runners year after year. However in recent years this theory can perhaps be proven otherwise. The premier league may claim to provide the best competition, but the title race in England has only really seen the addition of Manchester City in this century, with the 'big four'(Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool) dominating England, even with Liverpool dropping down the table in the last few seasons. Well if it was a battle of those said teams season after season England may still have a case for the best competition, as a five way title race is very rare in football. However it isn't as straight forward as that. Since the introduction of the premier league we have seen five different teams walk out champions, Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester City and Blackburn Rovers. Now, if you remove the pre mentioned sides, only two other teams have featured in the top two of the Premier League (Newcastle United and Aston Villa), but like Blackburn Rovers these two sides have since dropped off massively, and are no where near the title picture.

Season after season the Premier league, which claims to be the most competitive of Europe's top leagues, is dominated by the same big names, however if you look deeper, the competition again takes a hit. Two of the 'giants' of English football have failed to win a league title in a long period of time, Arsenal have not been champions on England since 2004, and Liverpool have failed to win a title in the premier league era! This reduces the competition levels even more, meaning since 2005 only Manchester United, Manchester City and Chelsea have been crowned champions of England. However, although Manchester United have won the most league titles since that year, in the last couple of seasons we have seen a decrease in success for the red devils, which has lead to Chelsea and Manchester City dominating the division. These two teams have won one Champions league title between them (Chelsea 2012), how can the Premier league claim to be the best league in the world if out of their two front runners, they have only one champions league title between them? When the Champions League is seen as the elite competition of European football. So not only do the English top flight sides pale in comparison in Europe's elite competition compared to other European league competitors in recent years, but it also fails to produce the 'competition' that had made it famous.

The main reason other European Leagues have, particularly La Liga, have struggled the stake a claim for the best league in the world is the lack of competition, between 2003 and 2013 Only Barcelona & Real Madrid won the league title in Spain, and this is perhaps the main reason for an argument against the Spanish top tier being the best in world football. Since 2009, La Liga has also had, without a doubt, the two best players in the world, Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, the two men who have won the last seven Ballon D'ors between them. However many people have said that due to the poor quality of sides these two players where playing on a weekly basis, because of this, although those two players where playing of Spain's shores, it does not contribute to La Liga's argument to be the best.

However, just like the performances in the champions league can argue against the Premier League for being the best, it helps argue La Liga's case. In the last seven years, four of the seven champions league winners have been Spanish clubs, including the winners of the competition for the last two years (2013-14 Real Madrid & 2014-15 Barcelona). Being the top competition in European football, the success in the champions league by Spanish clubs really helps argue the leagues case for being the best.

Despite Continental success, until 2014 the argument still stood against La Liga that the competition level was far to low to be considered the best, that is until Athletico Madrid won the league title, at the home of the Catalan giants Barcelona, in the same season Athletico also reached the champions league final (losing after extra time to Real Madrid). In their attempts to retain their title in the 2014-15 season Athletico pushed city rivals Real Madrid all the way in the battle for second place, showing that Diego Simeone's side have the capabilities to compete with the best in Spain, showing that the competition levels in the domestic league in Spain is increasing. Also players such as Neymar, Luis Suarez, Garath Bale, Toni Kroos, James Rodriguez and many other big signings have helped increase the quality of players playing week in, week out in Spain. The increasing competition, dominance on the Continental stage, and outstanding class of players really makes it hard to argue against La Liga being one of, if not the best the best league in Europe.

Other leagues such as Germany's Bundesliga & Italy's Seria 'A' both also could have claim to the spot as Europe's number one league, but both perhaps are missing either the competition in the League, for example, Bayern Munich's dominance on the Bundesliga. Or the competition on the bigger stage, such as Seria 'A' , the Italian top tier only have had one finalist in the competition since 2010 (Juventus 2015).

In my opinion, the La Liga has recently became the out right best league in the world, personally i believe the dominance on the Continental stage by Spanish sides is to big to ignore, and the lack of success for English teams in recent years is the reason for them being knocked off of the podium. Will the Premier League ever get back to the top of world football? only time will tell and with Lionel Messi's Barcelona currently dominating world football, and Cristiano Ronaldo's goals leading to success for Real Madrid, La Liga looks like it could be on top for a long time.

 

El Ca$hico - The Premier League battle of riches

Since the turn of the century the English Premier League has become over run with teams trying to buy their way to success. Without a doubt the two teams with the most success are Manchester City and Chelsea, these two sides have been the most consistent sides at challenging for the title in the last four or five seasons due to the amount of money they have spent in creating the strongest squads in the league.


Coming into the 2015/2016 Premier League season, Chelsea and Manchester City have won one each out of the last two titles, and have been named as the two favourites for this campaign. El Ca$hico as the fixture has been came to be known was first the first big clash of the season, with the Manchester club running out comfortable 3-0 winners, confirming their challenge for the title. Early on in this season the holders Chelsea have struggled to put in the performances which made winning last seasons title so visibly easy, the question is can they get back on track to retain their title, or will Manchester City keep up their early season dominance and win the Premier League title. Today I will compare these two sides and state which side I feel will win the 2015/2016 Premier League title.


Starting with the title holders Chelsea, Jose Mourinho turned heads with his signings at the start of last season, bringing in the likes of Cesc Fabregas and Diego Costa, these two player topped the league in goals and assists and played a massive part in their title winning campaign. However at the start of this season, unlike all their title rivals who have spent big to improve their sides, Chelsea had failed to add to the team that won last years title, with the exception of Manchester United misfit Radamel Falcao. Until late on in the transfer window, Chelsea completed the signing of Spanish winger Pedro, who put in a man of the match performance on his debut, scoring the opening goal in the 3-2 win over West Brom. However, this transfer period can without a doubt be declared as a failure for Jose Mourinho's side, as they failed to secure Everton defender John Stones, a man they chased throughout the duration of the summer. The reason this failed signing is having such an impact on Chelsea's season is the drop in form of former England captain John Terry. The Chelsea skipper has been a first team regular since the early 2000's in the Chelsea back for, but at the age of 34, many suggest that he may be past his best days. Many individual mistakes, as well as his first red card in five years is a big factor in why the champions are left with only four points after their first four games, the second worst tally at this point of the season for defending champions in premier League history.


In the 2014/2015 season one thing that was pretty much assured when Chelsea played was that the Belgium winger Eden Hazard would put in a solid performance for the blue, and more often then not, would play a big hand in a Chelsea win. However at the start of this season, the PFA player of the year has struggled to carry on the form from last season as this has had a sizable impact of Chelsea's performances so far this time round. The Chelsea number 10 looks much more similar to the Hazard we saw when he first arrived in England, unfit and unable to deal with the physical demands of the Premier League. Now I'm in no doubt that the playmaker will return to his previous form sooner or later, but the question is whether he can have as much of an impact on Chelsea's results as he did last season. If Chelsea hope to retain their title, they may have to hope their star man returns to his previous great form as soon as possible.


Now onto the worlds richest club, Manchester City. Sheikh Mansour's side have won two out of the last four premier league titles, their first since 1968, finishing second in the other two seasons, they have also secured one FA Cup and one Capital One Cup. They have done this by being the highest spending side in the league year after year, spending over £1,000,000,000 since Shaikh bought the club in 2008, it makes City the second highest spending side in premier league history (behind Chelsea), and they have done this in much shorter time then their closest rivals. After spending much of the previous two decades jumping between the first and second tier of English football, its a welcomed change of pace for the City fans to see their side at the peak of English football. Manchester City have also recently broke the premier league transfer record, signing Kevin De Bruyne from Wolfsburg for an estimated £55,000,000, the addition of the Belgium international took City's spending for this summer to £153,000,000. Its spending like this that has made City one of the must successful sides in the Premier League over recent years, and its spending like this which has made them one of the top contenders for this years title.


Manchester City have started the 2015/2016 season at top pace, winning all four of their opening four games, including a dominant victory over champions Chelsea. With consistency being the main reason City failed to defend their title last season, this start to the campaign will put smiles on many City fans faces. The addition of 2015 golden boy winner Raheem Sterling, along side the returning Sergio Aguero, the Spaniard David Silva in some of the best form of his career, and the return to form of Yaya Toure has seen Manchester City play some of the best football we've seen in the premier League in recent years, and they look like the out right favourites for the title early on. Manchester City skipper Vincent Kompany came under plenty of criticism throughout last season for failing to live up to the high standards he had set for himself through the years. However at the start of this season the Belgium international seems to have returned to the great form which has played a big part in City's previous two title winning seasons. Alongside new boy Nicolás Otamendi, City's defence looks as strong as ever. Another knock to City's campaign last time out was the inconsistency  of number one goal keeper Joe Hart. The England number one spent periods of the season on the bench due to his inconsistency, and this had a major effect on results for the Manchester side. However Hart has started this season with four clean sheets out of four, and looks back to his best. These are all factors as to why City look to be the favourites this season.


Due to a combination of transfer window success, and early form I believe Manchester City will win the 2015/2016 Premier League title, and in crushing style too. I am going to  make a prediction that the title will be secured before the 1st of May! However nothing is certain in football, particularly in England, we will never know for sure until the final whistle for this season is blown.