New code of conduct has to help, right?

Last week the English FA handed down the report of its investigation into the racial abuse case levelled at former national team captain John Terry. The 53-page report loosely implies – but stops far short of accusing – Terry, teammate Ashley Cole and Chelsea FC executive David Barnard of contriving evidence to benefit the player's defence.

Cole responded as any normal person would: with a volley of abuse directed at the FA via Twitter.

courtesy: Twitter.com

He has apologised after the FA responded by charging him with misconduct for the insults. However, surely this isn't the main issue. Ashley Cole's rap-sheet of selfish behaviour is extensive and leans heavily on the use of mobile phones. Insults from incredible sources shouldn't hurt simply because their point of origin has – on appearances – so little integrity. The FA should be far more concerned that they suspect two players fabricated evidence in an attempt to avoid justice.

Perhaps as Cole's tweet was the final straw however, as amidst yesterday's palaver surrounding the opening of England's new home base at St George's Park, the FA instituted a new code of conduct applying to all players involved in the national set-up.

Of course it's a good idea, but begs the question: why hasn't this happened sooner? Perhaps these guidelines weren't seen as necessary; maybe those in the corridors of power ultimately realised that definitive expectations both allows players to know where they stand and provides a framework for enforcing social behaviour.

Under the new standards, the FA wouldn't have to charge Cole with the nebulous “misconduct” for his true-to-type Twittering but simply breaching the England player's code of conduct. Hopefully, this clarity will reduce the prevalence of spirit fouls like “actions unbefitting” or “bringing the game into disrepute”. It's a perfectly sensible step forward for English football, which has for too long indulged the selfishness of many star players.

Children need boundaries if they're to grow up to become productive parts of society. So too, it appears, do footballers. Maybe there's a link there.

Three things: Handshakes are still important

Three things we noticed from the Premier League this weekend:

Handshakes are still important

Queens Park Rangers fronted up against Chelsea – and John Terry – in the West London derby. In the pre-match handshake line, Anton Ferdinand, who accused Terry of racially abusing him on the pitch last season, refused the proffered hands of the former England captain and left-back Ashley Cole. Next week, Northwestern rivals Liverpool and Manchester United face off in the first match since Luis Suarez refused to shake Patrice Evra's hand.

Handshakes still matter. Just ask Mark Hughes, who's gotten into rumbles about the tradition with practically everyone.

PFA President and handshake advocate Clarke Carlisle says handshakes are “a statement of intent to play the game in a certain manner befitting a professional”. In a perfect world, this would be so – however, we live in a football society where tribalism runs rampant and songs about tragic events have become so commonplace that managers and administrators rightly condemn their own fans for singing them. The game has often become more important than basic civility. The game's landscape is now so merciless that the handshake feels meaningless, a relic from past times.

Ideally, handshakes – gesture that perhaps began when two parties used their weapon-hand to greet an opponent, rather than kill him – would actually mean something – that the game isn't worth some costs. Hopefully, some footballers still think that way. However, in today's dog-eat-dog football culture, expecting players to make a honourable motions before a game is sadly a stretch. The stakes – and competitive desire – are just too great.

Berbatov's wages are (probably) worth it

Dimitar Berbatov made his first start for new club Fulham on Saturday and led the Cottagers to a win, scoring twice against the previously undefeated West Bromwich Albion. Despite sharing the league's Golden Boot with Carlos Tevez in 2010, the Bulgarian never appeared totally settled at Manchester United; this was partly because Sir Alex Ferguson rarely trusted him leading the line in big games and because his style is far more suited to a two-man front.

Fulham entered the season in a state of flux. Forwards Andy Johnson, Moussa Dembele and Clint Dempsey departed during the summer, replaced by Berbatov and Hugo Rodallega. The highly-salaried Berbatov has immediately shown his class and efficacy in the 4-4-2; paired with Rodallega – the archetypal runner lacking end product (the Colombian averages a Premier League goal every 5½ games and takes 100 shots to register six goals), Berbatov and his understated ability to hold the ball up looks crucial to a re-built West London side.

The "new" Dembele - last year's Costa Rican big buy, Bryan Ruiz - should have ample forward options to pass to - Berbatov's silky scoring and Rodallega's natural athleticism should keep the Cottagers firmly in mid-table.

Southampton need to work it out at the back

They can put goals on the board against the best teams in the country. They've got pretty fair trust fund backing them in the transfer market. They raided Scotland for the best player in that country. Rickie Lambert celebrates a goal better than anyone in creation.

Still, Southampton sit winless at the bottom of the Premier League table. Part of this can be ascribed to their dauting fixture list: they opened the season against Manchester City, Wigan Athletic, Manchester United, Arsenal. Despite boasting more exciting talent than their promoted brethren – and, arguably, more total talent – the Saints have made a habit of conceding, shopping six to Arsenal over the weekend. To make things worse, the Gunners only scored four as Nathan Clyne and the calamitous Jos Hooiveld both put the ball into their own net.

Despite looking better than average in midfield and attack, the Saints will be relegated if they don't fix their defence. The talent simply hasn't stacked up yet. Maybe it never will.

Ian Holloway's Blackpool – and Steve Kean's Blackburn – proved conclusively that in the lower reaches of the Premiership, attack must always be balanced by defence. It's not that the Saints defenders don't try, but appear lacking in class and even perhaps Premier League ability.

Some regeneration advice for Chelsea from Doctor Who

Courtesy: bandbent.wordpress.com

“Life depends on change, renewal”.

These were some of the first words spoken by the second Doctor Who, all the way back in 1966. They were needed because the original actor who played the Doctor, William Hartnell, had left the series and moved on to a retirement home for the terminally crotchety; he was replaced by a younger, fitter, happier – at least initially – actor, Patrick Troughton.

The character of The Doctor, from the eponymous series – starting again in only a matter of weeks – has (mostly) enjoyed a fifty year television existence because when Hartnell's illnesses became too great for the program, they simply subbed in another actor and wrote it into the plot. The Doctor's appearance and mannerisms changed markedly, but his innate character of fairness, equality and just being generally good has remained through eleven actors and half a century. The invention of “regeneration” was so simple and elegant that it allowed a successful program to embrace, and therefore survive, radical change.

This same sort of regeneration is currently in process in West London at Chelsea. Over the summer the Blues cornered the market in tricksy, creative types as they acquired starlets Oscar, Marko Marin and the Hazard brothers, Eden and Thorgan. When combined with last season's best buys, Gary Cahill and Juan Mata, the Blues have replaced their cantankerous old stagers with much more watchable stars.

This is a regeneration with leaguewide implications. The Blues still boasts five of the six most important aspects of the successful last decade – their names are Abramovich, Terry, Lampard, Cole and Cech. Only Drogba has departed. The character of this team doesn't so much depends on this quintet but is actually entirely derived from them: they have the strongest personalities and are the best leaders, the rest of the team will follow or be damned.

Because of this, no matter how important Mata or Hazard become, and despite the obvious cosmetic changes, Chelsea's performance in 2012-13 will revolve around its more venerable elements.

Let's harken back to Who for a moment. Acclimatising to a new Doctor usually took a couple of episodes simply because the characterisation varied so greatly between actors; a new boy was finally accepted as The Doctor (capital T, capital D) after claiming the role with a great performance in a strong story. The same applies at Stamford Bridge. The sheds belong unquestionably to Terry because of his “Mr. Chelsea” aura, his past performances and the memories of success. This has a twofold effect – it promotes team pride but it's hard to argue that it also doesn't lend itself to embracing necessary change. The reinvigoration won't be complete until an alpha dog emerges from this new batch.

For the Blues to walk, rather than reel, into the future, the old salts have to lead by example one last time and embrace regeneration not just of the playing squad, but of the team's leadership group.

Chelsea won't change definitively unless one of Eden Hazard, Fernando Torres, Daniel Sturridge or Mata takes over. While his performances last year justify him the title, Mata's personality may be too mild-mannered to wrest control of the team. With Torres' funk stretching back to the Tennant era, this almost automatically leaves the confident Hazard the best candidate.

The regeneration of body has all but taken. Now the same must occur at the head.

Chelsea find themselves; win Champions League

Chelsea's win over Bayern Munich during Saturday's Champions League final is a triumph that only three months ago was utterly inconceivable.  The club was desperately short of form, many/most/all players had decided unilaterally that Andre Villas-Boas had no business coaching them and the team played with purposelessness rivalling beheaded chickens.

This is certainly due in part to Villas-Boas' methods and the uneasy conflict they created when combined with his remit: beautiful football, better results and a younger, growing team.  That the Portuguese manager attempted a root-and-branch reform in the back rooms of Cobham within months of arriving was certainly ambitious; with hindsight, it appears unfortunate and a little misguided

Chelsea's progress towards a high defensive line and a team composed of rapiers rather than broadswords created a definite schism in the playing staff.  Those players with bucketfuls of personality and credibility - Terry, Drogba, Cole, Cech and Lampard - were still key to this iteration of the team, both on- and off-field; yet the club's future identity was shifted instantly and without consult to a shot-happy Daniel Sturridge, the pitiable Fernando Torres and other youngsters.

This situation wasn't helped by player purchases made by club executives rather than by the man in charge of dictating the squad's sense of collective self, the manager.  Torres, Romelu Lukaku, Kevin de Bruyne, Thibault Courtois, Johnny Kills and Gary Cahill were all young, highly sought-after and supposedly übertalented superstars of the future.  Unfortunately they only exacerbated the personality crisis within the club: were Chelsea a young, fluid, passing team or a team of blunt but supereffective veterans?

Although game tactics were (probably) clear, the entire squad - by dint of confusing statements, puzzling purchases, genuinely odd team selections and an unfamiliar, unsuited gameplan - were a team without an overwhelming sense of purpose or identity.

Courtesy: Telegraph.co.uk

In sport, identity is important.  Not only does it provide a tactical map, but it also generates a sense of certainty in both management and playing staff which helps inherently on a psychological level.   Perhaps one of it's ultimate consequences is with player acquisition.  Rather than plugging in stars from other teams who may not fit the team's  psyche or tactics (a la Liverpool), they can bring in players suited best for their club (say, Blackpool or the latter-day Newcastle United).  A standout example can be taken from this year's promoted teams: after having played the same style in three divisions, Swansea City and Norwich City have succeeded by employing cheap, second- and third-tier players who fit their club's on- and off-field culture.

Since Roberto Di Matteo assumed control, he has created a sense of unity and identity lacking during Villas-Boas' reign.  Even though they finished one position lower in the league than they were when AVB was fired, this too helped: Chelsea became cup-focused and able to coalesce behind an "underdog" persona.  While this worked well against bogey-team Barcelona, it was taken to the n^th degree in Munich: talisman captain suspended, best defender suspended, two centre-backs recovering from injury, backups of questionable quality, key midfielder suspended ...  the pervading instability and queries over the quality of replacement (who'd have though Jose Boswinga and Gary Cahill would start the final only two months ago?) only contributed to a "we'll show 'em" mentality.

Chelsea absorbed tremendous amounts of pressure and then punished both Barca and Bayern when their limited opportunities came.  With some notable exceptions, the Blues have struggled since Mourinho's departure to find a common identity.  Saturday's result came as they found themselves after years of looking.

Villas-Boas fired for breaking coaching's golden rule

And so Andre Villas-Boas is gone, cast to the recycling pile like a dapper cardboard cut-out in a suit that's slightly too small.

Roman Abramovich may as well have employed a cardboard cut-out, as he almost certainly would have performed better in the job with the highest expectations in England.

It's not that Villas-Boas is a bad manager – that's not even close to the truth. He's an excellent manager who, in this appointment, simply picked the wrong battles to fight. The result is that his head is now deservedly displayed on a spike outside Abramovich's castle alongside those of the myriad managers who've run afoul of Roman.

Villas-Boas' remit was to scratch his Russian patron's itch for beautiful football.

And to focus more on refreshing the squad with youth.

And, most importantly, to win – preferably the Champions' League.

As is the case with 21^st Century management, employing a manager is to employ his style. It's now almost impossible to divorce the man from the method, and therefore Villas-Boas was brought to West London to play the same football with which his Porto sides traipsed through Liga Sagres and the Europa League.

That style of football, however, utilised a high defensive line which didn't suit a backline whose key components could be outrun by the Eastbourne Zimmer-frame Relay team. The Chelsea of 2011-12 wasn't built to thrive in such tactics, and the young boss didn't alter his methods quickly enough to stop the slide (!) into fifth place. In isolation he may have survived such tactical idealism, but when combined with an openly antagonistic relationship with stalwarts Lampard, Anelka and Alex, the thirty-four year old could not be persevered with.

Villas-Boas followed what has now become the management norm: steadfast adherence to one's tactical ideals is favoured over pragmatism. This is slightly disturbing, as it directly opposes the first rule of coaching: play to your team's strengths. This rule can be ignored only when working under an extremely patient overlord – and even then only occasionally. It takes time to adapt a team to a gameplan, especially when those players are as hard-nosed as John Terry; it takes far less time to adapt said gameplan to a set of world-weary multimillionaires.

It would have been almost impossible to resist overtures from noted sweet-talker Abramovich, but it appears now Villas-Boas should have twigged that he wasn't the best fit for the position. In sport, however, common sense often plays second fiddle to self-confidence. All of self-confidence, rationale, common sense and ambition are also easily concealed by the coin on offer.

The next manager to take the star cross'd position will have his own ideas how to play the game. For his sake, and for the heart health of the entire Chelsea fan base, he should realise the key to achievement – and therefore longevity – at Stamford Bridge is ultimate pragmatism.

Capello's greatest failing

With Fabio Capello’s recent statements to the Italian media concerning John Terry’s fatal reign as England captain, he has once again displayed his most obvious characteristic as England manager.  Although no-one has tipped England to succeed later this year, Euro 2012 betting markets have become less murky in recent days – why would you bet on a team that can’t win? 

As a squad devoid of leadership, England can’t win anything.

The Italian General has said he has little regard for who wears the England armband.  His most public statements to that effect were two years ago after he removed Terry from the captaincy in the aftermath of the Wayne Bridge affair.  Capello has since backtracked on that decision, reinstating Terry only thirteen months later – a period in which the player attempted a poorly-marshalled coup d’etat during the 2010 World Cup.

As soon as this occurred, Capello lost much of his credibility as England’s leader.  What little repute remained has since evaporated.  To openly disagree with the FA’s decision smacks of a double-standard: he removed Terry because he thought him “divisive” – seemingly failing to understand the gravitas of the current allegations thrown Terry’s way.   

Now it appears he sacked Terry from a leadership position two years ago because he had transgressed Fabio’s moral code.  Terry now faces a charge arguably far worse than the allegations of early 2010, meaning Capello has flip-flopped like a revolving door.  An appropriate term, because it also describes his selection policy. 

Capello has been uniformly inconsistent almost since arriving on English shores.  It has been his greatest failing and has undermined his leadership to the point where now there is an enormous void at the top of the English coaching tree. 

In his great book “The Coach: Managing for Success”, master-manager Ric Charlesworth lists the five traits that a coach simply must display.  He says that a manager must be knowledgeable; diligent; open and flexible; honest and consistent.  While scoring highly for many of these characteristics, Capello fails miserably on the last.  In so doing, his entire role has been negated.  Players look to a manager for dependability - the England mob has failed to receive.

This has never been more apparent than in the curious case of the captaincy.  One moment he cares about who is captain and the next he does not.  At any point John Terry could be integral to the team or irrelevant.  His team selections have vacillated between the uber-experienced and the untested.  There has been little discernible method to Capello’s war-room, but simply reactionary moves that don’t behove his status as a coaching great.

In simplest terms, inconsistency from above indicates an absence of leadership.  Because of this, England will splutter and drown at Euro 2012.

Football's crisis-magnets

How well do we think of our footballers? Inspired by the wonderful webcomic XKCD, I decided to find out which players are represented most negatively on the internet.

The table below shows how frequently a polarising football figure's name arises in an internet article which also features one of these "negative" words: crisis, saga, scandal, row, gaffe, controversy.  For example, nearly 41% of all articles about Wayne Rooney mentioned the word crisis (an astonishing 11,100,000 - approximately).

Player	Total hits	Crisis	Saga	Scandal	Row	Gaffe	Controversy
Wayne Rooney	27200000	40.81%	24.67%	5.48%	53.31%	2.69%	25.40%
Carlos Tevez	14700000	64.69%	38.85%	24.76%	40.41%	3.48%	21.50%
Sepp Blatter	7690000	41.48%	13.52%	35.37%	67.23%	2.51%	27.44%
John Terry	14600000	44.52%	23.29%	4.51%	41.85%	3.47%	24.45%
Zlatan Ibrahimovic	15000000	26.33%	14.33%	17.93%	22.00%	2.55%	12.67%
Jose Mourinho	25800000	39.53%	19.07%	20.23%	32.40%	2.09%	17.02%
David Beckham	60100000	43.93%	40.93%	5.96%	64.73%	2.11%	27.12%
Ronaldo	214000000	31.64%	27.94%	15.05%	17.66%	0.93%	5.00%

The individual words were then googled (along with the player names) to evaluate which words were most associated with which public figure.

Obviously this is hardly definitive, considering the negative word doesn't have to specifically refer to the player, just be featured in the same article. Further complicating matters was that the word "row" has two meanings. Ronaldo was intended to mean "El Fenomeno", the Brazilian legend, but invariably captures much content referring to Real Madrid forward Cristiano Ronaldo.

In defence of Andre Villas-Boas

After overseeing two successive home losses for the first time in the Abramovich era, Chelsea manager Andre Villas-Boas has faced renewed speculation as to his future at Chelsea. Such talk is inevitable - I said, inevitable - thanks to his boss' propensity for firing managers. Expected, sure, and unfair given his short tenure, but is sack-talk even warranted?

Let's examine AVB's remit: to win - or at least compete - for the Premier League and Champions' League titles, replenish an ageing squad, get Fernando Torres firing, all the time playing attractive football. The season is about 100 days old; to expect all of the above to occur by now is quite obviously laughable.

What has the 34-year old done to warrant such attention? Presiding over three losses in four, OK, but the play behind those losses hasn't been horrible. To fire a manager on results rather than overall quality of play, while common, is a last-ditch move; Abramovich must have second, third and fourth-line plans rather than just nuking it all and starting over.

Villas-Boas has been tactically sound, if prone to an ambitiously high defensive line. The Blues assemble in a compact formation usually featuring Torres up front, ostensibly allowing incision from Juan Mata and width players Malouda and Sturridge. In keeping with the reinvigoration part of his mandate, offensive focus isn't on players nearly his own age (Drogba, Anelka and Lampard) but guys entering their prime.

Neither has the manager redefined roles - his men play where and when they perform best. Spectators haven't seen Lampard lying deep before the defence - he isn't suited to it and won't or can't play that position effectively. While spectacularly unsuited to a high defensive line, John Terry isn't being empowered to act as a Libero. So far, with only a few exceptions - and one notable inclusion - guys deserving it have played.

The Blues still score goals - over two per. Torres, while not the blistering El Nino of old, has regained his blonde locks, and with them a semblance of form. Mata looks to be one of the buys of the offseason, while it shouldn't take long to replace Jon Obi Mikel with Raul Meireles (even though it's harsh to blame the Nigerian for Maxi Rodriguez' goal on Sunday). The team is now much less stiff-legged than last year; an athleticism AVB hoped to take advantage of with a new game style.

In short, Chelsea haven't won more because his men have given away poor goals and, at times, failed to take advantage of fruitful situations. Suggested "fixes" for Villas-Boas and the Blues have focused on improving the defence, big-upping Mata and finally choosing between Torres and Drogba. This is only kind of true: the defence certainly needs addressing, but Mata by virtue of skill alone is becoming a featured player. Villas-Boas already has chosen Torres over Drogba - the cards are on the table - but now needs the dressing room's waning alpha-dogs to embrace change.

No-one's calling Terry and Lampard old dogs - well, nearly no-one - but it takes time for players to adapt to another, especially one which prioritises out-and-out speed over muscularity. Villas-Boas will be fine, as will Chelsea. The same can't be said for Didier Drogba and Nicolas Anelka.

Golden Generation or Fool's Gold?

Barring an almighty flop, England will qualify for Euro 2012. They'll do so in marginally convincing fashion, maybe even topping a group which while not robust, provided more challenging than first thought. Now, England manager Fabio Capello said he knew Tuesday's performance against Wales would be sub-par from watching the players warm up.

No-one's championing the current incarnation of the Three Lions as potential champions. Journalists and pundits alike admit their faith has been misplaced in the past and refuse to be fooled into again predicting glory for Blighty because, well, there's no reason to.

England's "golden generation" is marking out the last days of an ultimately disappointing series of International careers. This qualifying campaign is likely to be their last. The next major tournament, Euro 2012, will also probably be their last. They'll probably lose that tournament too, because Spain, Germany and the Netherlands are just that good. Winning won't be the only way the tournament is considered a success - even a fighting semi-final loss could be seen as progress.

They also won't win because of the simple fact England will not win anything until their Golden Generation has been removed almost entirely from the International picture. They have been enabled by Fabio Capello, who after insisting upon his appointment he would pick the best and most in-form players, has reneged and opted for the same old.

Given his reluctance to play England's best goalkeeper at the World Cup due to a self-inflicted lack of competitive experience, this means should the Italian actually want to win the European Football Championships, he should drop the ageing stalwarts of England's calamitous noughties. If he fears the consequences of playing untested players in major competitions, he should blood them now and embrace the possibilities ofered by English youth.

Perhaps he has started to do so already - through it's unclear whether through necessity or choice. Joe Hart is unquestionably the best 'keeper in England, if not one of the top five in world football. Gary Cahill looks almost certain to usurp Rio Ferdinand's position alongside the GG's leader, John Terry. When health allows, Andy Carroll and Jack Wilshere are the vanguard of the next generation. Chris Smalling's debut at right-back was impressive last week and he coped well with Gareth Bale on Tuesday.

The world and his dog already know what the Golden Generation can - or can't - do. If they were able to win a major championship, they would have done so already - or at least performed better. For nearly a decade England has struggled to combine their best two midfielders (Gerrard and Lampard) and boasted forwards unable to wreak the required havoc with inconsistent or inadequate supply. The Lions, while occasionally displaying flashes of individual skill, have been far less than the sum of their parts.

Although the season is young, the English players impressing most in the Premier League are of a different age to the current core of the team. It may be that generational change for its own sake isn't the catalyst for change, but form. Looking through the International lens, these players are unburdened by numerous England let-downs and deserve a chance to grow together as a unit before the Golden Generation exits in a series of faux, enforced and never-ending retirements brought on by a Quarter-final capitulation in Poland or the Ukraine.

This is hardly a revelatory argument. Capello's biggest contribution to English football could be to spot this fool's gold for what it is and create a new legacy for the country with a generation whose players could become (or already are) World Class, led by Hart, Smalling, Wilshere, Phil Jones and (gasp!) even Carroll. It is time to forcibly - and perhaps conspicuously and even painfully - retire those English player who have proven themselves ineffective on the International stage.

When winning is at stake, there is little room for sentiment.

English Premier League Season Preview

If you want in-depth analysis, visit The Guardian. If it's startling stat-facts you're after, then it's OptaJoe you're looking for. Amusement? Try the Football Ramble. But here, after a summer in which an awful lot was made of ridiculously little, is Balanced Sports' Q & A preview to the English Premier League 2011-12.

courtesy: bleacherreport.com

Arsenal: Where's the love for Arsene Wenger?

The Arsenal faithful want to lynch someone - anyone - for their second-half fades in recent seasons. With Wenger's refusal to reinforce the Arsenal backline to the fans satisfaction, Cesc looking to leave and Nasri increasingly likely to follow, it's liable the Professor is the posse's first choice. Has anyone considered he may have a point? Injury has robbed him of a first-choice central defensive partnership of Vermaelen and Djourou, while Wojciech Szczęsny could have a Joe-Hart-at-Birmingham breakout.

Aston Villa: How much does it matter that McLeish is as popular as a dead polecat?

Due to the dour football his Birmingham City squads chundered out last year, popular opinion of McLeish in Birmingham is like Greece's economy: toxic. This staid mindset, plus Shay Given, may be just the thing Villa need to rectify ageing Central Defensive duo Collins & Dunne's 2011 propensity for mishap. They won't uproot the redwoods, but do look capable of counterpunching behind Charles N'Zogbia, Marc Albrighton and Darren Bent.

Blackburn: Do Venky's care about football?

In a word, no. Or if they do, they've got a weird way of showing it: sacking the effective-on-a-budget Sam Allardyce, commiting ₤5 million to a transfer fund which would take the team "into the Champions' League", frequently summoning manager Steve Kean to India and announcing their interest in every has-been on the planet. They should care though, because if this is the publicity grab it seems, they'll be aghast to see how much revenue (and support and merchandising and sponsorship and ... ) drops on relegation to the Championship with a threadbare squad.

Bolton: What did they do to anger the Gods of broken legs?

Who knows? With promising Chung-Yong Lee sporting a double leg break and attacking right-back Tyrone Mears suffering a similar injury, boss Owen Coyle must looking for a Harry Potter-style Time Turner to re-live the past two weeks. Creative US international Stuart Holden broke his leg had his leg broken in March and probably won't be back until the new year. Without these three cogs and looking short a striker, it's questionable they can create enough goals to capitalise on his preferred passing game.

Chelsea: How many times will we see André Villas-Boas referred to as the New Mourinho?

At a rough guess, 547 by Christmas and the under/over for the season is at 999.5. While he boasts lengthy connections to the Special One, AVB seems to be his own man and is charged with disarming and deconstructing the player cabal that runs the backroom at Chelsea - a unity engendered by Jose. He'll need specialised bomb defusal skills to do so as aggravating John Terry got first Jose and then Big Phil Scolari fired.

Everton: When will David Moyes' eyes finally pop out of his head for good?

It must be frustrating for the ginger man - to consistently assemble good players only to see them want to leave. And after ten years at Goodison Park, he's hardly a Bright Young Thing any more. He's happy in Liverpool, but for a man with tremendous competitive drive the sell-to-buy philosophy must be wearing. He'll probably stay with the Toffees for ages - because at this stage neither he, nor the club, can do better. It's a saddening state of affairs in Mersey's blue half.

Fulham: Where to now?

Fulham once again contest the Europa League after Roy Hodgson led them on a wild ride two seasons ago. Much as they loved that run, fans are already wondering if a second trip to watch their boys in the Ukraine is worth the outlay. The experienced Martin Jol has had success nearly everywhere he's been, however he must confront an ageing squad that takes longer to recover from Thursday night matches. Signing Palermo's teen Patjim Kasami should help, but other newbie John Arne Riise is already the wrong side of 30. Is two days' break enough?

Liverpool: Is King Kenny the Messiah?

The essence to success in video game Football Manager is simple: keep players happy. You do so by winning, praise and goals. While FM bears as much resemblance to the Real Thing as a smoked meat sandwich does to a hot dog, it does underline Kenny Dalglish's early "success" at Liverpool. He's played the kids, signed enough multi-skilled central midfielders to start his own cloning facility and given them targets to aim at in Luis Suarez, Andy Carroll and a reinvigorated Dirk Kuyt. To his credit, Kenny understands it's not rocket science but simple Human Resources.

Man. City: Is it finally my time?

Perhaps. As always the Citizens' fortunes rest on Carlos Tevez - only now, they don't depend on his on-pitch strut. A successful season behind Sergio Aguero, David Silva, Vincent Kompany and even Wesley Sneijder hangs on their ability to rid the dressing room of a malcontent and potential unsettling influence. If he stays, Tevez will contribute mightily but - because of his preference to work up front alone - perhaps at the cost of playing one of Aguero or Dzeko. If he leaves, he'll be replaced perhaps by that little-'n'-large show with Johnson & Silva out wide. It all sounds mouthwatering. Anything less than a Title challenge will disappoint.

Man. United: More important: Cleverley, Welbeck, Jones, Smalling, Gibson, Carrick or De Gea?

Surprisingly enough it's Tom Cleverley, who spent last season on loan at Wigan. Rewarded for an excellent Charity Shield with a call-up to the England squad, he - not Darron Gibson or Michael Carrick - is earmarked as Paul Scholes' successor. While David De Gea is young, he's also a work in progress and, as former coach Abel Resino says, will peak in a decade. He can't be expected to to be more than solid in his first year - especially as he doesn't speak English. Ferguson has invested for the far future between the sticks.

Part two will be published tomorrow.

England's - and Capello's - Captaincy Dilemma

As much as John Terry is unlikeable, he is a good on-field leader. This is why Fabio Capello performed a back-flip this week by announcing his reinstatement as England captain. It seems Terry, who was stripped of his title last year amidst a swarm of accusations about his private life, is the least of eleven evils. In a news conference on Tuesday, Terry admitted to "not being everyone's cup of tea". In a poll today on The Guardian's website, apparently he's only 15.9%'s beverage of choice.

There's almost no question the Chelsea skipper has all the best capabilities for the job - experience leading a team to trophies, is the biggest alpha-dog available to England, is amongst the best central defenders in the country and he'd look great with a bandaged head, Terry Butcher-style. Could you picture Rio Ferdinand or Matthew Upson standing in front of Joe Hart, screaming "You Shall Not Pass!" like Gandalf ? No, I couldn't either. In fact, on racking my brains for at least a minute, the only other Englishman I can think of who fits both the Butcher and Gandalf criteria is West Ham's Scott Parker.

There's a good argument that no defender or midfielder regularly available to England inspires like Terry. The only forward who does so is Wayne Rooney, who - though improving - is enduring probably his worst season ever and boasts off-field decisions which make those of the newly reinstated captain seem positively Yoda-like. England, it seems, are bereft of leaders worthy of the armband and this has forced a Capello flip-flop, which also sounds like a rather nice brand of ice-cream. All the positive steps the Italian was supposed to bring have now sunk finally, inexorably under a pile of Nutella, French Underwear Models and Boredom. The famous Capello discipline has, sadly, failed.

Capello was brought in to administer England for a number of reasons. Firstly, he has won everywhere he's been. This leads straight onto the second reason - his success and manner made him the best qualified choice to manage a nation suffering through a trophy drought now forty-five years long. That's thirty-nine years longer than Arsenal's current drought, ten years longer than City's dry spell and was three years shorter than Birmingham City's before the League Cup. Finally, it was thought that Capello's rigid sense of discipline would allow for better performances after the pally reign of Schteve McClaren turned into schemozzle.

The Three Lions responded magnificently early in the Italian's reign but this petered out with an awful World Cup during which there were rumours of a rebellion led by Terry. It's beginning to seem though nothing totally defeated him before, Capello has finally met his match with this group. It's fitting commentary that a man renowned for strong principles has perhaps been challenged most strongly - and terminally - by this group of players whose ideals often remain ... fluid.

Terry was stripped of the captaincy for personal rather than professional reasons. At the time, it was thought unlikely he would regain the position - the colossus centre-back gave way to his ball-playing counterpart Rio Ferdinand, who has rarely been healthy since. Rumours persist that he may never be fully healthy again. The gaffer manager (doesn't seem like the type to enjoy the title "gaffer", does he?) was then forced to reconsider his options and, probable personality issues and all, John Terry is the outstanding candidate.

Every other Three Lions regular - Ferdinand, A. Cole, Lampard, Gerrard, Hart, Rooney, Barry, Milner - either doesn't have the force of personality to be the dressing room alpha dog or the talent to justify the appointment. Those who do have the personality and skills either boast injury reports the length of Terry Butcher's bandage or a personal life making Terry's seem meek in comparison. As much as it's probable Capello would have liked to move forward, the only younger prospects worthy of regular England consideration are Jack Wilshere and Andy Carroll. The manager's hands were tied on this one - it's not a back-flip solely because he changed his mind, simply that there are no more options left to him.