The Art of Footwork

by Balanced Sports columnist Ben Roberts

The poor performance of the Australian batsmen during the Ashes series hopefully will be discussed and debated at length by coaches and players. Let me take an opportunity to put forward an opinion on where I believe the primary issue lies, poor footwork. Phillip Hughes and to a lesser extent Steve Smith have borne the brunt of criticism on this topic, but save for Michael Hussey, all of the Australians showed clear weakness in this area. Contrasting this with the English batsmen who dominated the summer should indicate the extent of the concern. Why is it that the English were so more accomplished than the Australians?

Let me begin by looking at the two main reasons for needing footwork while batting. Firstly, it assists the batsman’s balance and places their head into the optimal position to play the ball. To a delivery pitched up, coming forward brings the batsmen’s head into line as best is possible to watch the ball; by being nearer to the pitch of the ball the batsmen is in a better position to cover any movement, swing or seam. To shorter pitched delivery’s, where you cannot get to the pitch, footwork backward again steady’s the head for watching the ball and by moving right back the batsman has given themselves more time to adjust their shot as necessary.

Secondly, footwork carries the batsman’s body and develops power in the shots. Batting is a full body task, not just one for the arms. This is consistent with other sports where an instrument must be swung. Both Golf and Tennis coaching recognises that the power in shots does not come solely from the arms and shoulders, but via the transferral of weight. Transferral of weight requires good footwork for it to be done efficiently.

Armed with this brief knowledge of footwork let me attempt to assess the causes for Australia’s recent poor display of it.

Without wanting to claim anything but fortune in the occurrences, my recent ‘Pitching It Up’ series was timed very well. For the first time in at least 10 years the Australian pitches had character and gave movement off the seam. In addition Australia has also had thus far its most unique summer weather in a long time. This has created humid atmospheric conditions far more conducive to moving the ball through the air than the dry searing heat that modern Australia is more accustomed to.

Australia has a generation of batsmen who have grown up in benign batting conditions. In some respects ground staff have been at the mercy of the weather, but I have no doubt that the desire for matches to last longer has led administrators to request more batsman friendly conditions. Batsmen have developed great faith in the ball not moving and can swing through the line (driving ‘on the up’) with little risk. Back foot play has almost become a forgotten art, as average cricketers at most stay on the crease, if not pull and cut from the front foot. 20 years ago such flamboyant batting was the sole domain of the batsmen who was well established at the crease, and arguably the second greatest ever Viv Richards.

By contrast English conditions are extremely different to Australia. While an English pitch may be prepared flat, there is no ability to control the atmosphere and prevent swing. Therefore the English batsmen had a good grounding in difficult conditions, and were more conservative and respectful in their stroke play. Do note that conservative and respectful clearly doesn’t mean slow, as 3.5 to 4 runs an over attests.

I was fortunate to arrive home from work the other day early enough to watch the final over’s of the England women’s team chasing Australia’s total at Adelaide in a T20 match. Firstly can I applaud the administrators/broadcasters responsible for making this happen as the cricket played was high class and worthy of broadcast, may it be a more regular feature on television. While watching the English bat, I very much enjoyed noting the great techniques, and of course footwork, of the players, (I will happily admit that the enjoyment of footwork makes me an abject cricket nerd!).

The second purpose of footwork that I noted above is the development of power in stroke play. Physiologically, it is not an unreasonable generalisation to say that male cricketers, for the most part, will be stronger than their female counterparts. Given lesser physical strength, footwork for the women is paramount for striking the ball with power. Contrast this with some of the Australian men, who through physical conditioning work have developed upper body strength that means they escape the need for footwork to develop power.

While you cannot complain about players making sacrifices to be in peak physical condition, the need for ultra-strength isn’t there and potentially has harmed some techniques. Bradman, Harvey, Border, and Ponting are listed in the greats of Australian batsman but did not develop power through being larger men, all were below 5’8” and slender in build. Even Greg Chappell, another great, was tall but still a thinner build. Compare this to Shane Watson, Brad Haddin and a number of recent Australian cricketers who have physique’s closer to Rugby players than traditional cricketers.

The answer as to why Australian batsmen have completely lost the art of footwork is probably to be discussed individually with each batsman. My general feeling is that the recent benign conditions have played more of a role than too much focus on physical development, but it has played its part also. Short of locating the local Arthur Murray dance studio for each of the contracted cricketers, footwork must become a priority for Australian first-class cricketers.

An increase in the number of Australian players turning out for seasons in English cricket is needed, and not just for highly remunerated T20 stints. This is even just playing for League sides in the absence of a county contract. Give our batsmen an experience of playing in unfavourable conditions. The coaching and training staff have to also look at the purpose and amount of physical conditioning work, and recognise that cricketing skill is the priority over fitness in training.

NHL All-Star Game shakeup a great idea

Part 2 of our continuing series; An Australian on Ice Hockey

Part 1: You make excuses for the Habs

Part 3: Chara's Pacioretty hit means a lot for NHL - and pro sport

Part 4: Canadiens vs. Boston the Austin Powers NHL Playoff matchup

Part 5: The Psychology of Choking

The NHL All-Star Game is scheduled for Sunday 29th of January in Raleigh, North Carolina, and has changed format this year. Rather than the traditional fan-selected East vs. West match typifying All-Star games across the major sports, this year the league asked fans to select six players only. Those players, four from Pittsburgh and two Chicago Blackhawks, will be joined by players that the NHL's Hockey Operations department has selected to bring the number of players up to the Adamsian forty-two.

Here's where it gets interesting. Two captains will be selected from that shortlist of forty-two and each captain will then choose his own squad as if they are playing hockey out back on the pond. Rumour has it the NHL's most marketable players - forwards Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin from the Penguins and Capitals - are likely to be given the honour of selecting their own teammates.

Click here to see the full roster as selected by the fans and NHL.

While Gary Bettman has had a controversial and chequered career as the NHL's commissioner, this is a win. The NHL is a clear and distant fourth in America's sporting hierarchy and this change of direction for the league showpiece, while revolutionary, allows its millions of followers not just to see the best hockey has to offer, but also makes the game more approachable for the everyman. Every single hockey player in Canada has played pond hockey - perhaps even every single person. Pickup hockey is one of the nation's great pastimes and for a league facing as many struggles as the NHL does - chiefly issues of legitimacy outside Canada and the North East US - it stands to gain both notoriety and new fans by adopting such a novel approach. While playing in the NHL - or any pro sport - is out of reach for most of us, this concept of bringing the apogee of the game back to the grass roots allows Joe Public to identify more with the creme de la creme of Ice Hockey.

It's concepts like this match and the Winter Classic, where a match is played outside during the depths of winter - this year Crosby's Pens hosting Ovechkin's Caps at Pittsburgh Football stadium - which could bring a whole new relevancy to the national game of Canada. Hockey is facing a tough battle to remain in the US national consciousness as expansion waters down the talent pool and US cities find themselves unprepared for athletes speaking little English. (A quarter of the NHL's player pool comes from outside North America and many newcomers don't have a great command of the language). Soccer and Mixed Martial Arts (!) are rapidly gaining ground in the chase for the NHL's title of "fourth most identifiable sport in the continent" so it's encouraging from a position north of the border to see measures being taken to support the visibility of the league in the southern United States, no matter how few people play - or even care about- hockey there. Bettman's infinitely debatable strategy of relocating small-market Canadian teams and expanding south of the border - sometimes waaaaaay south - was aimed at growing the game in warmer climes and has achieved only mild-to-moderate success. To encourage that growth, there has to be exposure as to why and how the game is so loved in northern regions.

Where perhaps the NHL has dropped the ball - sorry, puck - with this new All-Star concept is the logical extension of this "pond hockey" idea: while the captains are obviously important, maybe there's too much emphasis placed on the skipper's role. To really capture the spirit of pond hockey, the essence of the grass-roots, perhaps it'd be preferable to suit the players up on All-Star Saturday and get them to throw their sticks in a pile to be picked at random onto one of two teams just like when playing pickup. It could be done according to position as well to ensure parity and so rather than relying on a captain's personal preference, another level of mystery to the game is added - no matter how they feel about each other, how would Malkin play with Ovechkin? Or Carey Price with Zdeno Chara?

Television cameras north and south of the 49th would love to see Bettman out on the ice, picking up a stick and throwing it into one team or the other's pile at random. It would just be magic publicity for the league - a draft of the best 42 players in the world and an All-Star game in the one weekend. I can't imagine this being anything other than a major boost for the event, and for the league as a whole. Perhaps that's the future direction of the All-Star game.

Perhaps the next generation All-Star game could follow the same lines that Australia has used recently for the AFL's one-off revival of it's State of Origin concept. In that 2008 match, the state with the largest number of clubs - and thus grass-roots players - competed against a team made up of players who played junior footy outside Victoria. The same could be done with the NHL, with a US/Canada combination being pitted against an International All-Star squad coming from Finland, Russia, Sweden and the Czech Republic. To make the numbers even more square, it could be players who played their juniors in Canada (Out of the 962 NHL players in 2009-10, 520 were Canadians) against The Rest. I'd pay money to see either match and, along with the Pond Hockey idea, it's perhaps more sustainable and easily regulated than two captains picking their own teams, probably rife with friends and brown-noses. This option may be unlikely as it divides players along national lines and could tread on the toes of the IIHF, but is at least worth considering.

There are a few other wrinkles to this game make it even more interesting. Identical twins Henrik and Daniel Sedin, of the league-topping Vancouver Canucks, have never played against each other during their NHL careers and could wind up on different teams. Brothers Marc and Eric Staal may find themselves playing alongside or against one another. In a game where knowledge of one's comrades is vital to good team play, it would be great to see Crosby not selecting m/any of his Pens/Team Canada alumni so as to increase the levels of uncertainty and make the event even more of a spectacle: let the public see how he would go against Marc-Andre Fleury. It's crucial the teams are really shaken up and the NHL should encourage the star-cross'd captains just to have fun and pick guys they'd like to play with, rather than know intimately. As usual there are questionable selections and "milk cartons" - players missing from the game for unknown reasons - which adds another level of intrigue to what is already shaping as one of the most interesting hockey games of the year.

Can Gold & Sullivan thrive at West Ham?

The Davids, Gold and Sullivan, have been involved in English football for several years now. In partnership they bought out the controlling stake in Birmingham City FC in 1993 after both independently made their fortunes, the adult movie business prime among their earners.

After protracted back and forth with Hong Kong businessman Carson Yeung, The Davids sold Birmingham City in 2009, with Sullivan citing a lack of support from the Birmingham Council and from fans as major reasons for their departure. The pair then returned to their East End roots, purchasing 50% of West Ham United, the club both had supported as boys. Upon completing the purchase they then expressed their surprise at the levels of unreported debt at the club.

The Davids have a highly visible public profile. Both are successful businessmen and when asked, will spout opinion on their asset - the football club. According to the ESPN Soccernet podcast, when one journalist approached press time without a story, he would just call David Sullivan and all would be well. Of course as owners, they are entitled to comment upon the health of their asset but football matters have long been considered taboo for non-football executives, a line that they've crossed repeatedly over the past few years. Last season as Gianfranco Zola's tenure as West Ham manager very publicly wound down, it seemed one David was forever refusing to guarantee Zola his position while the other would appear more supportive.

Their immediate subordinate is Karren Brady, who the pair appointed as Managing Director of Birmingham City in 1993. Then only twenty-three and the first woman in such a position in the top flight of English football, Brady has parlayed her undoubted ability and business nous into considerable fame, attracting awards as diverse as recognitions from the Queen, to being voted one of FHM's Sexiest Women of the Year. She's another high-profile type, writing newspaper columns and serving as Alan Sugar's assistant in the UK version of The Apprentice. Brady, now the Vice-Chairman of West Ham, is known in the business as a "sacker" - though the stats don't really back that up, with Birmingham City only having four permanent bosses on her watch.

Can such a visible and vocal triumvirate promote long-term success at a West Ham? Outspoken opponents of the debt level in English football, The Davids are fiscally responsible but have also spent on the transfer market, meaning thrift isn't their ultimate watchword. No doubt their business acumen is keenly tuned but during their time at West Ham they've been guilty of speaking before seeing the full ramifications of their words. Though the situation is unquestionably fraught with a precipitous fiscal position, manager Avram Grant has been in the gun for several weeks as a young Hammers squad sits in the relegation zone, with a recent run of four wins from seven unable to bring about the dreaded "Vote of Confidence".

With such an unstable club, don't such public comments just undermine a manager's credibility and control within the club? If meetings are held, as reported, on a near-weekly basis to discuss a manager's future then surely players are less likely to respond to a dead man walking? And with The Davids and Karren refusing to promote stability - deliberately or not - in the club by supporting or firing the gaffer, then levels of indecision rise to an almost criminal level. Like most people, players value certainty when it comes to their future lives and careers. Fear of this future doesn't allow anyone to perform to their best.

The issue isn't if The Davids can run a football club - that was proved during their time in the Second City. The issue is whether they are aware that their public profile could be damaging the club's chances of Premiership survival, and and if so, are they are willing to sacrifice their right to speech if it aids the club's chances? They should heed the example of Newcastle United's achievements when a formerly bombastic board shut their mouths and allowed a quieter manager space to operate.

Life with The Davids and Karren is always interesting. For the foreseeable future, it should remain so.

Messi a worthy Ballon d'Or winner

When FIFA announced that Barcelona and Argentina forward Lionel Messi had won the Ballon d'Or as the world's best player during 2010, it flew in the face of convention by selecting a player who, although universally regarded as tremendous, had not "won it all" that year.

In all fairness, we're talking about a slightly different Ballon d'Or from now on. First and most importantly, the award is now the FIFA Ballon d'Or, dispensed by football's governing body and it's comical - and not in a good way - head, Sepp Blatter. In times past it was awarded by the magazine France Football from 1956 and until three years ago was given only to players who played in Europe. In 1991 FIFA began doling out their World Player of the Year and have wrapped their all-encompassing tentacles around a trophy they didn't own the rights to, appropriating the most famous individual footballing award and stencilled their acronym stencilled across it.

The criteria now for FIFA's Ballon d'Or winner include: performances in major tournaments; individual and team honours; individual talent; skill and fair play; their overall career and finally personality and charisma.

A second key difference is that Messi, although almost indisputably the best footballer in the world, was presented the trophy without actually being part of a winning World Cup squad. This was the first time the award has been presented in a World Cup year to a player who didn't feature for the World Champions. The Spanish press reeled and then railed against the selection of the Argentine, suggesting that triumphant Spain midfielders Xavi and Andres Iniesta were more worthy recipients. The clamour only increased when Spain coach Vicente Del Bosque was beaten into the minor places by Jose Mourinho, who helmed Inter Milan to the UEFA Champions League title.

As much as FIFA has suffered a year they had hoped for more from, we can't lay the blame squarely on the head of Sepp and his eminently swayable bureaucratic chorus. The Ballon d'Or was voted upon by journalists, coaches and captains of teams all over the world and as such the blame - or credit - can be apportioned to people inside the game and not just to those who oversee it. It's telling that Champions League winner and World Cup finalist Wesley Sneijder of Inter Milan and the Netherlands was voted for in large numbers by journalists but not as much from players and coaches, perhaps testament to his notoriously abrasive personality.

The clamour for Xavi, in particular, to win the award is fair and had he walked away with the trophy could be very few arguments. He has claims to being the best midfielder in the world - perhaps the best of his generation - and played alongside Messi with Spanish champions Barcelona and for World Cup winning Spain. But really, could anyone definitively say Xavi is a better player than Messi? And with that said, according to FIFA's criteria he only has one more string to his bow than Messi, who perhaps could have an advantage in several others. As far as Xavi ultimately having more team success, you could say Messi helped Argentina to their World Cup finish in spite of a wacky coach who selected a team which wasn't the best Argentina had to offer. In fact, Messi should be congratulated on his World Cup display while being surrounded by the circus that inevitably follows Diego Maradona. It appears, especially when noting Sneijder's miserly vote tally, that personal preference for each player's role and personality played a role.

Great players don't have to win it all to be recognised as great but they do have to perform on the largest stages. Winning certainly does provide a boost for a player's legacy but it takes a lot of convincing to prove that winning is the be-all and end-all to defining a player's greatness.

Invitational XIs

by Balanced Sports columnist Ben Roberts.

The highest level of cricket in modern history for the most part has been dominated by contests that have called upon the patriotic instincts of both player and supporter. The highest aspirations of modern cricketers remain to represent state, province, or county on the way to national honours, and well they should. However, for lovers of the game, to restrict any analysis or knowledge of the games' history simply to geographical representative matches is to omit many great stories and in fact misunderstand the games' origins entirely.

My interest has been pricked to look into some of the various invitational teams throughout history with the upcoming Australian Prime Minister's XI tour match in the days following the completion of the Sydney test match. The history of this annual fixture we will look at below, but it stands among other matches that have been played throughout crickets history beyond representative sides.

Recently I was alerted to the origins of the Trent Bridge ground in Nottingham, home of Nottinghamshire county cricket club. The ground was founded by William Clarke in the 1830s who, at the time, was captain of a team of travelling professionals who partook in invitational cricket matches for profit. The ground was developed for twofold purposes: one, to give this team a home ground and secondly, to provide commerce to the adjacent 'Trent Bridge Inn' which at the time was run by Clarke's wife, and still exists today.

Early first class cricket in the 18^th and 19^th centuries was dominated by invitational teams. The idea and formation of geographic representative teams was a much later phenomenon that in many respects grew out of invitational teams such as Clarke's making the decision to create a home ground of their own.

Australian Prime Ministers XI

In October 2011 the 60^th anniversary of the first of these invitational matches will pass by. The match has not always been an annual event on the cricketing calendar and likewise the format has changed over time as well. Its original incarnation was as a first-class match, however in later years became a limited over contest.

Modern times have the players invited for the PM's XI being an eclectic mix of young Australian first-class cricketers and retired Australian greats. In the 2010 match the captaincy of the team was given to the then recently retired Matthew Hayden. However in 2011 Australia's reserve wicketkeeper, and in some cricketing opinions the Australian captain elect over Michael Clarke, Tim Paine will lead a side full of potential World Cup tourists and young talent. This is the current Prime Minister Julia Gillard's first match in charge and she probably has elected as priority the bringing of calm to the Australian political scene and handed back the reigns to Hilditch and co..

Where opposition have been summoned from has changed also for the PM's XI over time. The original match was played against the touring West Indian test team but in the following years the Marylebone Cricket Club provided the opposition. Later in the fixture's history it has become more predominate for the touring international team that summer to line up against the PM's XI. For three years during the term of John Howard as Prime Minister the PM's XI competed against the now defunct Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission. Critics of Mr Howard's policy decisions may find a certain irony in such a match-up.

I do not profess to be a political commentator but I believe I am on to something when looking at the relationship between the attitude of the prevailing Prime Minister to this cricketing fixture and time in office. The match's 1951 creator Sir Robert Menzies, its 1984 resurrection leader Bob Hawke and abject cricket tragic John Howard are the three longest serving Prime Ministers in Australian history. One can easily imagine each of Sir Robert, Hawke and Howard locking themselves up in the 'Lodge' away from foreign policy advisors to make the all important decision as to who will bowl first change, rather than drafting a memorandum of understanding between Australia and the United States military.

Compare this to the attitudes of the only other two Prime Ministers to have prevailed over a match, Kevin Rudd and Paul Keating. Despite summoning all of his ability as a Thespian, Mr Rudd I don't think could convince the Australian public that he really was a sport, let alone cricket, lover. Mr Keating clearly didn't care. Neither of them saw much time in the office of Prime Minister. The message to Ms Gillard is therefore, ignore this fixture at your peril.

The Gentlemen versus The Players

This annual fixture in the English first-class cricket calendar was a bastion of the aristocratic and class based society that existed within England until the mid 20^th century. The 'Gentlemen' were selected from those first-class cricketers throughout England who were thought to be strictly amateur in their involvement in cricket, in reality the distinction of 'Gentlemen' was made on the basis of societies class structure and not just remuneration. The 'Players' were the professionals who accepted remuneration for playing cricket and therefore were considered lesser in the game.

Of course the ability of most of the Gentlemen to play cricket as amateurs generally came from immense personal and family wealth that made payments for playing cricket trivial in the least, and easily foregone. Professional cricketers on the other hand were not just required to play cricket, they were servants of the club and the amateur players and would assist or be responsible for tasks such as pitch preparation and cleaning out the dressing rooms. As well, they were not permitted to enter the club rooms of the amateurs.

The fixture occurred from the early part of the 19^th century until 1962 when it was decided that first-class cricket would become fully professional and rendered the fixture useless. Fred Trueman, a regular in the ranks of 'The Players' in the matches final years and not afraid to speak his mind, was delighted when it was abolished.

Despite a clearly discriminatory basis for the match, it was one of the most fervently anticipated and contested matches on the first-class calender during its lifetime. The quality of the cricket played was said to have rivalled test match standard. For the record in the 274 matches played, 80 matches were drawn, one match tied, 68 won by The Gentlemen and 125 won by The Players. As someone who no doubt had a majority of ancestors in the lower rungs of society I take some pride in this record.

The Smokers versus The Non-Smokers

Quite how such a distinction was decided upon to create teams for a cricket match came about I have not been able to ascertain. This first-class fixture was only played twice, once at Lord's (1884) and once in East Melbourne (1887) (though not at the MCG), and included players of both Australian and English extraction. Potentially it was the only means by which the collective group of men could be divided outside of nationalities.

Given the overwhelming evidence and attitude toward smoking that is detrimental to health it is unlikely that in the 21^st century or beyond such a concept will be revived. The anti-smoking campaigners will probably be pleased to hear that the first match concluded with a 9 wicket win to the Non-Smokers and the second match ended in a draw but with the Non-smokers again dominant throughout.

Modern Invitational Cricket Matches

With the advent of limited over followed by T20 cricket more recently there have been a number of matches organised along invitational lines. In the days prior to this summer's first Ashes test in Brisbane an All Star T20 match was held between a team selected by voting cricket fans and a team selected by the players (I think the cricket fans were afforded priority over a player selected by both parties).

Of recent there is also a more rebellious nature to invitational teams. The “Stanford Superstars” were a short lived T20 outfit that played a number of matches in October and November of 2008. The team was made up of West Indian cricketers trying to chase greater financial reward beyond what the WICB was willing to provide. Surprisingly Allen Stanford, a Texan billionaire, had a passion for the game of cricket and bankrolled the entire exercise. The concept was short-lived due to Mr Stanford's unique financial management techniques and his current residential status within the Texas criminal justice system.

Curiously Stanford is not the only wealthy American to have acted on a passion for the game of cricket. With his family wealth from oil, the late John Paul Getty was a confessed Anglophile who spent considerable sums of money within the game. This included building a replica of 'The Oval' on his property and inviting many international touring teams to play against his personally selected XI each year until his passing.

The final series of invitational cricket matches were not developed out of any desire for profit, or self interest but to help with raising funds and awareness for the plight of millions throughout Asia as a result of the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami. Although the effect of this natural disaster was not limited to cricket playing nations, parts of India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh were severely affected. There were a series of matches played across the world, but the kick-off was the amazingly, given time constraints, organised match, held at the MCG between and Asian XI and a World XI. Invited players and officials receiving no payment.

There have been many incarnations of World XI cricket teams as well as other invitational teams throughout the history of the game, but given the purpose of these contests in 2005 none can be said to have been successful as these organised for charitable purposes only. Hopefully more matches will be organised in the future that have only pure interests at their heart.

The Hodgson exorcism, commenced

Let's be honest, Roy Hodgson's Liverpool career was probably never going to be a really long one. After steering Fulham to the Europa League final last year, his stock was as high as it was ever likely to be and given the traumatic last six months of the Rafa Benitez, then-Anfield execs Martin Broughton and Christian Purslow thought the controlled, effective manner of Hodgson would present a stark, much needed contrast to the mayhem that characterised the final, Hitler's bunker-style days of Benitez.

Unfortunately Hodgson wasn't so much handicapped from day one but never had any legs to stand on: by the club's impending sale, by player - and especially fan - resistance to his preferred style of play, by a lack of funds to buy "Liverpool quality" players, by Fernando Torres' inability to recapture his consistent excellent form of seasons past ... the list goes on. It was a matter of time before Roy was given his cards. His appalling away record - about as appealing as rat sorbet - brought with him from the Cottagers, must have counted against him nearly as much as the protests. It probably also didn't help that many middling Scouse efforts, Roy chose to announce them as their "best performances yet" which meant his credibility both in the dressing room and with The Kop began to waver early in the season.

It's also no surprise that Kenny Dalglish replaces him. "Our Ken" has been angling for a return to managing the Anfield mob for months now. By sniffing around like a beagle on heat, strategically-not-denying-interest and at times actively promoting it like a poor vaudevillian, he's excited the fans dreaming of a end to the tenures of Rafa and Roy. False hope, probably, but hope is a saleable asset in sports. When approached to help in the search for the new Liverpool boss, Dalglish made sure his name was top of the list. His return shouldn't inspire blind confidence in the Mersey faithful though, as his last spell as manager - though successful - ended twenty years ago and he hasn't managed for ten years. He does, however, remain a Liverpool icon and as such perhaps the board had that in mind when dismissing Hodgson in time for Dalglish to make his second manaagerial bow for Liverpool against Manchester United, rallying fans and players alike for their FA Cup clash against their great rivals.

Dalglish returns as caretaker manager, the man thrown to the Premier League wolves to save the Scouser's season. If he gets Torres, Gerrard etc back into touch then, given his status as a club legend, there's every chance he will have secured himself the position for the foxreseeable future.

The first step on Liverpool's new path to glory is on Sunday as they take on United in the FA Cup, a path sure to be long and eventful.

Target 2014

Whether Australia's 3-1 defeat at the hands of the Old Enemy doesn't really matter even though the gut feeling is that Australia's best side hasn't ever been as outplayed as convincingly as they were during this series. The Australia defeated yesterday was comprehensively outgunned and more disturbingly, out-thought.

According to Greg Baum of The Age, this was Australian cricket at it's deepest depths, it's perihelion, so heads must roll. Fair enough - but which ones? When examining the players who didn't perform - Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Hughes and Ponting chief among them - there aren't adequate candidates awaiting in first class cricket to replace them. There's undoubtedly the talent but it's either too young or too old to be considered ripe for representing their country.

The objective now must be to qualify for the inaugural Test World Championship mooted for 2014. It's only three years away and therefore it must be at the forefront of Cricket Australia's planning - to fail to qualify would be an embarrassment on a par with Canada failing to qualify for an Ice-Hockey tournament or New Zealand being eliminated in the first round of the Rugby World Cup. Only the four best Test-playing nations will be entered into that competition and it's now nearly impossible to argue that Australia form part of that quartet.

But all is not lost. To think back, four years ago England were humiliated to a similar extent by an Australian team no longer great but simply very good. Of the current Ashes tourists, seven played in the 2007 debacle. Once the correct path for regrowth is established for a nation, the regreening of their playing stocks can occur relatively quickly, especially with the amount of cricket currently played. In the next two years there are nineteen Tests against everyone from Bangladesh to South Africa and the "New Enemy" India, enough for youngsters to establish themselves and develop their own techniques coping mechanisms.

Of the seven Englishmen who returned to the antipodes this year, the only trundlers were James Anderson and Monty Panesar and Monty didn't play a match. It's the bowling stocks which needed refreshment and that's a situation with which Australia can readily identify. Ben Hilfenhaus and Mitchell Johnson must have exhausted the selectors patience by now and with Ryan Harris willing, though physically unable to be relied upon, the search for new-ball bowlers must begin in earnest, bowlers who can put the ball in threatening areas time and again. All of Peter George, Josh Hazelwood and James Pattinson have the talent and both Clarke and Ponting have shown they are serviceable leaders of fast men. There is hope for Michael Beer as the spinner designate and the sooner he is flown to India to learn from the great Indian spinners, the healthier Australian cricket will be.

More troubling is the lack of application displayed by the Australian batsman this series. Every single player got out with ill-advised shots and to a lack of patience. With questions still remaining over Shane Watson's position at opener and the longevity of Ponting and Hussey, their replacements must be young and given time to grow into their roles rather than shoehorned into position and told to perform. The focus isn't now crushing Bangladesh or beating Sri Lanka in 2011, it is ensuring that each player elevated to national player experiences the game in all conditions against the very best players the world has to offer. If a player - especially a batsman - has a future as a Test cricketer there is a good argument that they shouldn't be bothering with Twenty20. If T20s aren't played then enough space can be created in a player's schedule which could be used to hone their Test game further.

If Australia misses a Test World Championship in three years' time, the sport risks irrelevancy in the entire Pacific region. New Zealand hasn't been anywhere near the right path since several of their stars defected to the rebel ICL and Australia's slide into sub-mediocrity has been slow and painful. Change is needed, though not necessarily in personnel but in approach.

How do you solve a problem like Fevola?

Language warning - this post contains potty-mouth quotes from a TV series.

At the moment, my wife and I are watching "The Wire" on DVD and last night we viewed the episode where the ostensible hero Jimmy McNulty is rescued from the Baltimore Police Department Marine Unit at the request of his colleagues Lester Freamon & Bunk Moreland. Moreland summed it up thus: "Thing is ... that is Jimmy McNulty when he ain't policing: a picture postcard of a drunken, self-destructive fuck-up. And when he is policing, he's pretty much the same motherfucker, but on a good case, right out in front of the pack. And that's as close as the man comes to being right".

And they could just be talking about Brendan Fevola. To say Fevola has issues is like saying Cookie Monster has problems with baked goods. Always an enfant terrible, over the past few years his misdemeanours have gone from bad to worse: from the alcohol-fuelled Brownlow Medal Street Talk where he flapped the unflappable Chris Judd; to his dalliances with Bingle. And it led to this - arrested by Queensland police for being drunk and disorderly in the Valley.

There's a good chance, after all he's been through, that Brendan Fevola is approaching the bottom of the emotional trough. Because his house has crumbled around his ears, he's got nearly nothing left in the tank to stop him doing stupid stuff because alcohol and being a lout is all he has left. It's a horrible statement to make about a guy who only two years ago earned his near-million dollar-per contract but his last year and half hasn't been the stuff of nightmares but of despair. While football afficionados salivated over the prospect of Fevola and Jonathon BROWN! (sorry, force of habit) reproducing the magic of forward tandems past, Fevola was neither healthy or motivated.

Brisbane have investigated voiding his contract in the past and there should be no surprsies that they've done so. Firstly because they're haemmorhaging money - Fev's contract can be directly linked to them losing Michael Rischitelli to the Gold Coast Suns this offseason - and secondly, because they'd really like him to just go away and avoid the controversy and the crowded forward line where neither key guy has space to operate. As much as footy prizes conformity and the intangibles of team play, Fevola now stands out as an individual talent in a game where they aren't valued as highly as in days past.

Fev's pink slip has been signed and sitting in the CEO's drawer for some time now, especially after he was accused of exposing himself to a young Brisbane mother. What's most unfortunate though is that the human cost of firing Fevola is too great to risk. As we've said, Brendan Fevola has issues and as such becomes an even greater risk to himself should he be cut loose.

If Fevola is sacked - and Brisbane has plenty of good reasons to want this to happen, even if it is unlikely - then the train wreck that is Fevola's private life suddenly becomes the only thing in his existence and he becomes less likely and less able to get high-level help which, from the outside, he desperately needs. While he has value on the football field - either trade value, on-field currency or as a forward who draws the opposition's better defenders - then he's going to receive the best treatment and help from the Lions organisation. While he can help the Lions, the Lions will help him. Should he be released, there's the likelihood that he will self-destruct and end up following the path of Ronnie Wearmouth - silly talent, sillier head, tragic story. Without the value that he holds to the Lions and in debt to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars (allegedly), then it's feasible that Brendan Fevola feels the best way to pull himself together is to do what he knows: drink, and be a lout. The vicious circle becomes apparent and suddenly the issue isn't Fevola's life in footy, but his life.

There may well be hope for the boy from Narre Warren though in the unlikely form of another eastern suburbs boy, Travis Tuck. Tuck in early 2009 looked a potential Hawthorn captain and a walk-up start for the Hawks. Long touted as the most talented of the Tucks, he suffered a private struggle with depression, followed by issues with drugs and, unfortunately, a public overdose. Hawks' chairman Jeff Kennett - also heavily involved in the National Depression Iniative Beyond Blue - insisted that the club retain Tuck's services because it would be best for his mental health; not only was it a laudable decision but it was the right one. Whether or not Brisbane feels it owes the same courtesy to Fevola is unclear.

But there's very little disputing that when Brendan Fevola isn't playing footy, to quote directly, he is a picture postcard of a drunken, self-destructive fuck-up. And when he is playing football, he's pretty much the same motherfucker, but an outstanding forward, right out in front of the pack. And -unfortunately at the moment, it seems that's as close as the man comes to being right.

Poster's recommendation: Go out and watch The Wire. It's fantastic.

Real vs. Barca dream team debate

Sid Lowe, a correspondent for World Football Magazine, Sports Illustrated and The Guardian residing in Madrid since 2001 has recently compiled his "Teams of the Decade" for both Barcelona and Real Madrid. A respected voice - both in football commentary and in Spanish life in general - Lowe's teams and reasoning can be found here (Barcelona) and here (Real Madrid).

The teams are also listed here -

Barcelona: Victor Valdes, Juliano Belletti, Carles Puyol, Gerard Pique, Giovanni Van Bronckhorst, Xavi, Andres Iniesta, Deco, Ronaldinho, Samuel Eto'o, Lionel Messi.

Real Madrid: Iker Casillas, Michel Salgado, Fernando Hierro, Ivan Helguera, Roberto Carlos, Steve McManaman, Claude Makelele, Zinedine Zidane, Raul, Ruud Van Nistelrooy, Ronaldo (the Brazilian).

Whatever your preference - for name, styles or culture, there can be little doubt that any other "teams of the decade" would struggle to compete against the might of the two Spanish powerhouses. Cases can probably be made for the usual suspects Chelsea, Manchester United and the Milan powerhouses but even so any suggestion that they'd be able to better the Iberian powerhouses would be speculation at it's most optimistic.

So who do you think would win? Given Barca's propensity for home-grown talent it's likely that Los Blancos squad would have cost several times that of the Catalans. For mine, as impressive as the names are for Los Merengues, I can't look past Barcelona simply because the manner in which they've played for three seasons now is probably as high-quality as we've ever seen. With Real there remains the everpresent question: who's the main man? Would one football be enough?

We'd be curious to see who you think would triumph if both sides were to play a two-legged tie, home-and-away.

A Good, Ordinary Cricketer

by Balanced Sports columnist Ben Roberts.

Being a Melbourne resident, my football code of choice is Australian rules. I am unsure of its original source, but in commentary on football a phrase used sometimes is to refer to a player as a “Good, Ordinary, Footballer”. While the phrase doesn't leap out at the reader as being esteeming, it probably would mean more to most players than being called a champion. Inherent in the phrase is an understanding that while you may not be overendowed with natural talent, your attitude towards the talent that you do possess is exemplary. Without a doubt your focus always is the betterment of your team. To use the phrase in cricketing context, Daniel Vettori is a “Good, Ordinary, Cricketer”.

The irony is that to think such a player would be interested in personal plaudits such as an article dedicated to them personally rather than their team is counter-intuitive in the least. But Vettori is a, if not 'the', stand-out of New Zealand cricket in the past 10 years, even if he probably wouldn't personally recognise it.

Vettori has carried with him the curiosity of the cricketing world throughout his career. Initially his selection as an 18 year old made him the youngest ever New Zealand test cricketer. Add to this his curly blonde hair and bank clerk spectacles that potentially were not the expected look of a lionhearted competitor. Looks are very often deceiving.

Cricket is a game where players are almost always measured on statistics, and it lends itself exceedingly well to such analysis. But to look at Vettori's statistics sells short his career and what it has achieved and stood for. That being said, Vettori's record is not by any means weak. He has taken 339 wickets in 103 matches at 33, nothing spectacular but certainly not to be ignored.

His batting probably deserves the greater respect. Having begun his test career as a number 11, he has since batted in every position from number 3 down, with 5 centuries and 22 half centuries. Most of his time and his greatest success has been in the lower-middle order. Added to this that for a period of time in the limited overs format he was used as an opener with less success, but indicates the versatility that he brought to the New Zealand cricket team.

Prior to being installed as captain in 2007, Vettori shared the weight of New Zealand cricket on his shoulders with former captain Stephen Fleming, himself also a cricketer of similar ilk. Since 2007 the weight of New Zealand cricket has consistently been carried by Vettori alone. Despite the only spasmodic success of the New Zealand team over the past decade, there have been talented cricketers that have played in the period. However, the vast majority have either elected to neglect the opportunity to represent New Zealand in favour of larger remuneration offshore or have been unwilling to dedicate themselves to the task of international cricket.

It is within this consistently inconsistent state of New Zealand cricket that Vettori has plied his trade as not just a cricketer but in recent years as the captain. At the mercy often of his own team Vettori has continued to lead, attacking the opposition with tactics, and meanwhile not allowed his own performance to decline. Often, however, character is defined by those decisions and actions that do not go to plan and indeed those ones that go awry.

After having defeated England in a one day international early on in Vettori's captaincy tenure, he refused to shake the hands of his opponents. This was in protest against an unsporting decision during play by the English. As a true mark of character, in realising the inappropriate nature of refusal, Vettori was swift in making an apology to his opponents and accepting that he had behaved inappropriately. There were no stage-managed and scripted apologies or deference to social media streams; this apology was of genuine remorse and the evidence of a leader dissatisfied with his own behaviour.

The England captain that day, Paul Collingwood, himself is also a cricketer who is cut from a similar mould to Vettori. He too was direct in his apology for his own behaviour at the conclusion of that spiteful match. Added to Collingwood I can identify two further “Good, Ordinary, Cricketers” of recent history, although there are more, usually going unnoticed. Chaminda Vaas was a solid bowler who held up the other end of Sri Lankan cricket while Muttiah Muralithuran worked his magic, and who went about his job quietly while his captain Arjuna Ranatunga made noise. Shane Watson entered the international cricket scene as the next great all-rounder, but upon his reinvention as an opener his batting and his bowling bears the traits of a cricketer with attention to detail and a willingness to put in his best efforts for the team.

Vettori will most probably end his career as the most capped New Zealand test cricketer and potentially will overtake Sir Richard Hadlee as New Zealand's greatest test wicket taker. But Vettori has given so much more to New Zealand cricket than just his performances. Over his career he has potentially been the only force standing against New Zealand cricket sliding into the uncompetitive abyss. In my opinion, what Vettori has given to New Zealand cricket in leadership and dedication far outstrips any player in Australian cricket since Allan Border – and Vettori probably equals him. Despite clearly a lack of success for New Zealand cricket, I still believe players like Vettori are what great sporting teams are built around.