BEN STOKES : ECB HAS IT ALL WRONG.

If Ben Stokes was a simple office worker, labourer, or just about anything except a celebrity sports' star, he would have been suspended from his job pending the final outcome of the due process of the law; he might even have been sacked from his job altogether.

Having been caught on CCTV having a brawl outside a drinking establishment, Stokes was arrested and a police investigation commenced. Quite correctly, the ECB then suspended him from appearing for England's cricket teams. However, and with extreme perversity, now that Stokes has been charged with affray and is set to appear in court, the same ECB has decided that it's perfectly alright for him to resume his England duties.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Stokes disputes the charge and proposes to claim innocence in court, but that's what many accused do; whether he pleads guilty or not guilty is irrelevant, though the ECB seems to think that it's actually a demonstration of his innocence and, therefore, his suspension has been lifted.

In the real world in which most of us live, rather than the celebrity bubble inhabited by the likes of Stokes, his suspension would continue until the court case has been resolved. Even then, it is likely that there would follow an internal enquiry by the employer to determine their position in the matter. Only then would the suspension be lifted or other penalties imposed.

Not so for Stokes. England's knock-about team, the T20 mob, will now have the benefit of Stokes undoubted ability even while he awaits trial on a serious charge which could see him sent to prison if found guilty. Later in the year, Stokes may well return to the Test Match arena, still with the case hanging over him and a potential gaol sentence pending.

It is often said that suspension is a neutral act and is for the protection of all concerned. In this case. it keeps Stokes out of the spotlight, protects the English cricket team and cricketing authorities from criticism and potential ridicule and recognizes that others who were injured in the incident may be severely prejudiced by the apparent not guilty verdict delivered by the ECB. For Stokes to be allowed to return to his normal daily activities in a celebrity environment in which history tells us drinking and partying is a regular activity, is, quite simply, wrong.

It's reported that Stokes will contest the charge which means that the case is likely to go to the Crown Court where it will be trial by jury. How can allowing Stokes to return to his high-profile life not prejudice such a case ? What juror will not have seen some report or other, formed some opinion or other, before the trial ?

This is wrong, wrong, WRONG. Guilty or not, fine cricketer or not, Ben Stokes should remain suspended until proceedings end. The ECB has done itself, the England team, the reputation of English cricket, the alleged victims of Stokes' actions, and, most of all, Ben Stokes himself, no favours at all by their entirely self-interested decision.

JOSE MOURINHO : FLIMFLAM MAN PAR EXCELLENCE !

Does Jose Mourinho ever stop whingeing and whining ?

Whenever his teams fail to win, if it isn't 'bad luck', it's mistakes by referees, simple bad refereeing, that he hasn't been given the money to buy enough, or better, players and, most recently that the players he does have are tired !

This man has mostly worked at clubs with oodles of money to splash around and his current team, Manchester United, are no exception. He has brought in several expensive players, most of whom have failed to shine, while his most promising talent comes from Marcus Rashford and Jesse Lingard, neither of whom cost a penny. Basically, what Mourinho wants is to be able to keep splashing out on expensive foreign 'talent' until he gets it right and, until he does, he'll carry on trotting out every excuse under the sun as to why his team aren't performing as well as he'd like.

To be claiming that some of his players are tired is just about as ridiculous as it gets. These are super-fit young men for whom running around for 90 minutes every now and then is no problem. Most other teams manage perfectly well with smaller squads and yet we hear nothing about tired players from elsewhere. In fact, the best players thrive on turning out as often as they can.

Mourinho may or may not be any good as a real manager and it would be interesting to see what he'd do with a team like Stoke City at the moment. Could he motivate the players without having the 'big bucks' behind him, or would he just blame every defeat on those same excuses as he's using now ? Teams win by being motivated and well managed and, sometimes, they don't win and do suffer from refereeing mistakes, but it's nowhere near as often as Mourinho would have us believe.

Mourinho is a 'flimflam' artist, a con-man who tries to hide his inadequacies under a mountain of waffle. Don't be conned.

HARRY KANE : A TRUE SPORTING STAR !

As a fan of Tottenham Hotspur FC, I've become used to my team disappointing me. Year after year, they've promised so much and delivered so little but, with the advent of Mauricio Pochettino, Harry Kane and the rest, they seem to have finally become a side that really might be winners.

In particular, the goal scoring exploits of Harry Kane have been astonishing. From his initial introduction into the Spurs first team in August 2011, Kane has developed into one of the top goal scorers in the world, rivalling the very best of the best.

In 2017, Kane has scored more goals for his club and country, 56, than any other player in Europe's top leagues, more even than Lionel Messi and Christiano Ronaldo, and in fewer games. He has become the first Englishman to score 50 goals in a calendar year since the legendary Dixie Dean in 192, and has set a new record for Premier League goal scoring, with 39 in the calendar year.

With 49 goals for his club alone in 2017, Kane sits behind only Messi and Edinson Cavani in Europe, while his record of 6 Premier League hat-tricks in the year, half of all those scored, sets a new standard. With 96 Premier League goals in only 132 games, he is second only to Teddy Sheringham as Tottenham's leading scorer in the competition, and must soon eclipse that former star; amazingly, Kane's strike rate is such that he's reached his total in over 100 games less than Sheringham needed.

However, what is every bit as important as his goal scoring feats is the manner of his play and general behaviour. There are no extravagant celebrations when he scores and no dramatic gesturing when things don't go his way. He plays hard but fair and rarely seems to even be close to getting annoyed by the fouls perpetrated against him. His demeanour both on and off the pitch is calm and gentlemanly; he is self-effacing and always praises his team-mates and manager while brushing aside his own achievements.

Harry Kane is not just a fine footballer, he's a gentleman too. More power to his elbow, not to mention his boots  !!

HOPELESS ENGLAND ON THE BRINK OF ASHES LOSS.

As England head towards almost certain defeat and loss of the Ashes series against Australia, one is left wondering why our players have proved so unable to deal with both the opposition's batsmen and bowlers.

Apart from one session under floodlights in Adelaide and the fine stand between Dawid Malan and Jonny Bairstow in Perth, England have little to show from the series so far, and surely little expectation that things will be any better when they get to Melbourne and Sydney. Another 5-0 drubbing seems highly likely. Of course, England travelled without the services of Ben Stokes whose behaviour the Crown Prosecution Service is still considering but surely the absence of one man cannot make the difference between competing strongly and rolling over with barely a sound. In essence, this England team never had any real chance, with or without Stokes. The question is 'Why ?'

Listening to some of the BBC's 'Test Match Special' team, Geoff Boycott especially, the belief is that the issue lies with the overall nature of English cricket. We do not produce genuinely fast bowlers, only fast-medium, we have very few good spinners and our batsmen come up short when confronted with either. Given that we are forever being told what great batsmen and bowlers we have, another 'Why ?' arises.

Years ago, England produced fast bowlers galore and there were too many good spinners for many of them ever to get into the Test team; every county could boast at least one and some could boast 2 or more, think Laker and Lock, or Edmonds and Embury though there were many others too. Today, few counties can rustle up one half-decent spinner. As for fast bowlers, the days of Trueman and Statham, Tyson, Willis, Snow, Larwood, Voce and the like are long gone. The reasons for this are self-evident. English domestic cricket is now all about limited overs matches in which there is little call for either fast bowlers or spinners of any standard. With bowlers limited to only a handful of overs each there is little opportunity for them to get to grips with a different pitch or to find a rhythm; what is wanted is a never ending stream of medium pacers who act as little more than cannon-fodder for the batsmen. Consequently, some batsmen gain reputations for fast scoring and big hitting that is hardly deserved, while the bowlers simply toil away to little effect.

The County Championship, which used to be the premier cricket competition and remains the only real domestic cricket played in England, has mostly been relegated to the cold, wet and windy wilderness of April and September when pitches are soft and neither fast bowlers nor spinners have much chance of success; is it any wonder that the counties hardly bother with them ? Again, it is medium pace, perhaps some fast-medium, that dominates. There is no need for the counties to develop quality fast bowlers, nor international class spinners, if they serve no purpose.

In English conditions, with the current timetabling of domestic matches and when the weather often dictates that the ball will seam or swing, this is all perfectly fine, but as soon as players are confronted with less friendly conditions they struggle mightily. The bowlers prove ineffective against batsmen used to genuine fast bowling or a spinning ball; the batsmen find themselves all at sea against the same. Our fast bowlers and spinners never get to ply their trade on the hard, dry pitches of August, neither do our batsmen get to understand how to play on them. Indeed, matters are made even worse by the modern practice of covering pitches as soon as a  few drops of rain are felt; no longer can we watch such bewilderment as was experienced by Australian batsmen facing Derek Underwood in 1968 and 1972.

The huge disappointment of England's performance in Australia has its roots in the mess that our domestic cricket has become. By covering pitches and placing so much emphasis on one day, even 3 hour, matches, to the huge detriment of the County Championship, cricket's administrators have taken away much of the incentive to develop fast bowlers, good spinners and even batsmen who can cope with conditions in foreign parts. Yes, they may get away with it in international limited overs competitions, but this is very different to Test Match cricket; yes, they may have occasional success when conditions suit them but that is rare.  

Is there an England batsmen today who could resist an attack including Michael Holding, Andy Roberts and Wayne Daniel, long enough to amass 203, as Dennis Amiss did in 1976 or who could match his epic 570 minute rear guard action at Kingston in 1974 ? I doubt it. In the last 20 years, England have produced one top class spin bowler in Graeme Swann; they haven't produced one top class fast bowler; seamers, yes, fast bowlers, no.

The 'experts' drone on while saying nothing but what we already know; none talks of the solution. If England wants to win Test Matches abroad, then our domestic cricket must give far greater prominence to the County Championship; a return to the system in which one-day matches were played on Sundays and throughout the season, rather than in long spells in mid-summer. Test Match cricketers are forged on the hard and dry pitches of late July and August, not in one day knockabouts.

What we have is a circle that is hard to square. We need cricket to make money and that comes from the excitement of the limited overs game, but we also need to develop international players. The answer has to be in keeping the limited overs product, but with different scheduling, and in 'spicing up' the Championship; there are ways. Uncovered pitches, bonuses for faster over rates, rewards for faster scoring and a return to at least 16, and preferably 24, 3-day games played in the summer rather than in spring or autumn when problematic weather makes matches a lottery.

Will anyone listen ?

BEN DUCKETT : LATEST IN A LINE OF YOBS.

Following incidents in which Ben Stokes and Jonny Bairstow have found themselves in trouble in or near places in which alcohol is consumed, now it's the turn of Ben Duckett. The England Lions batsman has been suspended following 'an incident' in a bar in the Australian city of Perth.

It seems clear that there is a problem with discipline within the England cricket camp. Stokes remains suspended from England duty after he was filmed having a punch up outside of a bar in Bristol, while Bairstow apparently head-butted Australian Cameron Bancroft in another bar, claiming that this was his preferred method of greeting people. Duckett's transgression is reported to involve him pouring a glass of beer over the head of a member of the full England squad.

What on earth is going on ? Trevor Bayliss, the England manager, is reported to be 'apoplectic' over his players' lack of discipline and common sense though he must surely take much of the blame, along with the coach of the England Lions, Andy Flower. After all, aren't they the ones who set the tone and rules of behaviour for their players ? The trouble is that the players see themselves as celebrities who can do pretty much whatever they like. They behave like spoilt brats and the sanctions employed are little more than being sent to the 'naughty step' for a few minutes; Bayliss and Flower can be as apoplectic as they like, the truth is that they've been miserable failures as managers.

England's performances in the first two Ashes test matches have been poor and one is tempted to link the performances and behaviour together. While the Australians are a team of grown men, too many of the English are little more than children or, at best, difficult teenagers. They lack discipline and self-control but have all the confidence of the inexperienced; it is no wonder that they're being blown away by the Australians nor that they act like yobs when not on the field of play.

What they need is a Brian Clough to instil real discipline, self-control and pride.

JANA NOVOTNA : TENNIS LEGEND

Hearing of the untimely death of Jana Novotna comes as a genuine shock. Aged only 49, she has reportedly died after a long struggle against cancer.

Novotna was a Wimbledon fixture for a decade, reaching the final of the Ladies' championship 3 times. Her demeanour on court made her a favourite of the crowd and her tearful loss to Steffi Graf in 1993 made her a legend. Never before or since had a defeated finalist been so distraught and never before or since had a member of the Royal Family acted with such unexpected thought and kindness as did the Duchess of Kent on that day.

Novotna came back and lost again in 1997 but, finally, she triumphed in 1998 and her jubilation was there for all to see as she again burst into tears, though this time of joy. Again it was the Duchess who awarded the trophy and it was clear that there was as much pleasure for her as for the player.

Jana Novotna was a great grass court player of the old school, serving and volleying with aplomb. She was also a fine player on any surface and won many titles in both singles and doubles competitions. She was a sporting star who became a household name and her early demise is so very sad.

WHY ARE WE SO SCRUFFY ?

Why do so many male tennis players seem to have no pride in their personal appearance ?

Years ago, in the era when 'whites' were the order of the day, even the likes of Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe managed to look fairly smart on court. Today, with Wimbledon now the only major championship which maintains even a partial 'whites' rule, many players now appear on courts around the world looking as if they've just rolled out of bed.

Unshaven and scruffy, wearing all manner of coloured clothing that often doesn't match or is simply drab in the extreme, their appearance is often depressing. When Andy Murray turns out in black or dark blue, with socks and boots of similar hue, unshaven and shirt hanging loose it demonstrates a lack of pride not only in his appearance but also a lack of respect for his fans, the audience in general and his country. A scruffy and unkempt appearance reflects a scruffy and unkempt attitude to life.

This afternoon at the ATP tour finals, Dominic Thiem played David Goffin. While Thiem's outfit was not bad and he actually looked reasonably smart, Goffin looked like an unmade bed. As he walked onto court one might have been forgiven for thinking that he'd grabbed the first things available prior to putting out his rubbish. He was a mess.

When sports, and other, stars and celebrities adopt such dreadful ways, how can we expect our children to have any pride in their own appearance ? We can't, and a walk through any town will show just what a scruffy country we've become. Horrible.

PARALYMPICS CHEATING : WHAT A SURPRISE !

I have never had any time for the notion of 'disability sports' and particularly for the ludicrous nonsense that is the 'Paralympics', though without ever decrying the efforts of those who have suffered from either birth defects or accidental and life changing injuries. Now, it seems, the principle reason for my scepticism is to be considered by Members of Parliament.

An investigation by the BBC (of all organisations !) has 'discovered' that there could be systematic cheating by manipulating the classification process that is involved in determining which athletes get to compete against which other athletes. A House of Commons committee is to discuss these claims and it's been suggested that the evidence they will hear will be 'explosive'.

There are times when I wonder just how stupid some people can be. Of course the classification system is open to abuse and is abused; any such system will always be abused by cheats in exactly the same way as many take illicit drugs to enhance their performances. Cheating is endemic in much modern sport because winning is all; the days of amateurism are long gone and winning is now all about vast prestige, wealth and honours that can be gained.

Footballers 'dive' to win penalties, cricketers claim catches falsely and what goes on in a rugby scrum is nobody's business. Only in sports which are closely monitored by television cameras is cheating not an issue; golfers and snooker players in televised tournaments rarely, if ever, come up short; major rugby union matches, with replays of every doubtful incident, are so well policed that players know they cannot get away with very much.

But how do you police a classification system which attempts to match competitors with differing disabilities ? Quite simply, the whole notion is ridiculous, shockingly open to abuse and largely pointless. By all means, encourage those with disabilities to enjoy full lives and, where they wish, to engage in sports to the best of their abilities, but for heaven's sake stop this nonsense of the 'Paralympics' and all that goes with it.

LEWIS HAMILTON : NOT THE GREATEST BY MILES.

Lewis Hamilton is obviously a good driver but is he really up there with the 'greatest' ?

Hamilton drives in an era obsessed with safety and at a time when technological advances have made racing cars completely different to those of past days. When Fangio and Moss, Brabham, Clark and Stewart were racing, they truly had to drive their cars; today, the driver has so much information and technological assistance that to even try to begin to compare modern drivers with those of 30, 40 or 50 years ago is a pointless exercise.

In terms of outright bravery, those of the 1950s and 1960s will always be superior; many died and others were severely injured while driving vehicles at breakneck speeds around dangerous circuits. Today, even crashing at 200 miles per hour is likely to result in little more than a few bruises; years ago, it would have meant certain, and often horrible, injuries and death, and yet the drivers still pushed their cars to the absolute limit and beyond.

For any sportsman to be considered 'great' they also have to pass one simple test, that of being magnanimous in defeat. On this measure, Hamilton fails miserably. When he wins, it's all smiles and great joy, but when he loses it's recriminations and sullenness. He looks for someone to blame or some conspiracy against him. Last year it was all about the desire of his German team to help his German team mate, Nico Rosberg; yesterday we heard him suggesting that Sebastian Vettel had deliberately crashed into him, a ludicrous notion as Vettel's only hope of winning the championship for himself was to win the race.

Hamilton is a fast driver but the silly suggestions that he's a great, even 'the greatest' are simply not supported by the facts. He's actually a classic example of a spoilt child who found success at too young an age and now sees it as his right, throwing tantrums whenever he doesn't get his way. One wonders what he'll do next year if Ferrari, Red Bull and even McLaren start beating him regularly. My bet is that he'd chuck his toys out of the pram, quit the sport altogether and go off in pursuit of some other arena in which he can be the centre of attention with no one to challenge him.

Sad.

MISERABLE ANDY OUT OF WIMBLEDON

No one can doubt that Andy Murray is a very good tennis player, certainly the best that Britain has ever produced. One can only wish that he was a more attractive personality.

His defeat at the hands of Sam Querrey in today's Wimbledon quarter-final was unexpected to say the least, though Murray looked increasingly uncomfortable as the match progressed and his virtual collapse in the final 2 sets surely indicated that he was not fully fit. His movement on court was even more 'porky' than usual and suggested continuing hip problems, while his contorted facial expressions suggested a man in all kinds of mental torment.

While some players appear quite bright and breezy, Murray always looks dull and miserable, except when letting out on of his jaw-splitting yells when he just looks plain ugly. He rarely seems to smile and his speech is slow and boring. His clothing on court is usually scruffy; his chosen colour schemes, Wimbledon whites excluded of course, tend to be dark and unattractive. He often sports the unshaven  appearance so beloved of many of today's trendy young men but which serves to simply suggest that they are unwashed as well as unkempt.

While Johanna Konta bubbles and smiles, Murray moans and grimaces. Konta gets on with it, while Murray bemoans his misfortune at every turn. Murray is dour, unsmiling and not all attractive, while Konta is the exact opposite. Given his career success and apparently very happy family life, why does Murray always seem to come across as such a miserable git ?

Murray is out of Wimbledon for this year which is a shame, but at least we'll be spared his miserable on-court persona. We still have Jo Konta to cheer for though and here's hoping that she can make up for the disappointment of Murray losing his crown.

LIONS DRAW WITH ALL BLACKS : NO WINNER ?

One of the great international contests ended on Saturday in a draw, with two incredibly tough teams fighting each other to a standstill. A draw between the British and Irish Lions and the New Zealand All Blacks was not only a fair result it was the right result, and yet some are whining about there not being a result at all.

In some sports there has to be a winner. Tennis, in particular, is one-on-one with a scoring system which does not allow for a  draw. However, football, cricket, and many others routinely produce draws and a draw in rugby, while less common, is a legitimate outcome. Unfortunately, modern audiences seem to shy away from anything other than a 'win-lose' outcome and so we have races of all sorts, between people, horses, cars, dogs and anything else that comes to mind, decided by thousandths of a second. Can we really determine which competitor has crossed the finishing line first down to such a level, indeed, should we ?

In days gone by, before the incredibly fine timing and high speed cameras that we have today, 'dead heats' were frequently the outcome of races. When competitors have given their all and yet cross the line within a hair's breadth of each other, do we really need to separate them by the odd thousandth of a second, an interval of time that none of us can imagine, let alone determine, without the aid of specialised technology ?

Those who complain about the outcome of Saturday's wonderful rugby match and argue for some way of determining 'a winner', are misguided. There are scoring systems in rugby which allow for such tinkering when it is essential, as in the Six Nations' or World Cup competitions, but this was a series of 3 stand-alone matches with no need to determine an absolute 'winner'. In fact, both teams emerged as winners and with huge credit from 3 terrifically hard fought games. 

Neither side deserved to lose and it would have been a travesty if some artificial mechanism had been introduced to ensure that a 'winner' emerged. This series will go down in history as one of the great international contests and that both the final match and the series ended as draws will serve only to enhance its status in the folk lore of Rugby Union. In truth, everybody won.

THE LIONS LOST .. BUT NEXT TIME ...... ?? !!

The All Blacks, a phrase that might be construed as racist in any other arena, beat the British and Irish Lions. Is that so surprising ?


The All Blacks are the best national side in the world and have been for most of the time since the game of rugby was invented; for some reason it's become their national sport. As a small country, they've adopted it as their way of making an impression on the rest of the world and, by heavens, have they achieved their goal. It has become the equivalent of a religion and the traditional 'Haka' that is performed before every one of their matches is one of the great spectacles of sport.


The All Blacks did dominate the match but their dominance found resolution on only a couple of occasions; the Lions defended brilliantly and even scored one of the 'great tries' in reply, begun by Liam Williams and ended by Sean O'Brien. Nonetheless, the Lions lost, but they will have
learned much in defeat.


This ain't over yet !!!

MARGARET COURT ARENA FOR EVER !

Margaret Court, or Margaret Smith as she was originally, was one of the greatest tennis stars of the 1960s and 1970s; she won 24 Grand Slam singles titles, including the all four in 1970, 19 Women's Doubles and 21 Mixed Doubles, including all 4 twice, in 1963 and 1965. Her overall record as a player exceeds that achieved by any other woman in tennis history and she stands alone as quite possibly the greatest female tennis player ever.


In recognition of her status, one of the main arenas at Melbourne Park, home of the Australian Grand Slam tournament, has been named the 'Margaret Court Arena' since 2003. However, this naming is now under attack as, after her tennis career ended, Margaret Court became a Pentecostal Church Minister and, in this capacity, has expressed vociferous opposition to abortion, homosexuality and marriage between people of the same sex.


Numerous former players, notably the lesbians Billie-Jean King and Martina Navratilova, have criticised Court for her views and there are now calls from some for the Margaret Court Arena to be renamed. Samantha Stosur, a lesbian Australian player, has suggested that players may refuse to play at next year's Australian tournament in protest, unless the Arena is renamed; Andy Murray, who has involved himself in this row for no obvious reason, has also chimed in, suggesting that 'something should be done' and calling for a quick resolution to the matter before the tournament takes place.


For the record, I think that marriage between 2 men or 2 women is idiotic nonsense and that far too much attention has been paid to so-called 'gay rights'. I also think that the culture of 'abortion on demand' is fundamentally wrong and destructive of our society. These are my views and, whether others like them or not, I stand by them. Margaret Court is entitled to the same privilege.


Court's personal views on these matters do not impinge on the lives of others and do no one any harm. She has not advocated any form of violence or action against those with whom she disagrees; she has not, for instance, demanded that lesbians should not be allowed to play on 'her' court. However, it seems that the offended players are the ones who don't want to play unless it's on their terms, and one of those terms is that the court be renamed. Frankly, this is a ridiculous argument trumped up by a small number of people with an axe to grind and it should be treated as such.


In 1973, many players refused to play at Wimbledon after a row about the suspension of a player, Nikola Pilic; nonetheless, the tournament went ahead and was a roaring success. In fact, many players who would never had had the opportunity to play at Wimbledon found themselves experiencing a genuine 'once in a lifetime' thrill.


Margaret Court's tennis record speaks for itself and is monumental; her personal views are just that and are irrelevant. To rename the Arena would be to submit to the bullying of a pressure group and it should be resisted, as should all attempts to limit free speech or rewrite history in such ways. If that means that some players will boycott the tournament, so be it. The Australian Open will survive, tennis will survive and there will be opportunities for others to show off their talents.

ALASTAIR COOK : TIME TO GO !

Once again, the England cricket team have succumbed to an embarrassing defeat, absolutely unable to compete with India with bat, ball or in the field. Despite scoring a seemingly impressive 477 in their first innings in the final test match in Chennai, they still contrived to lose by an innings - quite an achievement.

The British media tells us, repeatedly, that we have lots of great cricketers. Rightly, they say that Alastair Cook and Joe Root are 2 fine batsmen and Jimmy Anderson is one of the world's best bowlers; in other players such as Jonny Bairstow, Ben Stokes, Moeen Ali and Stuart Broad there are very good international players. Sadly, as a whole, they fall well short of top class.

The media also carries regular stories about Cook's captaincy, generally telling us what a great captain he is. This bit is utter rubbish. Given the array of talent at his disposal, Cook's record as captain really should be rather better than it is; as things are, it's nothing like as good as the records of numerous former captains, including Andrew Strauss, Michael Vaughan, Mike Brearley, and Peter May, all of whom won close to 50%, or more, of the matches for which they were in charge.

Admittedly Cook's record is not as dire as some. He's won 22 out of 59 games, 37%, while the much vaunted David Gower won only 5 out of 32 and Mike Atherton only 13 out of 54. Others such as Ted Dexter and Graham Gooch also managed poorer records, while Nasser Hussain's was virtually identical to Cook's.

Measured by matches lost, Cook also compares poorly with the best.  23 lost out of 59 games played looks pretty sick alongside Mike Brearley's 4 out 31, Ray Illingworth's 5 out of 31 and even Ted Dexter's 7 out of 30. Several others, May, Hussain, Gooch and Dexter among them, also come out better than Cook. Indeed, the worst records are those of David Gower, who lost a staggering 18 out of 32 matches, followed by Cook and Atherton, who lost 21 out of 54.

Looking at the win / lose ratio for these captains shows Mike Brearley way out ahead of the rest, with Cook, Gooch, Atherton and Gower bringing up the rear. Brearley was a captain who batted, while the best of the rest learnt their trade by coming through the ranks in their respective county sides. The poorest, by some distance, are Atherton and Gower, both now acclaimed for their punditry, though one would have to question why. These became captain as a result of being perceived to be the best batsman in their team, although their leadership credentials had little to commend them, as is the case with Cook.

How this adds up to Cook being a great captain escapes me. Fine batsman, yes, great captain, not a chance. In fact, his demeanour on the field is hopeless. He meanders around, looking worried and confused; he shows no dynamism and no active leadership. Apparently the team is fully behind him, but I see that as part of the problem; Cook is very much 'one of the boys' and that's no good if you're also the boss.

The only real question that needs to be answered is "Who will replace Alastair Cook ?" The problem is that none of the England squad has any real experience of captaincy; none has been trained as a captain in the County Championship, indeed most have rarely played much cricket outside of the international arena. None really has the look of a true Captain. Joe Root seems to be the designated choice as successor to Cook, but on what basis ? What are his credentials ?

Unless those in charge sort their thinking out, more humiliating defeats look sure to be on the cards.

RECORDS OF ENGLAND CAPTAINS WITH 30 OR MORE MATCHES IN CHARGE; ORDERED BY WIN / LOSE RATIO.


Brearley     - P 31  W 18  L  4   D  9
Illingworth - P 32  W 12  L  5   D 14
Vaughan     - P 51  W 26  L 11  D 14
Strauss        - P 50  W 24  L 11  D 15
May            - P 41  W 20  L 10  D 11
Dexter        - P 30  W   9   L  7   D 14
Hussain      - P 37  W 14   L 11  D 12
Cook          - P 59  W 22   L 23  D 14
Gooch        - P 34  W 10   L 12  D 12
Atherton     - P 54  W 13  L 21  D 20
Gower        - P 32  W   5  L 18   D  9

ENGLAND THRASHED BY INDIA : TIME FOR CHANGE ?

With England licking their wounds after a humiliating innings defeat at the hands of India's rampant Test team, the commentators and pundits are turning their attention to the future of captain Alastair Cook. England got everything wrong in Mumbai - initially team selection but then their batting bowling and fielding was simply nowhere near good enough.

Cook has been captain for some time and questions are now being raised about his desire to continue in the role. Of course, he is a fine batsman and it would be hoped that he would continue to open the batting for a while yet, but the truth is that he never has been much of a captain. Cook shows little energy on the field of play, rather wondering about often with a puzzled look on his face. He has rarely, if ever, appeared to either have the ability or desire to make any effort to galvanise his players and has, instead, been happy to be led by them. Thinking back to the days of Mike Brearley, probably the best England captain of the last 50 years, Cook is, in comparison, immobile, dour and wholly lacking in charisma.

The problem is that there are no obvious successors to Brearley waiting in the wings. When Cook steps down, there's little chance of him being sacked, his replacement will almost certainly be Joe Root. He is, of course, a fine batsman but, at just 26, does he yet have the maturity needed to lead the England team ? Might giving him the added burden of captaincy blunt his worth as a batsman ? In his favour is the fact that he does seem slightly more animated than Cook and, until he's had a go, we won't know the answers. What we can't afford is another case of handing the captaincy to whoever is seen as the best batsman, simply for that reason. Far too often in the past this has been the approach, and it's rarely produced results.

We must also not forget that England's poor performances in India are not simply down to mistakes in selection or any shortcomings in the side's captaincy. Our batsman have failed to cope with India's bowlers and our bowlers have failed to contain India's batsmen. These failings indicate that there are serious issues to be addressed when it comes to developing our young players, though no one shows any signs of understanding what the problems are.

In short, our domestic games are played on flat, unresponsive pitches. Batsmen are rarely tested by the bowlers as wickets are consistent, with regular bounce and little turn; bowlers have little opportunity to exploit these wickets, so restrict themselves to a largely defensive mode of operation. Our counties have few spinners of real quality, but are replete with mediocre seamers. On wickets in countries such as India, we simply aren't equipped to cope.

What we need is a return to uncovered wickets and 3 day county games, meaningful penalties for failing to bowl overs at an acceptable rate and less, rather than more, limited overs matches. Our players need to be able to develop their skills in more challenging environments than is currently allowed by the structure of our domestic cricket.

Sadly, the chance of any of this happening is remote, if not non-existent. We will carry on as we are, and still get thrashed in the sub-Continent.

LEWIS HAMILTON SHOULD BE SACKED.

One again, I find myself writing about Lewis Hamilton.

In yesterday's F1 season finale, Hamilton's only chance of winning the drivers' world championship was to win the race and hope that his team mate, Nico Rosberg, finished 4th or lower. Given the season-long supremacy of the Mercedes team, this was an unlikely scenario barring accidents, incidents or breakdowns. However, Hamilton has never been one not to look for alternatives.

Leading the race and with Rosberg not far behind, Hamilton began to play a dirty game which could even have handed race victory to Sebastian Vettel's fast approaching Ferrari. Instead of continuing to drive at his previous race-winning speed, Hamilton slowed down, knowing that Rosberg was hardly likely to try to overtake him and, even if he did, Hamilton's equally matched car would make it impossible. The consequence was that Vettel closed in and Max Verstappen, on worn tyres, wasn't far behind either; despite repeated and very clear instructions from his team's management, Hamilton refused to drive any faster in the hope that Rosberg would be overtaken and drop down to fourth place.

Hamilton's objective was clearly to win the world championship for himself though his lack of sportsmanship is plain for all to see; he did everything he could to place his team mate's second place in jeopardy. This negative tactic was distasteful to say the least and is certainly not something that drivers of earlier generations would have contemplated; the likes of Stirling Moss, Fangio, Brabham, Jim Clark and others, would surely have concentrated on their own race performance rather than trying to mess up anyone else's race. Sadly, today's generation do not seem to share the same values as those gladiators of the past.

Thankfully, Hamilton's behaviour did not achieve its desired result and Rosberg did finish second to claim the drivers' title. The atmosphere after the race was icy with Rosberg and Hamilton not speaking; Hamilton's subsequent congratulations to his team mate were uttered through gritted teeth and the play acting between them was painful to see. Rosberg clearly doesn't like Hamilton and Hamilton clearly hates and despises Rosberg.

Hamilton is simply not a team player. He is the Geoffrey Boycott of Formula 1, playing for himself and giving no thought to team mates and the hordes of others who have made his team's success possible. He is selfish and childish in his behaviour; he is like a spoilt child who screams and stamps his foot when things don't go his way and refuses to do what he's told whenever it doesn't suit him. His refusal to follow team orders in Abu Dhabi has caused a degree of unhappiness in his Mercedes team, with Toto Wolff, the team boss, saying that Hamilton's insubordination amounted to 'anarchy'. Clearly, there will be consequences though one has to wonder if Hamilton really cares. It's most unlikely that he'll be sacked or even suspended; a fine would be pretty meaningless given the wealth he's accumulated over recent years. What else is there ?

Formula I racing is a team sport and those who don't want to play it like that don't belong; I'd sack Hamilton and say good riddance. He may be a good driver, almost certainly one of the very best, but his divisiveness is there for all to see. It cannot be good for team morale or performance and they'd be much better off without him.

LEWIS HAMILTON : SUPER-RICH MORON.

Lewis Hamilton's puerile and rude behaviour during yesterday's drivers' conference ahead of the Japanese Grand Prix was a new low.

While other drivers listened to, and answered, questions from members of the media, Hamilton fiddled aimlessly with his mobile 'phone and giggled to himself. When he tried to draw some of his colleagues into what he considered to be 'fun', they looked distinctly unimpressed. This surely was one of the most childish and pathetic performances ever seen from a supposedly 'great champion'.

Hamilton may be a good driver but that's all he is. Basically, he is a super-rich, moronic child and the sooner he's gone from our lives, the better.

LEWIS HAMILTON : WHAT A SILLY BOY HE IS.

Oh Dear, he we go again. Poor Lewis Hamilton, the entire world, and particularly the Mercedes F1 hierarchy, is against him. Failing to finish in today's Malaysian Grand Prix leaves him 23 points behind his only real rival for the drivers' title, the German Nico Rosberg, and he doesn't like it at all.

Admittedly he's been unlucky with technical issues this year but his regular outbursts suggesting that there are dark forces at work really are becoming tedious and are, frankly, ridiculous. No Formula 1 team would ever take deliberate steps to disadvantage one of its drivers, there's simply too much at stake in terms of money, prestige and future sponsorships. Additionally, does Hamilton really think that Mercedes are happy with the world seeing that one in every 2 of their cars has problems ?

Hamilton may be a very good driver, quite possibly one of the best ever, but he is also a miserable, self-absorbed, puerile little twerp. Let's hope that Nico Rosberg actually does win this year's drivers' championship.

YET ANOTHER FOOTBALLING HORROR STORY.

Dear God !

What on earth is going on in English football ? Not only were they humiliated by Iceland at the Euros, an event which caused the resignation of then manager Roy Hodgson, but now Hodgson's replacement has shown himself to be a naïve idiot.

Sam Allardyce may have been a reasonably effective club manager, but how did the Football Association ever believe that he was the right man to appoint as manager of the national team ? Yes, Allardyce obviously wanted the job and didn't make the excessive wage demands of other candidates, but those are hardly reasons for handing the job to a man who was always likely to prove a disappointment. In the event, it took him only just over 2 months to embarrass both himself and the FA sufficiently for his tenure to be terminated.

Allardyce is the headline story but the real story is the utter incompetence of the Football Association. For decades, they have distinguished themselves by their inept managerial appointments and the consistency with which English national teams have been humiliated on the world stage. Given that English football has vast wealth, it is a shocking indictment of its management, that is the FA, that they have been unable to secure the services of a genuinely top-class manager who has then delivered top-class international results.

No doubt there will be much soul-searching and gnashing of teeth before the next no-hoper is appointed to the manager's job - whether this one will just not be up to the job, will have strange world-views, will be a 'wide-boy', or will have hitherto undisclosed 'baggage', we can be sure that, as long as the FA remains in charge and unreformed, the appointee will be another 'wrong-un' and the English national team will remain a second rate presence in the international arena.

ENGLAND - WORST TEAM AT THE EUROS ?

Oh Dear !

The result that was considered a foregone conclusion has turned out to be nothing of the sort as the England football team has produced another miserable performance and been beaten by Iceland. I repeat, England has been beaten by Iceland.

Iceland is a nation with a population of 330,000 or thereabouts while England lays claim to having the best league in the world and, listening to the 'experts', also has some of the best players around. In truth, the league is good because of the huge number of foreign players it includes and the best of the English really don't cut the mustard. Iceland has no professional league of its own and its players only come together for international games but they have passion, something which most of the England players sadly lack.

In the past, we were told, by English pundits, that the likes of David Beckham were amongst the greatest in the world and yet neither Beckham nor the others of his generation were ever as good as they were said to be. Today, we're regularly told that Wayne Rooney is a 'great' player; we're told that Kane, Vardy, Sturridge, Sterling and the rest are, at the very least, very good. Watching this bunch of no-hopers tonight was an embarrassment; they scored a goal, from a penalty, conceded 2 from open play and then spent the next hour or so making little impact and giving Iceland few problems.

This England team was dreadful. There was no passion, no plan, little skill and no spark. The manager, Roy Hodgson, probably has little more than a few hours or days in his job but the players will continue to draw their vast club salaries; what do they really care about it all ? Yet again, they've been shown to be mediocre at best, poor at worst, and England has been humiliated at its national sport.

Let's hope Andy Murray wins Wimbledon, even though he is a Scot; it would at least help to take our minds off of the football for a while.