Karl-Heinz Rummenigge provides a refuge for football's disillusioned | Lawrence Donegan

Karl-Heinz Rummenigge's ECA may be the lesser of two bad choices when it comes to football's future. Photograph: Christof Stache/AFP/Getty Images

What is it to be, a punch in the face or a knee in the groin? The politicking, money?grubbing opportunists who run Fifa, or the politicking, money?grubbing opportunists who run the richest clubs in Europe? Sepp Blatter or Karl-Heinz Rummenigge?

The most obvious answer is C (none of the above), but after a footballing week that has seen more sabre rattling than the director's cut of Braveheart, it appears we have to choose sides. There will be no Switzerland, alas, in the coming battle over who controls football, only more of the same from Blatter, Switzerland's very own Mr Magoo.

Fifa's president was at his myopic worst on the eve of the 2014 World Cup preliminary draw in Rio de Janeiro as he laid out a timetable for "reforming" football's world governing body. "We are going step by step ... We are not going to make decisions without contacting the different parts we need to," he said. "There is a lot of work that is already on the table, we have had contact with organisations working in transparency, personalities who work on anti?corruption systems, we are talking to the United Nations, who have this sort of committee."

Thank heavens Fifa have not spent the past year mired in corruption scandals so pervasive that this weekend's festivities were reduced to the status of "welcome diversion", otherwise Blatter might be accused of buying time in the hope people forget the scandals and move on.

Fat chance. Which brings us back to Rummenigge, who in his role as the chairman of the European Club Association has been cast as the lead pallbearer for football's old order. Revolution is afoot, according to comrade Karl-Heinz.

"Sepp Blatter is saying [that he's cleaning up the shop], but the fact no one believes him tells you everything you need to know," he said. "They believe the system is working perfectly as it is. It's a money machine, World Cup after World Cup. And for them, that's more important than serious and clean governance. I don't accept any longer that we [should be] guided by people who are not serious and clean."

Rummenigge has found the ideal candidates to replace Blatter and his allies as rulers of the football world: himself and his friends at the ECA. "I'm ready for a revolution if that's the only way to come to a solution," he said.

The solution is for the ECA – or at least their richest and most powerful clubs – to break away from football's established structures, free themselves and their players from the obligations of international competition and set up what has come to be known through the years as a European Super League.

We have been here many times before, only for the clubs and governing bodies to reach an agreement to maintain the status quo, albeit with a few minor adjustments around the periphery. The most recent entente cordiale was signed in 2008 and will run out in 2014, when there is every reason to believe the urge to break away will be even stronger.

For one thing, Blatter will still be in charge, with all that implies for the prospects of real reform at Fifa. More pertinently, the financial attractions of a ECA-run super league will be even more apparent by then. A few days ago in the United States the five?month dispute between NFL owners and players over money was resolved. The stand-off had been expected to last a year, but that was before the realisation dawned that life in the NFL was simply too lucrative for all involved.

The coming season's revenues are expected to exceed $9bn (?5.5bn) – most of which will come from television. That figure will increase dramatically over the next few years as the TV deals (worth a combined $20bn) run out and are renegotiated. Upwards.

Don't think these negotiations will go unnoticed by Rummenigge and don't think his ECA friends will fail to understand that while the NFL's appeal is vast, it is geographically limited to the US. Football knows no boundaries and nor, one suspects, will the financial expectations of ECA negotiators should they ever find themselves selling the rights to a European super league. Twenty billion dollars may be just about right – as a starting point.

These are obscene amounts of money and it would require an unimaginable degree of selfishness for Europe's leading clubs to pursue their own interests at such cost to their national associations. What would English football be without Manchester United and Chelsea? And Spanish football without Barcelona and Real Madrid?

"It is just going to be a closed [competition] that stays closed forever. How boring is that?," said Malcolm Clarke of the Football Supporters' Federation, dismissing the notion of a breakaway.

Boring? Try telling that to the millions of Americans who cannot live without their weekly dose of the closed league that is the NFL. And try telling that to those who have become thoroughly disillusioned with Fifa and the damage caused by their disreputable antics. Ask these people to take sides and they will go with Rummenigge. He is far from perfect. But he is not Blatter.

The temptation to feel sympathy for a professional athlete is never stronger than when he or she lands in trouble for saying exactly what is on their mind.

Don't we want honesty in our sporting world? Of course we do. It is just that we have a strange way of showing our appreciation on those rare occasions when the unvarnished truth will out, as Rory McIlroy found out when he responded to criticism of his caddie, JP Fitzgerald, from the American commentator Jay Townsend with the tweet heard round the world: "Shut up. You're a commentator and a failed golfer, your opinion means nothing."

For what its worth, Townsend may have had a point about Fitzgerald, and he and McIlroy may have exceeded the speed limit on racy personal insults. But so what? All involved had their say, no one got injured, and the rest of us were made aware that golf isn't quite the cosy little world it sometimes appears to be. I'd call that a good day for the sport.

View the original article here

If we can organise the Olympics, why can't we get the basics right? | Matthew Taylor

When David Cameron and Boris Johnson boasted that the Olympic venues had been delivered on time and "on budget", international observers may have seen it as confirmation that the UK is good at big projects. As well as the successful Olympic preparation, this year has seen a hitch-free royal wedding and major global sporting competitions at Wimbledon, Silverstone and Royal St George's running as smoothly and profitably as usual.

It's not just events (which by their nature have to be delivered on time). The Channel Tunnel rail link, the renovation of St Pancras and the Jubilee Line extension show how we can get big projects right . Why then can't we summon up the mixture of political leadership and public support needed to modernise and maintain our basic infrastructure? We are building houses at about a third of the rate needed, our transport system is outdated, our sewers are crumbling, our waste management is poor and question marks hang over our ability to develop an energy infrastructure which can deliver both sustainability and security of supply.

What can explain this contrast and can anything be done about it? In the face of the intractability of infrastructure development, some use the excuse of national geography. But while being a small, crowded country makes some things more difficult (finding space for houses and train lines), it should make others (creating economies of scale) easier.

Of more relevance may be aspects of our national character. Whatever the human cost of violent revolution or a defeat in war, such events can help associate the central state with the idea of national mission and renewal. The evolutionary compromises of the British constitution bequeath our national leaders few such pretensions. On the upside, our system of government is among the most open and accountable in the world. On the downside, it leaves government and their civil service advisers lacking the legitimacy to forge ahead with projects which rely on a faith in the long term to offset short-term disruption and costs.

The consequences of our historical predisposition only to trust the state at times of national emergency (even then grudgingly) are reinforced by the adversarial winner-takes-all electoral system which we have recently voted to keep. The length of time in infrastructure projects between the pain of writing cheques and the pleasure of cutting ribbons means ministers have little incentive to make sacrifices today, the benefits of which will be enjoyed by a different government of the future.

But there is a deeper problem still with our democratic culture, one that affects our ability to update our creaking infrastructure but also many other policy areas, from the funding of social care to the allocation of school places. As the old, class-based political order declined from the 1960s on, it was replaced by the myth of democracy as consumerism. In line with a neo-liberal ideology which equated the private sector and markets with efficiency and virtue and the state and politicians with ineptitude, the notion that "the customer is always right" was translated into the focus group techniques of market research.

But the voter isn't always right. The opinions people express when first asked a question can change dramatically when they are furnished with a few basic facts. And most of us hold apparently contradictory positions. As Ben Page from Ipsos MORI says, the British people have a simple desire: "A Scandinavian welfare state on American taxes." There's nothing wrong with public debt if it is incurred by investing in the future. But the debt mountain threatening to engulf Europe and the USA is different. It is in large part the manifestation of the politicians being afraid to tell the more privileged that there is a limit to the number of times they can have their cake and eat it.

Going back to infrastructure, confused public opinion extends to localism where we simultaneously demand more affordable housing for our children while rejecting any being built where we live. The National Housing Federation reports that more than 200,000 houses have been removed from the planning system since the coalition's populist decision to scrap regional strategies. Without accepting, let alone addressing, the inherent tensions, ministers blithely promise to create a system which delivers on the commendable goals of accelerating growth within the current economy, laying the foundations for a radically different green economy of the future and handing power to neighbourhoods.

So what needs to change? In the face of poor policy-making and public cynicism, the debate about democratic reform tends to focus on institutions and processes but more important are the terms of public discourse. Genuinely good governance moves us beyond our innate human tendencies to self-interest and short-termism to identify a coherent idea of enlightened public interest.

History tells us democracies are better stewards of the environment and that the flipside of the grand plans of dictators are the destruction of communities, and disastrous follies which are only revealed years later. But as America divides over a budget deficit built up despite a failure to invest in infrastructure, it is far from clear that a gridlocked democracy is better suited to tomorrow's challenges than a technocratic autocracy.

In an open, querulous democracy such as ours, neither authoritarianism nor a return to deference is an option. Instead, we need a combination of new forms of public engagement and innovative policy-making. Citizens' juries may not be the best way to make detailed policy, but they can help build a consensus that action is necessary and that there are no pain- or controversy-free options. New forms of hypothecated and local taxation, charging and community investment can help to create incentives to act more in the long-term interest.

Ideas like these have been around for ages but our risk-averse, policy-making establishment still clings to the old ways. The citizens' juries Gordon Brown announced soon turned out to be a toothless listening exercise. The big society debate has seen lots of talk of new vehicles to encourage community investment in local infrastructure, but cash-strapped councils are sceptical and there is a chronic shortage of starter capital.

The Olympics show the public can get behind a major national project and that we have the management, engineering and construction skills we need. But from sewers to power stations, the infrastructure deficit continues to grow and today's problems pale by comparison to the challenges which could be posed by 21st-century resource shortages and climate change. There are no immovable deadlines or international competitions to force the state or private sector to invest for the future. The impetus will have to come from within our political system and at the moment that is severely in doubt. We may be good at organising sports events but we are still not winning the game of long-term leadership. Maybe it's time to consider new ways of playing.

View the original article here

Manchester United 2-1 Barcelona

Nani celebrates giving Manchester United the lead against Barcelona. Photograph: Rob Carr/Getty Images

Manchester United have demonstrated that Barcelona are not invincible, after all. Okay, this was only a pre-season friendly, a time for experimentation and Sir Alex Ferguson's team were spared the brilliance of Lionel Messi, but this was still an encouraging way for the Premier League champions to end their three-week tour of the United States.

The decisive moment was provided 14 minutes from the end by Michael Owen, who has now scored in three out of United's five tour matches. Nani, for long spells the outstanding player, had opened the scoring in the 20th minute before a brilliant strike from Thiago Alcantara levelled the match during Barcelona's one period of concerted pressure. Owen's goal came six minutes later on a night when the Champions League finalists attracted a crowd of 81,807 to the home of the Washington Redskins.

The downside for United was that Rafael da Silva was injured in a 17th-minute collision with Seydou Keita and must undergo tests on his right knee to ascertain whether he will be fit for the start of the season. There were also some anxious moments for David de Gea, particularly in the second half.

De Gea looked hesitant at times and Anders Lindegaard's impressive form on this tour leaves Ferguson with a dilemma about who should start the season in goal.

That apart, however, Ferguson can reflect on another satisfying performance from a side that have scored 20 times in their five successive wins on this tour and coped ably with the difficult conditions presented by a day when the temperatures had gone beyond 38C (100F).

Barcelona, to give them their due, were not just missing Messi, recuperating from the Copa America, but this was also their fourth game in a week and they were operating with two midfielders, Jonathan dos Santos and Sergio Busquets, playing in defence. Xavi Hernandez and Gerard Pique were among those given the night off and their approach to the evening could probably be summed up by the attire of Pep Guardiola on the touchline, wearing bleached jeans and white trainers rather than the customary tailored suit.

Yet Ferguson, too, was not fielding his full-strength side, with Daniel Welbeck partnering Wayne Rooney for the opening half and Tom Cleverley operating in central midfield. Rio Ferdinand was given the night off, with Jonny Evans coming into defence, while Rooney, Nemanja Vidic and Patrice Evra were all withdrawn at half time. By the end, Ferguson had made seven substitutions, with only De Gea, Evans, Cleverley and Nani lasting the full match.

Cleverley can reflect on a decent evening, particularly in the build-up to Owen's goal when he anticipated a sloppy pass from Busquets, intercepted the ball and then released Owen to scamper away and dink his shot over the oncoming Victor Valdes. Nani, however, was United's best player by some distance, especially in the first half when his eagerness to impress on the right made him a constant menace for the Barcelona left-back, Eric Abidal.

Nani's goal stemmed from a nicely weighted through ball from Welbeck on a typical United counterattack, timing his run to stay onside before slipping his shot past Valdes.

Barcelona scarcely emerged as an attacking force in that period, barely recognisable from the team that had outclassed United at Wembley in May. In fact, it was possibly too quiet for De Gea. The Spaniard was a virtual spectator throughout the first half and looked anything but commanding after the restart. One miscued kick went straight to Isaac Cuenca 30 yards from goal and could conceivably have been punished more heavily. A few minutes later, De Gea was hesitant in the extreme when Andres Iniesta dinked a little up-and-under into Thiago's path. These moments were probably inevitable for a 20-year-old at a new club but Ferguson must hope they do not linger.

De Gea was also rooted to the spot as Thiago's shot went in for the equaliser although in this instance the credit should go to the Barcelona player. Thiago struck his effort superbly with the outside of his right boot from 25 yards, the ball twisting away from De Gea and spearing into the top right-hand corner of his net.

Owen then raced away to restore United's lead and on the balance of play it was probably deserved. The striker tarnished the moment with a horrible miss in the final few minutes, blazing over an open goal, but it mattered little.

Manchester United (4-4-2): De Gea; Rafael (Fabio, 17), Vidic, (Jones, 76) Evans, Evra (Smalling, ht); Nani, Cleverley, Anderson (Giggs, ht), Young (Obertan, 62); Rooney (Owen, ht), Welbeck (Diouf, 77). Subs not used: Lindegaard, Amos, Jones, Ferdinand, Carrick, Park, Berbatov, Macheda.

Barcelona (4-1-4-1): Valdes; Dos Santos (Muniesa, 62), Busquets, Fontas (Lozano, 73), Abidal (Balliu, 73); Keita; Afellay (Cuenca, 42), Thiago, Iniesta, Pedro (Espinosa, 86); Villa (Carmona, 62). Subs not used: Pique, Puyol, Xavi, Jeffren, Pinto, Riverola, Maxwell, Masip.

Yellow card: Dos Santos

Attendance: 81,807

View the original article here

At least Lord Coe is up to speed | Victoria Coren

Sebastian Coe does not like the idea of gymnasts going to raves. He doesn't want them getting E'd off their faces in fields. He doesn't want synchronised swimmers slipping off their nose clips to wang a line of charlie. He doesn't want to see archers on speed.

With all this concern, it sounds like the London Olympics are going to be quite the party.

Michael Stow, head of science and medicine at UK Anti-Doping (the agency responsible for drug testing in British sport) has suggested relaxing the rules on recreational drugs in time for 2012. Good news for the nightclubs of Hackney, if not the street cleaners.

Athletes currently receive an automatic two-year ban if they are found using prohibited stimulants. Mr Stow thinks this penalty is a little draconian when the stimulants are not always intended for cheating.

"More often," he says, "it's a case of them being used in a social setting." That's a charming use of language. A "social setting"? One pictures an array of athletes taking tea on the lawns of a stately home, their muscles rippling under lace gowns and boaters.

"May I offer you a cucumber sandwich?"

"Very kind. Might I pass you the crack pipe?"

"Thank you, I won't. But I wouldn't say no to a spot of LSD and perhaps another slice of that wonderful Dundee cake."

Michael Stow argues that "social" drugs should not necessarily result in the same ban as the cheating type. Retired Olympian Steve Cram says he might be right.

Enter Lord Coe.

"There is no ambiguity," he roared. "You want to be part of this project then don't take drugs. Full stop. There is no place for drugs. You can't mix the message up. It is the morality of the knacker's yard."

Thrilling! I love his certainty, I love his rhetoric; I love his strong, clear, emphatic statement of principle. There is something incredibly seductive, in these nervous, non-committal and focus-groupy times, about a person who knows his own mind and is not afraid to say so.

Most of us feel confused, indecisive and slightly fraudulent as we scurry around pretending to be grown-ups. Lost, flawed and desperate for guidance (or is that just me?), we're suckers for someone who appears to know what's what.

We love the crisp, Tannoyed voice of an airline pilot, the busy sternness of a hospital doctor, the ethical clarity of a vicar or the technical know-how of a visiting builder – all of whom probably feel equally confused and fraudulent underneath, but God bless them for pretending otherwise. Someone in this mess has got to be mother. That's why, however strong the arguments for electoral reform, the British will never go for it because the one thing we don't want is an uncertain coalition. Lucky we haven't… oh.

Reading Michael Stow's arguments, I drifted in my usual fog of moral relativism (Sportsmen should be role models, shouldn't they? Or is that an unjust burden? Drugs ruin lives and bodies, don't they? Or is that hysterical? I'm allowed an opinion, aren't I? Or am I too drug-ignorant to be qualified? Should I wait until I stop waking up in the night in tears for everything I might be screwing up in my own life, holding on to heartfelt faith but doubting my own hopeful actions and inactions, staring my errors and fears and faults and massive life-gambles in the face, praying daily that this bumpy and winding path leads home, before I start judging other people?) until Seb Coe's fearless absolutism burned through like a shaft of sunlight.

For Lord Coe, it's simple. Bend the rules for Olympic athletes? That way, he knows, lies the coke-snorting, drunk-driving, tart-shagging, spit-roasting, injunction-shopping lifestyle of the footballer. No dice. That's one problem solved. Hurray!

Then I turned the page and read that activists are putting posters up all over east London which say "Shariah Controlled Zone: no alcohol, no gambling, no music or concerts, no form of prostitution, no drugs or smoking". I assume these are not intended solely for the incoming athletes.

And I thought: no drugs, I like that. No smoking: bit harsh, I wish they'd just kept it to restaurants. No alcohol: wouldn't be a big problem for me, might feel a bit sorry for those who love a pint, I'd be delighted to compromise on "No drunkenness". No prostitution: unrealistic, better to legalise and tax it for the workers' protection. No gambling: that would be bearable as long as people understood the moral and practical differences between poker, sports betting and casino gaming, which they don't. No music or concerts: don't be so bloody stupid.

And I realised: 1) politically, we all know exactly what we believe, even we limp-liberal relativists who like to see all sides; we cheer strong opining only when it's the expression of what we secretly or unconsciously think already, stated more bravely than we'd dare ourselves.

2) Governments operate exactly like we do, their certainties a boringly predictable product of their environment and experience. Being increasingly made up of career politicians straight out of university, they are rather particular: they do drink, they don't smoke, they fear drugs, they like music, they're deeply conflicted about prostitutes and they don't know the first thing about gambling.

So, I tell myself and anyone with a similar weakness: beware the yearning for clear leadership, for as long as Parliament is so stubbornly homogeneous. It's comforting at home. But until a wider range of social types is in that house, be grateful for every vagueness, every uncertainty and every law they don't make.

Having said that, Sebastian Coe is still right. Obviously the drug rules for athletes should not be softened up. I mean, like, duh.

www.victoriacoren.com

View the original article here

Britain's Lawrence Okoye tipped for gold medal in London 2012 Olympics

Britain's Lawrence Okoye, winner of the under 23 men's discus at the Aviva U23/U20 Championships, has been tipped for gold at the London 2012 Olympics. Photograph: Mark Shearman

Among a swarm of holidaymakers at Gatwick airport Lawrence Okoye is initially difficult to spot – until he stands up, all 6ft 6in of him, and stretches out two enormous muscular arms. A wave of heads instantly turn to gawp.

What those holidaymakers will not have realised, however, is that they were looking at a potential Olympic gold medallist, a young discus thrower the likes of which Britain has never before produced, so prodigiously talented that his coach, John Hillier, has earmarked him to win gold in 2012 and one day break the world record.

Those are huge statements for a 19-year-old who began training full-time last September. But his achievements in that short period are so staggering as to merit such predictions having already broken a senior British record, a world-age record, won an Under-23 European gold medal and with a throw of 67.63m earned himself a fourth-place ranking amid the world's best discus throwers this season.

On Sunday afternoon in Birmingham he will compete for his place on the British team that travels to the world championships in South Korea, which start at the end of August. Still, the Croydon thrower is level-headed enough to know not to get carried away.

"The first mistake people always make when they get a bit of success is to get over-excited," he says, matter of fact. "I've seen it before, a young sportsman doing incredibly well and then you don't hear from them again because fame gets to their head and they do things they shouldn't. I could go there on Sunday [the UK trials] and have a shocker and not go to the worlds so I've got to really stay on point and concentrate on what I'm doing. Although I've gone up very quickly, I could definitely come down very quickly as well."

Despite his young age Okoye has already witnessed how quickly sporting opportunities come and go in life. Regretting that he missed out on a promising rugby career with the very best clubs – although he was offered a professional contract at Esher – he is determined to grasp what he sees as a "second chance" to excel in throwing the discus.

"I joined the London Irish academy too late," says Okoye, who as a schoolboy was nicknamed Jonah Lomu. "I just didn't know. My mum's not from this country [she is Nigerian] so she didn't know the structure and system here. I know now what I should have done when I was 15 – try and get to an academy at a young age, but I joined at 18 and that's too late. I regret it in a sense, but I don't regret how things have turned out since."

His rugby playing friends were slightly bemused at his decision to switch to the discus – postponing an offer to study law at Oxford University along the way, and more recently declining an offer from Nebraska College, where his father played American football, for a track and field scholarship – but his remarkable achievements in the most ancient of Olympic sports speak for themselves and Okoye is now one to watch at London 2012.

While some teenagers may feel overawed at such an incredible trajectory of progress, Okoye takes it in his stride. "I never think you can't do something," he says, shrugging. "I've got that kind of delusional mentality, you think you can do everything, you think you're special. I heard Will Smith say that all successful people are slightly delusional. You've got to believe you can do things that maybe you can't do.

"No one's done what I've done. I'm a world record holder, I've thrown further than any teenager's ever done, I've broken the British record, I've won the European [Under23] champs. If I'd told someone I was going to do that last year I don't think they would have believed it. But that's what life's all about, shocking people and doing things that are out of the ordinary. Hopefully I'll keep doing that."

Despite his success, Okoye is acutely aware of his need to gain consistency and a better technical understanding of his event. He describes his gift like a magic touch. "I know it's in my back pocket but I don't really know how to reach for it. Sometimes I can get it out, sometimes it will fall out, but I don't always know what's coming. When I'm able to produce good throws on a week-to-week basis that's when things will really start to feel like they are going well."

Perhaps his biggest achievement to date has been to have invigorated a discipline that for so many years in this country has been wholly overlooked. Great Britain has never won a global or Olympic medal in the discus, and the event is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media. But on Sunday that is all about to change. Okoye has sparked a revolution in the discus – with three other Britons throwing personal bests this summer to post the A-qualifying standard for the world championships – promising a gripping contest at the UK trials as four throwers compete for three places.

His fellow throwers have certainly embraced their new star. Okoye is not just successful, image-wise he is everything the event has been lacking – fit, lean, highly intelligent and young with a Mohawk hairstyle – he is a marketing man's dream. But instead of swooning at these facts, Okoye is modest, stating only that he cares for the event and is determined to raise its profile. "For years British throwing has been very poor. Now it will get on the map. Everyone's been behind me, they want me to do well. They're just happy that a light's been shined on their sport. I want to bring change, it's inspirational for other people and that's what it's all about. I want people to care about discus throwing.

"I didn't know anything about javelin when I was growing up, but I knew Steve Backley. When someone does well you're interested in the sport. It won't just be me, though, Brett Morse is also up there in the world rankings and he's 22. Two British throwers up there, it's unheard of, I'm pleased with where the sport's going."

So how does Okoye explain his aptitude for throwing? Is it a natural skill that he has always somehow inherently possessed? He shakes his head and leans forward intently. "It's not a natural thing at all," he says, emphasising each word. "It's something you're taught, not something you do. It's a very, very technical sport, people underestimate that."

Despite having taken part in the odd schools competition, outside of the rugby season, Okoye says he has had very little experience in perfecting the discipline. "It takes lots and lots of lots of throws in the circle. Right now that's what I'm lacking to be really good. More practise, more training."

It is here that Okoye's scholarly vein becomes apparent as he talks about "studying" the discus. "In the past I wouldn't have been able to name a discus thrower or tell you the world record, but I could tell you every discus thrower in the world now. I've done lots of research and homework. I go on YouTube and spend hours watching throwers, analysing their technique."

The immediate future brings a chance to win a British medal in the discus at the world championships. But Okoye is taking it one throw at a time. "Of course I'd like to get a medal but I'm not going there with that in my head. People have had the world at their feet and then it's all crumbled. I want to go a long way in this sport and surprise a few people."

Okoye will compete at the Aviva London Grand Prix on Friday and Saturday at Crystal Palace. Final few tickets for Friday on sale at uka.org.uk/aviva-series or freephone 08000 556 056

View the original article here

England avoid France in qualifying

England head coach Fabio Capello at the draw for the 2014 World Cup, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Photograph: Nelson Almeida/AFP/Getty Images

Fabio Capello has warned England to "play every game like a final", following a World Cup qualifying draw in Rio de Janeiro that placed them in Group H with Montenegro, Poland, Ukraine, Moldova and San Marino.

The head coach, who will not be in charge as he departs his post after Euro 2012 campaign, said: "You have to be really, really focused and play every game like a final. England need to be careful, this will not be easy. Obviously we know Montenegro [from England's European Championship qualifying group], Ukraine we played in qualification for the World Cup in South Africa. Poland are improving, because they are one of the hosts of the next European Championship. I don't know Moldova, but San Marino will be easy again."

October's meeting with Montenegro in Podgorica could decide who tops the Euro 2012 qualifying group, as the nations are separated only by goal difference. Capello believes a win there could prove crucial ahead of the World Cup campaign. "Yes, this will be very important for the future, for the next games we play against them," he said. Regarding the pivotal away trips, Capello added: "In Ukraine the stadium will be OK, in Poland things will be OK, Moldova I do not know, but Montenegro we know."

The Italian also believes enough new potential is developing to safeguard England's future. "It will be interesting to watch some of the players next season," Capello said. "I have spoken with some of the young players at Manchester United and Liverpool and with [Kieran] Gibbs, who will be in the first XI [of Arsenal] always. There is a chance that some of these players will be very important for the World Cup."

Rio Ferdinand, who was due to be England's captain at the South Africa World Cup last summer before he was injured, tweeted: "England WC [World Cup] qualifying group is similar to most qualifying campaigns, some tricky away games but have to be looking to qualify top."

Sir Trevor Brooking, the Football Association's director of football, also thought that England should reach the finals. He said: "We can't complain at the draw. We could have had a lot worse. I [think] we will qualify."

After England's hopes had been given a boost when they avoided being drawn with France, who were seeded in the second band of nations, the bookmakers immediately installed the 1966 World Cup winners as the favourites to secure an automatic berth. England are currently 2-5 to win Group H with Poland 5-1, Ukraine 6-1, Montenegro 12-1, 25-1 for Moldova and 5000-1 for San Marino.

Poland are familiar foes. Sir Alf Ramsey's side famously failed to reach the 1974 World Cup in West Germany after Jan Tomaszewski made several crucial saves at Wembley to prevent England achieving the required victory. But they also met at Mexico 86, when Gary Lineker scored a hat-trick in a 3-0 group win.

In all, England have won 10 of the meetings between the nations, drawing six, and losing only one, and qualified for the finals of the 1990, 1998 and 2006 World Cups, and the European Championships of 1992 and 2000 after facing the Poles. Aside from Ramsey's 1974 failure, only Graham Taylor's 1994 World Cup qualifying campaign has not ended in success.

Of the home nations, Scotland and Wales are in Group A, one of the more difficult divisions that includes Croatia, Serbia, Belgium and Macedonia, while Northern Ireland also face a tough challenge, being paired with Portugal, Russia, Israel Azerbaijan and Luxembourg in Group F.

Wales may feel they have the opportunity to gain revenge following a notorious incident in qualifying for the 1978 World Cup. In a home Wales match staged at Anfield, Joe Jordan appeared to handle the ball when jumping for a header, yet the referee awarded Scotland a penalty that Don Masson converted before Kenny Dalglish's goal to extinguish Wales's hopes.

Asked about meeting Wales, Stewart Regan, the Scottish Football Association chief executive, said: "They're all juicy fixtures. But yes, the home nations always provide extra interest."

Wales's manager, Gary Speed, said: "We have a chance of qualifying. We will have to be good and at the top of our game and have to improve from where we are now."

The Republic of Ireland may struggle to win Group C, as they will go up against Germany, but should fancy their chances of finishing second ahead of Sweden, Austria, the Faroe Islands and Kazakhstan.

Spain, the World Cup and European Championship holders, were drawn in the smallest group, of five countries. But they will have to overcome France, the 2006 finalists, if they are to qualify automatically.

The nine group winners qualify by right with the eight best runners-up playing off for Europe's last four berths in Brazil.

View the original article here

Olympics Aquatic Centre – review

The London 2012 Aquatics Centre, designed by Zaha Hadid: ‘a space that can only be described as stonking’. Photograph: David Poultney

From the outside, it's a car crash. Or a UFO crash. Or, to use the watery metaphors that are de rigueur when talking about Zaha Hadid's ?269m Aquatic Centre, it is like a vast turtle waving over-sized flippers. A great roof, whose beauty should come from the way its great weight came down to the ground at three points is engulfed with even bigger temporary structures, blown-up, go-faster versions of what might be seen at a county cattle fair, needed to house the 15,000 temporary seats for the Olympic Games. They will be taken away afterwards, leaving a 2,500 capacity, which is the most that any non-Olympic swimming event is likely to attract.

Then, once spectators have negotiated the crowd management arrangements, which the building accommodates somewhat clumsily, they will enter a space that can only be described as stonking, a room big enough for more than 17,500 people. It is impressive because it is big, and purposeful, and will contain large crowds, but also because the architecture rises to the occasion. The architects' moves are confident and equal to the scale of the place. They don't fumble or tinker. More than that, the interior has a feeling of wholeness. It feels moulded or carved, not assembled. It looks like a body more than something constructed out of pieces.

The big thing is the roof, steel-framed and timber-clad, which floats and undulates, but is also palpably substantial. Officially, it's like a wave, but, with its combination of weight and agility, it's very like a whale. At either end a concrete bowl, containing the pools, the permanent seating and support spaces, rises to meet the roof where it descends. Along each side, in the gaps formed between the bowl and the roof, huge glass walls will be installed after the games, opening the space to the sky and the surrounding park. Now these gaps open to steep banks of temporary seats, contained within the great flippers that are so problematic on the outside. Inside, they are continuous with the rest of the space, and add to its drama.

The work focuses on the two pools, for swimming and diving, coming down to a few human bodies in water, small and fragile relative to the whole, a shift in scale that is somehow achieved smoothly. The diving platforms are moulded out of the same concrete as the rest of the lower structure, making them extensions of the architecture rather than additional pieces of concrete.

Another pool, for practice, would be part of the experience too, visible behind a wide glass wall, but International Olympic Committee (IOC) regulations have required an unfortunate temporary partition. It's something to do with keeping athletes and officials apart, which is clearly very important, but it blocks the view. Elsewhere the interplay of architectural and sporting demands is happier. The greys of the structure are offset by strong primary colours: the blue pools, the yellow and red of the lane markers, and an interesting pinkish light filtered from the outside through translucent walls in the temporary extensions.

The Aquatic Centre is the London Olympics' most majestic space: the most potent, the most charged. It is also 2012's most difficult child, the first venue to be designed, the last to be finished. It was accompanied along the way by stories of escalating budgets (nervous builders, and near abandonment of the design). Built, it has compromises, like the view-blocking partition and the flippers, about which Hadid does not even try to pretend to be happy. As originally conceived, the awkward temporary extensions would not have been there, as there was to be a roof big enough to cover both temporary and permanent, but this proved too extravagant.

The obvious comparison is with the ?93m, 6,000-seat Velodrome, another wavy-roofed work completed last February, seemingly with the smooth precision of a high-performance bike. The Velodrome's roof required 300 tonnes of steel; the Aquatic Centre's – about the same size but with admittedly more difficult conditions – uses 3,000 tonnes. The Velodrome, trim and taut, is also a handsome building, and promises to be a powerful venue.

Part of the complication comes from the fact that the centre was designed before London won the bid. London was in danger of being seen as the safe-but-boring option, with dull buildings, and Hadid's design could be waved in front of the IOC as evidence of stardust. The problem was that the people who would eventually be the clients for the building, the organisations set up after London won the bid, didn't exist then, and the brief was not as developed as it would be later. When designs come first and clients second, there is often trouble.

But there may also be a mismatch between the processes of something like the Olympics and architecture as conceived by Hadid. Architecture, for her, is something that should make its presence felt, intervene, change things, perhaps get in the way. Her style seems to be about dynamism and weightless modernity, but her buildings are actually massive. They are slow, not fast. They reflect an old idea, common to Palladio and Le Corbusier, that architects sculpt and shape and compose. Hence her roof, which dips down in the middle to suggest two different spaces within in the overall enclosure, one for swimming and the other for diving.

What London 2012 wants is a great whirring delivery machine, driven by the inexorability of the project's deadline, where as many details as possible are determined in advance by specifications and regulations. They want architects to slip into the machine noiselessly, if possible with a bit of elegance, like Hopkins Architects at the Velodrome. With Hadid there is more of a grinding and crashing of gears, but she set out to achieve "a really great spatial experience", and did so.

I am sure that the Aquatic Centre could have been built more cheaply and easily, and without its crashes of permanent and temporary. It is a building that will be at its best after the games, when the flippers have been replaced by the great glass walls, although it will then face a new risk of being too grand for a public pool. The wavy roof risks being too small for the Olympics and too big for its afterlife. It can only be hoped that, whatever plans are made for its future upkeep, they are equal to the ambitions of the structure.

But, given that the whole ?9bn Olympic extravaganza spends money that could have had more prudent and practical uses, it does not seem so terrible that a small fraction of its extravagance should go on a space as magnificent as this. Many hundreds of millions will be flushed away on more boring things, such as consultants' fees and security that may or may not be necessary.

Lastly, a note to the IOC. While the Centre offers 17,500 seats for watching swimming, only 10,000 will be able to watch diving events. This is in accordance with IOC specifications, which seem to assume that people find diving a bit boring. Evidently, the specification writers haven't heard of Tom Daley.

View the original article here