Kaka’s integrity a relief, but threat of money still looms

To all fans of football as we know it, Kaka’s decision to remain at AC Milan must have brought a huge sigh of relief. Manchester City’s record offer of £107 million must have been tempting for Milan, given their current plans for a new stadium, but their decision to stand firm can only be praised.

Kaka’s decision however, may not have been as tough as some have suggested. Make no mistake about it, if he had accepted Manchester City’s millions, his career as a serious footballer would have been over. Even with him in their team, there would still have remained the strong possibility of Man City being relegated, and it does not take much to imagine the farcical nature of a player of the stature of Kaka stepping out onto the pitches of clubs like Doncaster Rovers or Barnsley next season.

But it would not just have been Kaka, but rather football as a whole, whose credibility would have suffered had the deal gone through. AC Milan’s stance represents a commendable stand against the rise of billionaires whose interest is not to see football flourish, but themselves. It indicates that, for the moment at least, football can’t be bought. Although such a thing could be considered to have happened at Chelsea, they were at least a title challenging team to start with, and in any case, much of their early success under Abramovich can be put down to the brilliance of Jose Mourinho, given how his successors have struggled with identical resources.

However, despite recent events, the very fact that such obscene sums can be seemingly casually offered, and that a move by Kaka to Man City was ever a possibility reinforces the serious nature of the threat posed by the Abu Dhabi consortium. Arsenal’s pursuit of Andrei Arshavin, which only yesterday was looking almost certain to succeed, could now be derailed now that Man City have turned their eye towards him. There can be little doubt that Arshavin would prefer to be at Arsenal, a team with whom he is far more likely to taste success, but the sad thing is that the decision may well be out of his hands. Football fans across the globe will be hoping that over the coming years, they are not about to witness the demise of “real” football.

After a turbulent week for English cricket, have we finally got the right man for the job?

By Laurie Brock

It seems highly unlikely that anyone, pundit, professional or devoted cricket fan, could have predicted the events of the last week. Much of the affair surrounding Pietersen and Moores’ co-departure is still shrouded in mystery, but what is clear is that Andrew Strauss has got his hands full if he is to prepare the England Squad successfully for their tour of the West Indies. It is difficult to know how to view Pietersen over his departure.

On the one hand there will be those who will feel that he was right to press forward the right of the team captain to have a considerable say in team selection, and that his demands to the ECB represented not an ultimatum, but a bold stand against the influence of the corporate classes. However, there will also be those who will simply cite this as another example from a long sheet of Pietersen’s petulance. Having already walked out on South Africa, admittedly for seemingly noble reasons, and then Nottinghamshire just prior to their relegation, England might seem to many to be the next step on the ladder.

And there can be no doubt that, even if Pietersen’s motives were righteous, and not merely an attempt to pass the buck for England’s poor performance in India onto Peter Moores, he has nevertheless, by some of his actions, displayed astonishing naivety. First, it seems absurd for a man to issue an ultimatum to the ECB from a beach in South Africa, apparently assuming that his word would go unquestioned. Second, his misjudgement of the level of support he had amongst the England team in his power struggle against Moores, which was the deciding factor in his departure, if not simple naivety, smacks of pure arrogance.

Furthermore, it remains to be seen how tough it will be for Pietersen, assuming he returns to the team, to sit in the dressing room knowing that at least half of the team, and probably more, didn’t want him as captain. Even for someone as self assured as him, that will not be easy.
Moving on from Pietersen, the main question is whether Strauss can fill the gap. In my view, there is no doubt that he can, and indeed if anything this appointment has come two years too late. After his successes as captain against Pakistan in the summer of 2006, the decision to appoint Flintoff ahead of him for the Ashes down under seemed then, just as it does now, nonsensical. Indeed, not only did the England team suceeed under Strauss, but his personal performances also improved, with two centuries in the Pakistan series after a barren patch against Sri Lanka earlier in the summer. Given the emphasis placed nowadays on how such an appointment affects a player’s performance, this fact cannot be excluded.

There will of course be those who will say that Strauss is too “mild” to lead England in a series as highly charged as the Ashes next summer. But the important thing for a captain is to remain calm in such situations, and indeed giving the captaincy to a man of level temperament leaves the more flamboyant and fiery members of the team, particularly Flintoff and Pietersen, to concentrate on their own games. Even if he had held a longer tenure, Pietersen would never have been far from controversy, and although his ebullient nature might have set up some stunning victories, one can’t help feeling that with Strauss at the helm, England are in safer hands.