“If players are guilty, they should be punished heavily without exception, dependent on the findings of ongoing investigations, and if this includes life bans, so be it. Whilst this would be tragic in the case of the 18 year-old and highly touted Amir, it would represent a message that no corruption will be tolerated in the sport.”

The above were my words, in the early morning hours of Sunday 29 August, 2010, in the immediate aftermath of sensational revelations of ‘spot-fixing’ during the 4th Npower Test Match between England and Pakistan at Lord’s. In reflection, the evidence seemed fairly damning even in that initial state of shock, and nothing has happened in the intervening 15 months to suggest otherwise either to me, or evidently to the jury that presided over the recent trial at Southwark Crown Court.

Cricket had certainly not been immune to scandal prior to this point, with the affair surrounding the late Hansie Cronje shaking the foundations of the game to its core in 2000. He was the highest profile victim in a series of investigations that would see many big names implicated and exonerated in an ongoing game of ‘Chinese Whispers’. Others who would receive lifetime bans were former international captains, Salim Malik and Mohammad Azharrudin.

Some 11 years on, the whispers are again proverbially Oriental, with jailed agent Mazhar Majeed implicating at least one further unnamed player in court, and others claiming that corruption has contaminated the game virally. The cricketing world is left at a crossroads of uncertainty, nervously awaiting that dreaded morning when they wake up to find that their favourite team or player, or even match, has been implicated in this sordid scandal. As Mr Justice Cooke said in sentencing:

“The image and integrity of what was once a game but is now a business is damaged in the eyes of all, including the many youngsters who regarded you as as heroes and would have given their eye teeth to play at the levels and with the skills that you had.”

However, what are we to believe, the words of a dishonest man desperate to incriminate others, or the actions of most cricketers and sportsmen for whom victory counts above all else, even in a sporting world that has gone mad with money, and for which this might alas be a stern lesson?

It has been said that it is nigh on impossible to monitor spot-fixing within sport, given the random and high volume nature of events on which people can now bet. It has also been well documented that the sports betting syndicates, notably those in Asia, are continuing to wield an unhealthy influence within sport. This is not confined to cricket. Former World Snooker Champion, John Higgins, was suspended and banned over allegations that he enquired about betting against himself in a World Championship Final, and one of the most high profile cases in football surrounded former Liverpool goalkeeper, Bruce Grobbelaar.
In a world where money talks with far too loud a voice, would it not be nice to go back to the days when athletes and Olympians in particular were amateur, and the only suspected corruption was amongst the judges.

There have been contrasting views from within cricket as to how widespread this may be, towards the severity of sentence, and also the work of the ICC Anti-Corruption and Security Unit. I would have to concur with the views of former England Captains Nasser Hussain and Michael Vaughan, the latter of whom said “The ICC do a decent job but they could do a lot more.”

It is a very difficult task for Sir Ronnie Flanagan and his team, but the fact remains that this would have remained undiscovered but for the work of a sordid newspaper which is no longer in production due to its proclivity for similarly deceitful actions. Furthermore, and away from Flanagan’s remit was the fact that the ICC decided to hand out risible 5 year bans. In my opinion, and that of many others, all three of these men should have been thrown out of the game for life. As it stands, even with a short sentence in a Young Offenders’ Institution, Amir could be playing cricket again in his mid-20s, earning a lot of money for doing so, and I find this totally abhorrent and unacceptable.

In terms of sentencing, I also felt that the players involved could count themselves somewhat fortunate. Especially given the fact that they will be released at halfway points for good behaviour, sentences of 30, 12 and 6 months respectively for Butt, Asif and Amir seem very lenient. Having said this, Mr Justice Cooke had to sentence with a view to the nature of the crime in the context of a wider secular environment. This was, in the duty of the Court, conspiracy to cheat and conspiracy to accept corrupt payments, and he had to sentence just as he would those employed in any other profession.

It is for this reason that I feel that they did need to be jailed, although understanding the point made by a man that I highly respect in Adam Hollioake, who said on his website that “I am not sure that sending people to jail for cheating in a game of cricket is where we should be at as a society.” I can see where Adam is coming from, but the bottom line is that sportsmen and women cannot and should not be treated any differently to others accused of the same crime. Of course, had they been caught in any other country, the punishment may have been different, but this was a crime committed in England and subject to British Law as such.
Either way, they will suffer, and their reputations have been stained and tainted irrevocably beyond recognition. As I said, however, they should never be allowed to set foot on a cricket field again.

I do agree with Sir Ronnie Flanagan when he says that corruption ‘is not rampant in the world of cricket.’ It would be far too easy to get carried away in the heat of the moment and start questioning every match that has ever happened or those that ever will. Having grown up and spent much of my adult life surrounded by professional cricketers and sportsmen, I have every confidence that the majority of them play absolutely honestly and with no other purpose than that of trying to win, some at all costs, which sometimes leads to cheating of a very different kind. And whilst money is an evil in modern day sport, it is a necessary one when we consider the era in which sportsmen gave their lives and health only to end up with literally nothing to show at the end of it.

Even in Pakistan, the country which is unfortunately in the headlines for all the wrong reasons at this point, and one which has suffered from shambolic mismanagement in its cricket, I firmly believe this to be true of the majority of professional cricketers.

These 3 men, however, have shamed themselves, their families, their country, their team mates, their sports, and millions of fans all over the world. For this reason, their punishments should have been reflective of the crime, and I still believe that they have all been leniently treated not only and especially by the ICC, but also by the legal system.

However, I do believe that a grave warning message has been sent out to others that might consider following the same course of action, and that is that it will not be tolerated. Future sentences will be harsher, and the consequences are clear with precedents in place. We will never rid the world of corrupt moneymakers and bookmakers, but we still have the opportunity to protect and punish, if necessary, those in the sport.
On a final note, legal investigations have not been the domain of cricket alone in the last few days and weeks. There has been much said about John Terry being selected for the forthcoming international friendlies, much of which I have read with interest. We live in a society where we go by the maxim of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and by that means alone it was right for him to be selected. However, if he is found guilty of racism, and this also applies to Luis Suarez of Liverpool, he should be punished to the full extent of the law and by the FA. In the case of Terry, his ‘previous’ should mean an end to his international career with no exception.

Please enjoy this, smaller than usual, November edition. Our bumper Christmas edition will be with you on Sunday 4 December.

After the briefest hiatus of a fortnight without international cricket the cogs are slowly working themselves into a frenzy for the winter ahead. Between now and March there are 199 scheduled days of international cricket across seven countries, enough to affect the sleeping patterns of aficionados everywhere.

In terms of the ICC Future Tours and Test Championship programme this represents continued success in ensuring a busy fixture schedule, however, it does raise questions as to how to ensure that each of these days of international cricket are meaningful to both players and supporters.

With England a notable exception, it has been rare to see a full house at a Test match in recent years. We are in a period of recessive economy across the globe, and international tickets do not come cheap. More pointedly, there must be questions asked about the standard of the game in its purest and most prestigious format. New Twenty20 stars seem to be produced on a near weekly basis, but it takes more than a few big hits and yorkers to produce Test match cricketers.

The vast majority of high quality Test match players are able to adapt to the shorter forms of the game but there is an increasingly high profile list of millionaire limited-overs stars who have consistently failed at the highest level or been considered to lack the necessary talent to even warrant a chance. It is a sad indictment of the direction in which the game is heading that players can achieve superstar status without ever achieving success in the ultimate form of the game.

Whilst I have never been slow in criticising the ICC – and I believe that they have consistently failed in key responsibilities as guardians of the global game – the profile of the sport continues to grow. The game now appeals to a much wider audience, and that can only be a good thing. In this respect traditionalists must be prepared to compromise and accept the need for Twenty20 and, to a lesser extent, ODIs as key to maintaining cricket’s profile and popularity.
However, it alarms me to see that there are only 26 Test matches scheduled for the winter programme, as opposed to 52 ODIs and 17 T20Is. This equates to an average Test series of 2.36 matches; there is only one series with four Tests and the five-match rubber is seemingly a thing of the past, with the exception of Ashes series.

Test match cricket was built on teams ‘slugging it out’ and attempting to work each other out over a full series. The great teams built their reputations around adjusting to foreign conditions and maintaining parity during the opening games of a series before coming into their own and showing their class in the latter stages. It was an art form, and the legendary teams did it ruthlessly. No team can be expected to find its best form when they fly in for two back-to-back Tests over a fortnight in alien conditions.

Besides, spectators want to see the best sides take each other on in a meaningful series. When teams like South Africa and Australia clash, as they will next month, a two-match series is derisory not only for fans but also players. The same could be argued of South Africa’s visit to England next summer which will be a contest over a mere three matches between the best two sides in the world – although some may argue that four games between England and India were too much this summer!

There are too many mismatches in the modern game, and much of that is down to players’ lack of exposure to Test cricket. If players were fed a diet of Test match cricket they would quickly learn how to succeed at the highest level, or find their days in international cricket numbered. Too many players save their best for the seven or eight days of limited-overs cricket on a tour, fairly safe in the knowledge that they will not be judged too critically on a maximum of four innings in a Test series.

It is the conundrum for those running the game. Maximisation of revenue is paramount and that is achieved in the shorter formats of the game. There are only 365 days in a year, many of which are spent flying, and I do not envy the boards and the council who put together the Future Tours Programme. However, the ICC must ensure they do everything in their power to make sure that Test cricket does not become a secondary spectacle and a passing thought. It is, and should forever be, the ultimate form of the game of cricket.

At the time of writing, the figures quoted did not include the visit of West Indies to India in November and December 2011, to play three Test Matches and five ODIs.

Since then, I have, with interest, noticed the development of Testing Times, a campaign committed to the preservation of Test Match cricket, and very apt in its timing given the recent words of Andrew Strauss. I will say no more, but simply leave you to read some information submitted by Rebecca Duffy, one of the campaign administrators.

We are campaigning for the preservation and protection of Test and First Class cricket around the world. Our aims are to show the various international cricketing boards that there is still a need and a desire for the longer form of the game and that its support is as passionate, vociferous and numerous as that of limited overs cricket.

We are not anti-limited overs cricket. What we are against is limited overs cricket at the expense of Test cricket and we are becoming increasingly concerned at the ICC’s dismissive attitude towards Tests. It appears that the longest form of cricket is being eschewed in favour of the more commercially viable One-Day Internationals and Twenty20 forms.

Testing Times is a campaign dreamt up and instigated by genuine cricket lovers with a shared concern about the future of the great game of Test cricket, and brought together by James Corrigan who created a Facebook page called Forward Point – a forum in which the 65 members of all ages, male and female, could discuss cricket to their hearts’ content.

The Testing Times movement was launched at the end of October when members of Forward Point became embroiled in a heated debate about England’s summer 2012 schedule on the Official England Cricket page.  Frustrated and annoyed that such a seismic clash between England and South Africa – numbers 1 and 2 in the ICC’s World Test rankings – was deemed worthy of just three Tests, our thoughts turned to action.

Andrew Strauss had made comments in the Times just days before about his fears for Test cricket and it seemed that if we were to act, the time was now.  A Facebook page was created for Testing Times, followed by a Twitter account and in less than 12 hours, we found that we had over 700 followers!  The administrators of the page – James, Lawrence Epps, Mat Richards, Libby Leonard, Andrew Miles and myself (Rebecca) – were the initial driving force of the campaign but many other members of Forward Point did, and continue to do, valuable work in promoting Testing Times, especially on Twitter.

Spurred on and encouraged by the immediate wealth of support we were encountering from cricket lovers and members of the media, we began to devise firm aims and objectives.

The major irritant seemed to be the inclusion of an incongruous five match ODI series against Australia, the purpose of which was the subject of many dark murmurings about commercial viability and television rights.  However after some research we discovered that it was a reciprocal arrangement with Cricket Australia and was unlikely to be shelved.

We were also originally quite keen to take on the ICC straight away to demand a greater focus on Test cricket globally but felt that we needed to start closer to home and not aim to high too quickly.  However, we wanted to make a strong point so we returned to the issue of scheduling for the English summer.  Five Tests, we felt, was what such a series deserved, but given that we need to be realistic – and taking into account the Olympics – we decided that four Tests would be an achievable goal.

We set about working on a new, proposed schedule to improve upon the official one, and found that by reducing the ODI series from five matches to three, we could add another Test with a maximum of just an extra three days of cricket involved for the players.  The other issue was the odd scheduling of a one-off ODI v Scotland right in the middle of the Test series.  We felt that this was disrespectful to both Scotland and South Africa and a tough ask for England, so we rearranged that to after the Test series as a warm up for the ODI series.

What we are ultimately campaigning for though, is the preservation and protection of Test and First Class cricket around the world. Our aims are to show the various international cricketing boards that there is still a need and a desire for the longer form of the game and that its support is as passionate, vociferous and numerous as that of limited overs cricket.

What we ultimately want is for the ICC to stop eroding the importance of Tests by shortening key Test series in order to fit in more limited overs internationals. We feel that ODIs and T20s should be included as a part of a tour and not as its centrepiece, and certainly not as a tour in their own right.

If we continue to witness the occurrence of series made up solely of limited overs internationals, such as the recent one between India and England and that between England and Australia scheduled for next summer, there is a real danger that it is a trend which will grow and grow until before we know it, Test cricket will become a charmingly amusing anachronism and pyjamas will rule the cricketing world.

In this world, matches like those unbelievable Ashes clashes at Headingley in 1981 and at Edgbaston in 2005, the famous tied Test at Brisbane in 1960-1, India’s astonishing comeback against Australia at Kolkata in 2000-1, will be consigned simply to the annals of history, the like of which will never be witnessed again.

To allow that to happen would be doing a great disservice to cricketers and cricket fans of the future which is why we’re asking anyone who cares about Test cricket to join us and try to open the eyes of the cricketing authorities to the fact that there is interest outside the world of brightly coloured clothing, cheerleaders, loud music, over-excitable PA announcers and three-digit strike rates.

If you wish to help, please follow our campaign on Twitter or on Facebook but most importantly, please sign our petition – http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/testingtimes.

We have a huge chance to change attitudes towards Test cricket and we’ve made an amazing start but need the continued and passionate support that we know fans of Test cricket have in abundance.

Now is the time to try to stem this tide of avarice and greed and implore the ICC to show some respect to Test cricket and its millions of fans around the world: to try to make them see that while some things can be bought or sold in the never ending frenzy for profits, there are some things that are beyond such baseness; some things in fact, which are timeless, peerless and utterly priceless.

Submitted by REBECCA DUFFY of Testing Times

America knows how to put on a show, and the NFL have consistently proven as much over each of the last 5 years with its NFL International Series match at Wembley. This season’s matchup saw the Tampa Bay Buccaneers play ‘host’ to the Chicago Bears in front of another sell-out crowd at the National Stadium.

It was a wonderfully organised and choreographed event from the ‘tailgate’, through to the pre-match and half-time shows, as well as the game itself. Probably due mainly to the 2nd Half shortcomings of the Bears, who held on to win 24-18, the game also matched up to its billing, going all the way to the wire.

The crowd consisted of a loyal following of gridiron fans not only from across the UK, but also many other European nations, notably Germany, whilst I also met a number of fans who had flown in from the States, in particular Season Ticket holders of the Chicago franchise.

There are inevitably questions in the excitement about how the game further develops in the UK. There has been talk of a second game at Wembley, and even the more unlikely mention of a London based franchise. Both of these notions are ‘pie in the sky’ at the moment in my opinion. It is difficult enough for the NFL to persuade one team to give up a home game every season – each side only has 8 guaranteed – let alone 2. The logistics and associated cost of compensating that team produces an expensive exercise, and the difficulties of doing that twice will not be lost on the NFL Commissioner especially at a time when a legal dispute between owners and the Players’ Association nearly cost us the entire 2011/12 season.

The time difference also means that the games have to be played at a fairly early point in the season – teams are not going to come in November and December during prime Thanksgiving and Christmas schedules, and the broadcasters will not allow it either.
In addition to this, will supporters make 2, let alone 8 trips to Wembley for this event? If they live in North London, very possibly, otherwise not. We live in a country, the UK, which continually astounds me as to how backwards it is in its planning and infrastructure. Wembley Stadium is exempt from this – the planning of additional London Underground services into and away from Wembley was absolutely first class. However, that is where it stopped!

First and foremost, NFL matches being played on a Sunday evening, a large proportion of supporters had to book hotels in London for the Sunday night. Safe in the knowledge that 80,000 people would be descending on Wembley and many from outside London, the British Rail network thought it unnecessary to schedule any additional late night services. And even if people decided they could afford 2 or 8 hotel visits, could they also afford the following Mondays off work?

Equally astounding to me, in a city which will host the 2012 Olympics, was the discovery on a major event day that major parts of the Northern, Victoria and Central Lines were all closed. To reach our hotel in Lancaster Gate in the West End, we had to travel 6 stops East, so we could then travel 8 stops West. One can only surmise that this will not be the case next year.

As I said, the NFL put on a magnificent event, and despite the stuffy, aristocratic, please don’t urinate in the toilet attitude of the stewards at Wembley Stadium, it was a great night in which to be involved. However, much as this might upset die hard NFL fans, and I would consider myself in that number, the thought of an additional game, let alone a London team, is utterly laughable given current limitations and circumstances.

On the 20th January 1987, in Cattolica, an Italian motorsport fanatic was born. Marco Simoncelli, at just 24 years old, was a rising star on a global level, and the news of his death shocked and devastated the motorsport community, especially so soon after the loss of the British IndyCar driver Dan Wheldon.

Simoncelli was a racer who showed such flair and enthusiasm in the sport he loved but tragically was taken from us too soon. He started racing at the tender age of 9 in the Italian Minimoto Championship and went on to win that Championship in both 1999 and 2000, whilst also coming runner-up in the European Championships, an astonishing achievement at such a tender age.

In 2002, Simoncelli made the transition into the Italian 125cc Championship and won the title in his first year along with the European 125cc Championship.  In August 2002, Simoncelli made his first Grand Prix appearance with Matteoni Racing, replacing Czech rider Jaroslav Huleš who stepped up to the 250cc class.  Simoncelli rode an Aprilia bike with the number 37.  In the 2004 season, Simoncelli switched to WorldwideRace team and continued with them until his exit into the 250cc category in 2006.

Upon taking that step in 2006, he was the only rider from the top eight in the previous year’s 125cc class to make the transitioin.  He joined the Italian team, Metis Gilera.  He had his first 250cc win at the Italian Grand Prix held at Mugello on 1 June 2008, albeit in controversial circumstances as he appeared to impede Hector Barbera. Simoncelli, however, escaped without any penalty, and some 4 months later on 19 October secured the 250cc World Championship after finishing 3rd in the Malaysian Grand Prix.
It was confirmed, in June 2009, that Simoncelli would be promoted into premier class racing allowing him to compete in the 2010 MotoGP Championship after agreeing to ride with the San Carlo Gresini Honda team. Simoncelli got off to a relatively slow start in 2010 but became one to watch towards the end of the campaign, widely being predicted as the surprise package of the 2011 season.

However, on 23 October, Simoncelli tragically lost his life when he was involved in a collision between fellow racers Colin Edwards and Valentino Rossi during the Malaysian Grand Prix at the Sepang International Circuit, the same Sepang at which he had 3 years earlier clinched the 250cc World Championship, and a devastating reminder of how dangerous motorsport can be.

Marco was known worldwide for his outgoing personality which made him a favourite with the fans, and especially among the Italians who have a special passion for motorsport, Italy having produced several World Champions including Giacomo Agostini and Valentino Rossi.

It was announced, on November 3 that the Misano World Circuit, some 5 miles from where the Italian was born, is to be renamed in Simoncelli’s honour. Marco will sadly not have the opportunity of joining the list of famous Italian MotoGP World Champions, but he will never be forgotten in the hearts of fans and fellow racers worldwide.

A few days before my daughter was born, the publisher of Jonathan Wilson’s first book, ‘Behind the Curtain’, sent me a review copy.

Rarely has a delivery been so timely as over the next week or so, it was to prove to be an excellent way to fill the monotony of those late hours spent rocking cradles and trying to get a crying baby to sleep.

Thanks to that book, Wilson became a personal favourite. I tried to read everything he wrote with each piece increasing my conviction of his brilliance.   His ability to write about with passion and verve about Eastern European football (initially) and tactics (subsequently) were insightful and inspirational in equal measures. Indeed there are, arguably, few writers who have been as influential as him. ‘Inverting the Pyramid’ kick-started the current trend of tactical analysis whilst ‘Blizzard’, the magazine he launched earlier this year, has proven that there can be exceptional writing about football.

Yet, mention this to Wilson and he is dismissive, saying that he just “rode a wave that was coming his way”. Inadvertedly, however, he has put it better than anyone else could, because spotting those waves and being the first to get to them is precisely what visionaries are capable of doing.
When did you decide that writing is what you wanted to do for a living?  And what sort of training did you have?

I’d always written stuff, from being five or six. I worked on the Sunderland fanzine ‘A Love Supreme’ from being about 16, and then I started doing freelance work for Match of the Day magazine (the old version) while I was doing my Master’s degree. I possibly would have been an academic had I got funding to do a DPhil – on the subject of imperial constructions of masculinity in Conrad and Kipling – but to be honest I’m much happier as a football writer than I’d ever have been as an academic. I did a journalism course, but to be honest I learned more doing a week of work experience than I did in three months on the course.

Looking back, and taking on board what I learned while teaching a journalism course, I think the fact I read huge amounts was a big help. I spent six months teaching in a Tibetan monastery in India between school and university, and while there I got in the habit of reading 50 pages before I got up in the morning and 50 pages before I went to sleep, something I pretty much carried on until I started working full-time as a journalist. Even now I read a lot on buses, trains, planes etc. It baffled me while teaching how little reading people who wanted to write for a living did.

You started out at onefootball.com, a site that ,if I recall correctly, had ambitious plans but not a sound business case.  Yet I believe that’s where you got the bug about Eastern European football.  What was that experience like?

I’m not sure that’s quite true about the business plan. I think mistakes were made early on – as a lot of people made mistakes in the first flush of the dot com bubble – but by 2002 we were pretty close to breaking even when the parent company loaded a huge debt on us from another part of the business. That was unsustainable, and that’s why we disappeared.

It was a fantastic place to work as a first job. A lot of freedom, a hugely dedicated and innovative staff, and a great chance to learn about football all over the world. No money, but you don’t care about that when you’re mid 20s.
Why the fascination with Eastern European football?

The first place I went to outside of the UK was Slovenia, then part of Yugoslavia, in 1984. I went back with my mam and dad five times before the war, and that gave me an interest in Eastern Europe (albeit in its friendly, Titoist form). Then, when I was in lower sixth, we had an exchange with a school from Tambov in Russia, which strengthened that fascination.

So there was a spark there, but what ignited it was that at onefootball, I was very junior and so while others looked after the more major football countries I tended to take the eastern stories. I started going out there, meeting people, making friends and contacts, and when onefootball went under, I realised it was a niche in which there was little competition, that it was knowledge I could offer papers  that they didn’t already have.

Where did the ideas for each of your books come from?

It depends. The first one, Behind the Curtain, came from sitting down with my agent and talking through what I could do that was different. The Sunderland and Clough books, the publisher came to me. Inverting the Pyramid and Anatomy of England were nothing more complicated than me thinking ‘hmm, there’s might be a book in that’ and discussing it with my agent and editor.

Do you often re-read your books?

Never. I sometimes use them for reference, but I don’t sit down and read them. Just last night, in fact, I was asked a question about why Sunderland are known as the Black Cats. I knew it had something to do with the cannon that used to stand at the mouth of the river and I was googling it when I suddenly remembered I’d written about it in A Club Transformed.

Is there any one of the books which you consider as being your favourite?

Not really. Pyramid is the only one that when I was writing it I was confident it was worthwhile, but there’s a lot of stuff in that I’d change if I were writing it again – both in terms of uncovering details I hadn’t known and stylistically. But there’s bits of all of them I’m proud of and bits I’d change.

Undoubtedly, the one that really made an impact was Inverting the Pyramid.  First of all, where you expecting the reaction that you got?

No. The last month or so of writing it I was waking at 6am each day, and retching with tension because I knew it was going well and I didn’t want to mess it up, which was awful and exhilarating at the same time. When I submitted it, I knew I was happy with it, and you tell yourself that that’s all that matters, but obviously you want other people to agree with you and thankfully they did.

Has there been a change in culture since you wrote that book?  Looking at the success of the Zonal Marking website, it is clear that more people want to learn more about tactics.

I don’t know. I think in some ways I was just lucky and rode a wave that was coming anyway.

There is always a lot of research in your books.  How do you go about this?

It depends on the book, but the academic in me still loves sitting in a library uncovering stuff in old books or newspapers.

Equally, there are also a lot of interviews.  I get the impression you love doing these: is that the case?

Yes and no. There are few things better than talking to an old player, coach or journalist with great memories, but then there’s little worse than dozens of phone calls to an agent then hanging around in a hotel lobby for hours for five minutes of bored inanities.
How was Blizzard born?

You’ll excuse me, I hope, if I just quote the Editor’s Note from Blizzarrd issue Zero:

I’d been frustrated for some time by the constraints of the mainstream media and in various press-rooms and bars across the world, I’d come to realise I wasn’t the only one who felt journalism as a whole was missing something, that there should be more space for more in-depth pieces, for detailed reportage, history and analysis. Was there a way, I wondered, to accommodate articles of several thousand words? Could we do something that was neither magazine nor book, but somewhere in between? 

As I floated thoughts and theories to anyone who would listen, I became aware there were other writers so keen to break the shackles of Search Engine Optimisation and the culture of quotes-for-quotes’-sake that they were prepared to write for a share of potential profit, that the joy of writing what they wanted and felt was important outweighed the desire to be paid. The only problem, I explained to those around the table in Fitzys, was finding a publisher equally willing to take the gamble. 

I suppose you don’t really think of your old school-friends, people you only really see these days in the context of the pub and the match, as having jobs. Sitting next to me that night, though, as he’d sat next to me in sixth-form English, was my mate Peter, who happens to run a design and publishing company. Flushed on White Amarillus and a Darren Bent hat-trick, we knocked around ideas for the rest of the night; remarkably, in the cold light of morning, it still seemed a viable plan. 

The result, about a year later, is The Blizzard, named after the short-lived and eccentric, but rather brilliant, Sunderland newspaper launched as “the organ of Mr Sidney Duncan” in 1893. It only ran to 12 issues, during which time Duncan, who pretty much wrote the whole thing himself, doubled the cover price in an attempt to cut circulation because he found the effort of handling all the money he was making so tiresome, a policy I’m pretty sure we won’t be following should we experience similar success.

What has the feedback been like, both from writers and readers?

Hugely positive and very encouraging. The writers have had faith in us in that they’ve worked hard and contributed articles knowing that there was no guarantee  of payment; and the readers have repaid that by responding responsibly to the pay-what-you-want model.

Is the pay what you want model working?

So far, definitely. There are a handful of people who keep paying a  penny, but it is just a handful. By and large people have responded as we hoped they would – maybe paying a penny for their first issue and then, if they found they liked it, offering an amount that seems realistic.

Given that there are so many sites writing about football, and some of the articles are truly excellent, is there space for a printed magazine? And with so much stuff being free, is there space to make money.

I hope so. I’m not sure anybody else gives you the range of articles or the depth of quality that The Blizzard does. And there are still people who like the physical feel of a book.

What future projects are you working on ?  And what’s in the pipeline?

Nobody Ever Says Thank You, my biography of Brian Clough, comes out in November, and I’m working on The Outsider, a book about goalkeepers that’ll come out late next year sometime.

In recent times, Arsenal Football Club has become an institution capable of placating and infuriating it’s fans in equal measure – both on and off the pitch.

Arsene Wenger’s prudent approach to the transfer market has often overshadowed his side’s performances on the pitch, with the North Londoners failing to land a trophy since winning the FA Cup at Cardiff back in 2005.

Despite continuing to qualify for the Champions League, the lack of cold, hard silverware in the cabinet since the disassembly of the ‘Invincibles’, the greatest side of the Frenchman’s tenure, has lead fans to question the motives of the club’s board.

High profile player departures since moving to the Emirates including those of Thierry Henry, Alex Hleb and, most recently, Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri, along with a reluctance to place large outlays on single players in the transfer market, has influenced belief amongst the Gunners faithful that the bottom line is more important than the goal line to the club’s hierarchy.

The club’s AGMs have become increasingly hostile environments over recent seasons – particularly after the departure of David Dein, a master of public relations – with the finger being starkly pointed at long-time Chairman, Peter Hill-Wood at last week’s congregation of shareholders.

Hill-Wood provided haughty and dismissive answers during a Q&A session in which only pre-approved questions were allowed, withstanding regular heckling and calls to stand aside as he painfully recited prepared answers from a sheet of paper to the obvious disdain of those in attendance. He also confirmed that Ivan Gazidis, the man who replaced Dein but under the alias of CEO as opposed to vice-chairman, had been given a £600,000 bonus for meeting targets that he refused to disclose when asked.
It is this lack of transparency that has Arsenal fans wondering if their club has been transformed from a name synonymous with tradition into another of modern day football’s money-making mechanisms hell-bent on meeting sales targets, with the back pockets of those at the top taking precedent over paying fans who crave and deserve tangible success on the pitch.

The club sold the idea of moving from Highbury to the Emirates to fans by claiming that it was a necessity that would ensure the club could remain competitive among the elite of both English and European football. In steep contrast, supporters have watched their team lose big name players while splashing out nominal amounts in the transfer market despite recouping large fees on departed stars, while all the time cranking up ticket prices in a stadium lacking the charm of Highbury.

Over zealous stewarding towards the home fans either side of the away enclosure is killing the match day atmosphere. Those who return spirited banter to visiting supporters are told in no uncertain terms that they must keep their eyes on the pitch or face ejection from the ground. It’s most shocking that a fan was told to sit down by a steward while celebrating a goal against Tottenham – the club’s archrival. No wonder some fans only attend away games these days.

Resolutions to contractual situations of key squad members have also become farcical. Samir Nasri was the most recent example of this as he haggled for higher wages at Manchester City, but Mathieu Flamini was also allowed to leave the club, this time on a free to AC Milan, after the Gunners failed to open negotiations soon enough.

Perhaps the club has learnt from this debacle though after tying Thomas Vermaelen to a new deal a few weeks ago, plus opening talks on contracts with Theo Walcott and Robin van Persie – both of whom will reach the summer in similar positions to that of Nasri last summer, with just a year to run.
After increasing season ticket prices by 6.5% and hiking other ticket and membership prices over the summer, failure to retain their prized assets – particularly the skipper, van Persie – will be met with little sympathy by supporters.

Although a recent run of results and a glut of last minute buys in the transfer window including Andre Santos, Per Mertesacker and Mikel Arteta have appeased the discord amongst fans with regards to what happens on the pitch, the club and it’s new majority shareholder, Stan Kroenke, still have a long way to go to convince them that the long-term direction of Arsenal is not a sporting form of capitalism.

A lot has happened in the last month since we last spoke … the legend of Frankel continues to grow, the official review of this year’s Grand National has been released, the “race that stops a nation” was run, the National Hunt season has cracked up to full speed … oh, and there has been some minor controversy regarding the use of the whip. Now where should we start …

THE WHIP RULES CRISIS

Joking aside, the biggest story in horse racing over the last month (and maybe this year) has been the revisions to the rules on striking a horse during a race. It is the only other time apart from the Grand National that a horse racing story has made the national news headlines and featured on both front and back pages of the newspapers and prolifically across the internet. And just like this years’ National, it was for all the wrong reasons.

If you have been living under a rock for the last 3 weeks, the new rules were launched on 10 October with the British Horseracing Authority stating that the new regulations had the full approval of all racing partners, including the jockeys. However within 7 days mayhem ensued, with over a dozen bans having been administered, a leading jockey handing in his racing licence, another leading jockey having prize money of £50,000 removed due to a whip offence, and a strike only narrowly averted. Some of the best known jockeys in the country have been caught up in the controversy including Ruby Walsh and Richard Hughes.

The new rules initially stipulated that a jockey could only strike a horse a maximum of 7 times in a Flat race, and 8 times in a National Hunt race. This was accepted by the jockeys. However the rules also included that a horse could only be struck 5 times inside the final furlong of a flat race and after the last fence/hurdle of a NH race. As a further deterrent, jockeys found to have broken the rules would have their winning prize money removed.

This was not previously agreed by the jockeys, and led to a series of offences in the first 6 days, culminating in Christophe Soumillon losing his £50,000 share of prize money after winning the Champion Stakes at Ascot, hitting his horse 6 times in the last furlong. After further consultation, this particular clause was removed, permitting a jockey to strike the horse at any time during the race as long as he does not exceed the limit.

However, alongside the riding stipulation, a set of punishments were introduced to which jockeys have taken particular offence. The punishments include a 5 day ban for a first offence, which then increases to 15 days for a second offence and a possible removal of licence for a 3rd. The jockeys believe this to be excessive for “minor offences” and their trade association, the Professional Jockeys Association, is trying to avoid strike action being taken by its members.

As a racing aficionado, I can understand why the jockeys are upset. It appears that they were not as well informed of the proposed changes as was advertised, whilst also arguing that their livelihoods are being threatened. They also point out that the whips currently used are light and do not mark or harm the horses. However, I cannot justify strike action. Any headline stating “Jockeys Strike Due To Whipping Horses Less” or similar can do racing no good. Jockeys have to be able to alter their riding styles, in a way that may result in better race-riding, not to mention augmented tactical skills.

The British Horseracing Authority must take a large share of responsibility for the controversy. Many of these issues may have been averted if a trial period had been introduced at a lesser course, allowing the jockeys the opportunity to experience the changes in race conditions, make any objections and modify their riding style accordingly. In hindsight, it was also a bad idea to introduce the changes a week before the most valuable days’ Flat racing ever seen in this country, when jockeys would be using every means necessary to win, and all in front of a national audience with the BBC. So a black eye for BHA Chairman Paul Roy.

I speak as a man who attends 1 or 2 meetings a year. Those people attending race meetings are generally male and in their early to late 40s and above. The attendance figures for racing during the week are very small, racecourses enjoying bumper crowds only at weekends during the summer or at the big festivals.

Other larger crowds tend to consist of younger race-goers, swelled by stag and hen parties, people attending pop concerts at the end of racing and those who treat racing as a good day out to get steaming drunk. The common factor is that they are not there to see the racing. Like it or not, racing needs to recruit new people to the sport to replace those who will leave it in the next 20 years, and those newcomers do not and will not understand why the horses are being struck unnecessarily.

Some people will suggest that the new whip rules are a result on Political Correctness gone mad. I see it as a necessary measure to ensure racing’s future. When the vast majority of the public only watch one horse race a year, and at the end of the race the leading horses are tired, and being struck 10 or more times by their jockeys, the concensus opinion may be “well that was good, but I dont want to see that close up”.
GRAND NATIONAL REVIEW

The review of this April’s race was released last week. Back in April’s, I wrote a review of the 2011 race and proposed 4 steps that I believe would enhance the safety of the race without taking away the spectacle. Remarkably, the BHA review partially agreed with me on 2 of my 4 points – namely that the ground on Grand National day should be ideally between Good and Good to Soft (I recommended that it should always be Good to Soft) and that the qualification standards to allow horses into the race would also be improved. My comments regarding the use of the whip on Ballabriggs have become more pertinent following the change in the whip rules, and it will be extremely interesting to see how all the changes affect next year’s renewal of the great race.
FRANKS FOR THE MEMORIES

The highlight of Ascot’s inaugural Champions Day was Frankel’s effortless victory in the Queen Elizabeth II Stakes. Over the season he has clearly relaxed in his style of racing, making him a much easier ride for Tom Queally, but his ability remains unchecked as he spread-eagled the field in the final 2 furlongs. I had previously stated that I was unconvinced that Frankel was the equivalent of Pegasus; my view remains unchanged. Frankel has enjoyed a magnificent season and goes into the winter unbeaten. When he comes back next year, we will see if he is better than ever. If he does, I may have to buy a hat to eat.
MATILDA’S NOT WALTZING

Australia’s greatest race, the Melbourne Cup was run on Tuesday, and for the 2^nd year in a row the French took the Cup home with Dunaden. In the last 10 years, the French have won it twice, a Japanese horse in 2006, and Media Puzzle for Ireland in 2002. To compound Aussie woes, 11 of the 24 runners this year were European trained and of those 11, 6 were in the first 7 home.

It appears that the Aussies may struggle to get the Cup back any time soon, and already the cries are starting that the European nations, with some invisible advantage, should be restricted in their number of entries. To which I say … it’s your own fault. You gave us Neighbours!

A mere 39 days after completing a 3-0 series win over India on home soil, England subsequently found themselves humiliated on the back of a 5-0 drubbing at the hands of the same opponents.

England were outplayed, outclassed and out-thought by India in the one-day series, a sign that a significant amount of work is yet to be done before England can be serious contenders in the 50 Over format.

Captain Alastair Cook has his work cut out in analysing a horrid series for himself and his team, in particular the collapse in Kolkata, where England were well placed at 129-0, only to lose ten wickets for 47 runs to seal a resounding series defeat. Cook’s captaincy will be scrutinised, but it is important to remember that he is still new to the job and should use this as a learning curve to avoid a repeat in the future.

The series whitewash was an embarrassing result, but unfortunately it was not completely unexpected, as England have won just five of their last 20 ODI matches away from home. A factor in India’s series whitewash was England’s batsmen only passing fifty on six occasions during the series, with Cook contributing two half centuries towards that tally, in comparison with India, who passed fifty on nine occasions, with Virat Kohli the only player in the series to make a century.

Kohli’s 112* in Delhi helped him to top score for India in the series with a total of 270 runs in the five ODI matches, at an impressive average of 90. In comparison, there were only two England batsmen with an average above 40. Unsurprisingly, they were Jonathan Trott and Kevin Pietersen.

Trott, who scored an unbeaten 98 in Mohali, has been criticised for slow run rate, but if you take Trott’s scores out of the series, the margin between the sides would have widened significantly. While he may not be able to give you the influx of runs expected in the one-day game, he provides stability to the middle order, which allows others to build on the runs he adds to the side. It is the lack of support around him that has led to England failing to post a total over 300 in the series.
The absence of Eoin Morgan from the middle-order was a huge miss for England, as his dynamic play is both clever and adaptable, especially in run chases. However, contributions are required from others in the side and the place of wicket-keeper/batsman Craig Kieswetter may be under threat after an underwhelming series with the bat and gloves.

A ready-made replacement could be Matt Prior, who has enjoyed a large amount of success in the Test arena, turning him into arguably the best keeper-batsman in the game today. Another possible change would be to bring in Ian Bell, who was rather surprisingly left out of all but one of the ODIs, whilst youngster Jonny Bairstow played all five games in the series, managing to make just 49 runs.

The bowling department was not much better, with Steven Finn the only stand-out, picking up 8 wickets, at an average of 31.62. The figures for the bowlers do not make impressive viewing, conceding 300 runs on two occasions and failing to bowl India out during the entire series. Jade Dernbach picked up just a single wicket in the series, at a cost of 168 runs, while Tim Bresnan and Samit Patel contributed 9 wickets between them, although their averages were too close to 50. Graeme Swann endured a torrid time, taking 2 wickets at an average of 95.50 in his four matches, resulting in Patel being England’s best spinner during the series.

England can take some encouragement from their performance in the T20 International, where Pietersen made a storming 53 from 39 balls, and Finn took 3-22 to guide England to victory.

Looking forward, England travel to the United Arab Emirates in February to play Pakistan in a series consisting of three Tests, four ODIs and three T20s. While this may be a new experience for a developing team, England need to learn from their tour of India and build a one-day team to match their successful Test and T20 teams, who top the rankings in for both forms of the game.

Without question, the crown jewel of the Formula One season is the Monaco Grand Prix, set alongside the famous harbour by the millionaires yachts and glitzy casinos that congregate around the trackside. In a season that has been otherwise dominated by the brilliance of Sebastian Vettel, the more overtly sensationalist stories have been provided as a result of a series of gambles by Lewis Hamilton that have left some of the more experienced observers of F1 with a concerned, if not frustrated, frown on their faces.

The latest in this collection of transgressions, which seem more often than not to include Felipe Massa, occurred at last weekend’s inaugural Indian Grand Prix. Although the stewards (rightly) decided that Massa was the driving force behind this week’s misadventure, the fact is that here, once again, we had a decision that Lewis had made ending up in an accident.

This year has both professionally and personally taken its toll on one of the sport’s greatest talents. When previously asked who the out and out quickest driver was in Formula One, the stock answer was usually Lewis Hamilton. Like his great hero, Senna, that most prestigious of subjective titles lay squarely at his feet, with the given wisdom being that Alonso held the other of these, “most complete driver.”

It would be hard to argue the claims of Vettel to either of those accolades currently. However, Alonso and, more tellingly, Hamilton’s teammate Jenson Button have also nudged ahead in the various polls including, of course, the Driver’s Championship. This will be the first time that Hamilton has ever been beaten in a Championship by a teammate, and what’s more, in ‘his team’ McLaren. Button will rightly be hugely satisfied with this.

The fact that a great number of Hamilton’s incidents on-track this season have involved Massa is telling. Although a good driver, Massa has never been considered one of the leading lights in the series, more often a capable and compliant number two. To have a transgression with another driver, you need to be on the same piece of track at the same time, and the fact that Lewis has been sharing track so often with Massa says all you need to know about where the McLaren driver has been plying his rather distracted trade this year on the circuit.
Off track of course, as has been gleefully reported in various tabloids and other similar gutter press, Hamilton has split from his long-term girlfriend, the Pussycat Doll and LA resident, Nicole Scherzinger. Seasoned observers of the sport commented after his qualifying performance in South Korea, that Hamilton seemed to be trying to send a message to someone about how unhappy he was, by his muted (and rather affected) demeanour having secured an excellent pole position. That certainly seems so with the news of the split following hot on the heels of the race.

So is there an underlying problem here or has it just been ‘one of those years’ for the talented young man from Stevenage? Opinions are, of course, subjective beasts, and often when one holds one as a strong belief, it can end up with them looking rather daft, particularly when not closely involved with the subject. However, saying that, as someone with some experience of managing celebrity and sporting clients, it seems reasonable to at least offer my thoughts.

In my mind, the problems Lewis is experiencing are allied with an ever increasing issue within the sporting arena, particularly prevalent in the UK. Led by the boorish bellowing of the footballing professionals, and recently (more surprisingly) added to by some of the England Rugby Team, there is a pervading illness within UK sport that has curled its fingers around Hamilton’s racing heart (and the very thing that made him a superstar in the first place) – the country’s obsession with celebrity.

The England football team has been in decline for some time now as a result of the power of the clubs, and the fact that, well, it just doesn’t matter to the players any longer. Playing football for your country is no longer a matter of pride. Securing a new £250,000 a week contract is, along with how many vacuous females one can drag into a gaudy nightclub. The behaviour of the England rugby team at the recent World Cup showed a similar malaise. The amount these superstars get paid, and the levels of attention they receive seem to give them such an inflated sense of importance that they forget what took them to this heightened state in the first place; their God-given sporting talent.
Lewis Hamilton parted from the day-to-day management provided by his father last year. To be honest, that was no bad thing, every child needs to break away from parental control at some stage, and Anthony’s presence often seemed overbearing. Following a protracted period without management though, Lewis then decided to bring Simon Fuller’s celebrity group, 19 Management, to look after him. I must admit to being staggered at the time by this decision. Don’t get me wrong, 19 are a fantastic brand manager for celebrities (as their client list will testify), but Lewis, in his pursuit to be a celebrity, seems to have forgotten that he is a Formula One driver, and it is this which (in my opinion) has come back to so significantly unsettle his year.

A racing driver, particularly in the rarified world of F1, needs a managerial presence alongside them across a season. Hamilton, as an emotional character, and one whose driving is impacted by levels of emotion, needs this more than anyone. A person who will work collaboratively alongside him, who will give him a hug when necessary, but is also unafraid to give him a kick when needed too.

In contrast, Jenson Button, who has had an excellent season, has a manager, Richard Goddard, who shuns the public eye, but who will be out for dinner with Jenson and is a genuine friend to the man (as any manager should be). Hamilton has nobody right now. Although he has claimed that there are plenty of people to whom he can turn ‘if I need to talk to someone’, that is rather missing the point, and to be honest is the defensive reaction one might expect from someone who is still a young man.
It is a sad situation to observe when a person with so very much talent is struggling, and he is. However, this is genuinely a situation that can be easily rectified. He can keep 19 Management on, but only as a brand manager. Alongside this, Lewis needs to hire a ‘race manager’ – someone to travel with him to each race across the season, and with enough knowledge of motor sport and basic psychology to be able to focus and advise him, and to tell it as it is when necessary.

Do this, and I have every confidence that Lewis Hamilton will be the celebrity that he craves to be, but for the reasons he should be, as a superb, and multiple, World Formula One Champion.

I’ll keep my phone turned on Lewis.