TheGame - Times Online - WBLG

Martin Samuel responds: Is José Mourinho still special?

With Europe's top clubs all having laid out their managerial plans for next season, Martin Samuel asked whether you would give Jose Mourinho a top job. You weren't backward in coming forward and below the seven times Sports Writer of the Year answers the best of your comments.

I think all the big clubs like Barcelona, AC Milan, Inter Milan, Real Madrid and even Arsenal should try to get him. Look at what he made of Chelsea. Jose Mourinho knows how to focus on winning, which is ideal for struggling, big clubs because he binds strong players together. Chelseafan.

MS: Some of the others I can understand, but Arsenal? Nobody could have run that club better than Arsene Wenger, and quite possibly nobody will.

Hiring Mourinho would cost Inter in the region of £79million

Barcelona have gone with Pep Guardiola, Real Madrid are sticking with Bernd Schuster. AC Milan insist privately that Carlo Ancelotti will remain, even if the club do not qualify for the Champions League, and will groom Alessandro Costacurta, his assistant and a local hero, as his successor. This leaves Inter Milan as the only stellar club that may require José Mourinho next season, although the combined cost of losing Roberto Mancini and appointing the special one are estimated at ¤100 million (about £79 million).

Inter are on course for a third consecutive Serie A title and inheriting such an established level of success is not Mourinho’s style. The way he sees it, what is special about following a well-trodden path? Maybe he should have taken the England job after all. Who would have thought it?

DEBATE: Is José Mourinho still special? Would you give him a top job? Have your say, by filling in the comment field at the bottom of this post.

Martin Samuel responds: should Ferguson quit if he wins the Champions League?

Sir Alex Ferguson stands on the threshold of securing his second Champions League title with Manchester United. All they have to do is beat Chelsea in the final. That's all! This led to Martin Samuel posing the question: should Ferguson quit if he wins the Champions League? This got you feverishly banging away at your keyboards and below Martin replies to the best of them.

When Jock Stein collapsed and died on September 10, 1985, after Scotland's draw with Wales, the man sitting next to him on the bench was his young assistant manager, Alex Ferguson. I am sure those events had a lasting effect on Sir Alex, showing him the importance of keeping a perspective on the true importance of football. So, if he achieves a second European Cup, I would not be surprised if he decides to leave on a high, with his health intact. David M.

MS: There is obvious logic in this and that is why I think the rumours about Sir Alex stepping down if victorious in Moscow are gaining momentum. I come at it from another angle, I’m afraid. I think of all those guys that stop working, retire to the country to potter about in the garden and are dead in six months. Bored out of their minds. Come on, you all know a story like that. Bill Nicholson went into White Hart Lane every day for years after he retired. Bill Shankly was a pitiful figure, by all accounts, because he missed the involvement. I think retiring is like that moment when a couple decide to have kids. You’ve really got to know you want this; otherwise it does your head in.

Debate: should Ferguson quit if he wins the Champions League?

There are mischievous rumours that if Sir Alex Ferguson, the Manchester United manager, lands the big one for a second time on May 21, he will go out on a high and retire. Ferguson is an intelligent guy, though, so why would he do a daft thing like that? He has the best team in Europe, quite probably the best player in the world and fewer miserable Sunday mornings than any manager in the country. He should enjoy it for as long as he can. All talk of an ambassadorial role is nonsense. The best ambassador for United is a winning team, as managed by Ferguson.

What do you think: should Ferguson quit if he wins the Champions League?

Martin Samuel replies: Which nit picking rules would you like to see scrapped?

After becoming increasingly frustrated with nit picking officials, Martin Samuel said that referees were getting the big calls wrong because their thoughts were taken up with ensuring they kept to the letter of the law on the game's trivialities.

The seven times winner of Sports Writer of the Year said that modern-day officialdom was built on bogus priorities and asked which nit picking rules you would like to see scrapped, a question you responded to in your droves. Below, Samuel replies to a selection of your comments.

MS: Before we start this week, I would just like to establish some ground rules. Many thanks to all who contributed, and some great points were made, but I did ask what nit picking, irritating, little rules would you like to see abolished. Offside is not nit picking, people, nor is the fact that away goals count double in Europe. These are basic tenets of the game. Also, I was looking to take rules away, not add more, so those with proposals for widening sanctions against cheats, divers and dirty players will also need to call back later. We need some parameters here. Apologies to all those who wrote with big ideas, but these will have to wait for another day. Today, we are concerned with the minor, the useless, the redundant. I will open proceedings by proposing that all matches begin with the ceremonial beheading of the fourth official and go from there.

The caution for celebrating a goal must go. The idea that the act could provoke a riot is ridiculous - you could make the same claim about scoring the goal itself. Nogbad T. Bad.

MS: And scoring is the point of the game. As long as you keep your trousers on and the fun stays between consenting adults, what is the problem?

Debate: are there any nit-picking rules that drive you nuts?

Having allowed several vicious tackles to pass with a lecture, Alan Wiley (left), the referee, issued the customary booking when Michael Ballack removed his shirt after scoring the first goal at Stamford Bridge on Saturday. This is not the half of it.

At Anfield last week an incident occurred that summed up the bogus priorities of modern-day officialdom. Early in the first half of Chelsea’s Champions League semi-final with Liverpool, Ashley Cole, the Chelsea left back, needed to change his boots. He was not trying to waste time, he was not feigning anything, he had a simple equipment problem that he wished to resolve quickly. As he crouched down to tie his laces, Konrad Plautz, the referee, ordered him from the field. Why?

Cole was doing nothing wrong and was not attempting to gain advantage. He was not in a vital area of the field, such as the penalty area or six-yard box. There was not even a need to stop the play, which should have been allowed to go on around him, as it would on a parks pitch. Yet, having ordered him off, Plautz then delayed his return, as if punishment was necessary. It was an infantile episode. No wonder referees often get the big calls wrong, when their thoughts are taken up with so much trivia.

What do you think: are there any nit-picking rules that drive you nuts?

Martin Samuel replies: which other pundits would you like to see separated from cameras and microphones?

After Ian Wright resigned from Match of the Day, Martin Samuel declared that his departure from football coverage on the BBC is no great loss. The seven times winner of Sports Writer of the Year then asked which other pundits would you like to see separated from cameras and microphones, a question you responded to in your droves. Below, Samuel replies to a selection of your comments.

Match of the Day needs a complete overhaul. Alan Hansen and Alan Shearer are so dull. Earlier in the season we were subjected to long chats about whether Shearer was going to Newcastle United. Who cared? Less talk and more football. Neal.

MS: Actually, I thought the opposite was the problem. At the time when Shearer’s link to the Newcastle manager’s job was dominating the news agenda, his television employers gave him a very easy ride on the subject and he finally announced his decision in The Sun. The BBC must have been delighted.

The template should be the 1970 World Cup panel that included Brian Clough, but television is star struck by young ex-footballers. Dream panel: Jose Mourinho, Johann Cruyff, Danny Baker. Nightmare panel: Mark Lawrenson, Shearer, Gary Lineker. Jane.

MS: Yes, but Clough wasn’t always scintillating viewing, either. I remember during the 1981 League Cup Final replay when he said West Ham United would be looking for a goal now which, considering they were trailing Liverpool with ten minutes to play was hardly the most breathtaking insight. Love the make-up of your dream panel, though. Get Jose on, I’m definitely up for that.

Wright's departure no loss for BBC

Ian Wright’s departure from football coverage on the BBC is no great loss. Whatever his talents as a presenter in other fields, the role of the football men in the studio during matches is to tell the people at home something they could not have worked out for themselves, not to reflect the erratic mood swings of the fan. The best guys will identify a nuance in the play that is significant, and bring this information to a wider audience. Sitting there with a cob on because your team have lost is really not the same.

Which other pundits would you like to see separated from cameras and microphones?

Martin Samuel replies: should the Welsh national anthem be played at Wembley?

It's been a busy few weeks for Martin Samuel. Not only has he cluttered his mantlepiece with a couple more journalism awards, but he has also set tempers flaring with his debate on whether the Welsh national anthem should be played at Wembley prior to the FA Cup final between Portsmouth and Cardiff City. You replied in your droves, and Martin has responded to the best of them.

When will the Welsh and Scottish realise that the national anthem is their anthem too? David

MS: Technically, yes, in terms of Great Britain, but in football the countries compete individually so Wales and Scotland do have unique anthems. Scotland’s, of course, is all about stuffing the English, which seems rather sad to be so defined by a relationship with another country. The counter-argument that God Save The Queen/King contains a line about crushing rebellious Scots is incorrect. There was an extra fourth verse inserted to this effect in the mid-18th century marking anti-Jacobite sentiment, but it was not included in the version published in Gentlemen’s Magazine in 1745, which is regarded as definitive. Suddenly, I feel like one of the Old Codgers who used to answer general knowledge queries and settle pub arguments in the Daily Mirror.   

I would understand it if a club such as Atletico Bilbao with strong Basque nationalistic policies were to raise a similar point, but the fact is that Cardiff City cannot claim to be a bastion of Welsh nationalism amongst the hoards of English clubs in the FA Cup. Pedro

MS: I wouldn’t even understand it with Atletico Bilbao. It all seems a bit Freedom for Tooting, if you ask me.

Debate: Should the Welsh national anthem be played at Wembley?

Cardiff City will be given a wild card to play in Europe if they win the FA Cup Final against Portsmouth, Uefa says, which is only fair. As the problem of Cardiff’s entry as an English club was initially created by European football’s governing body - which outlawed it in 1994 - it is only right that it, not the FA, should have to come up with the solution.

Meanwhile, Rhodri Glyn Thomas, the Welsh Sports Minister, is first on the bandwagon with the demand for the Welsh national anthem, Land of My Fathers, to be played alongside God Save the Queen at Wembley on May 17, as if this were an international fixture, not the final of the English FA Cup, a tournament Cardiff require special dispensation to enter. If the FA stands for this one, it may as well hand over the keys.

Watch and savour Katherine Jenkins singing Hen Wlad fy Nhadau (Land of My Fathers) then let us know if you agree in the comment box below.

Martin Samuel replies: which new faces, or neglected old ones, would you like to see in the England team?

I think Jermaine Jenas deserves a second chance. He has been Tottenham Hotspur’s best player this season, looked the most likely to score, did against Switzerland, and is beginning to realise his potential. Also Ashley Young of Aston Villa is quicker than Joe Cole, scores regularly and can beat people and cross well. His cross against Bolton Wanderers at the weekend was perfect. And after everyone has written off Michael Owen, he becomes the spearhead for the Newcastle United revival. Adam Street.

MS: I take your point on Jenas, but Fabio Capello did look at him against Switzerland and he was not even in the squad the next time, so there must have been something missing. I just think a line has to be drawn somewhere and in midfield he is going to be pegged behind Frank Lampard, Gareth Barry, Owen Hargreaves and Steven Gerrard. A more pressing claim for reassessment might be Michael Carrick. Young will get his chance soon as, surely, will Owen, once Capello ends these auditions and comes to the same conclusion as every England manager since Glenn Hoddle. 

Debate: Which new faces, or neglected old ones, would you like to see in the England team?

It is not only John Terry who will have to audition for his England place. The message that is becoming increasingly clear from those who have met Fabio Capello as he travels around the country and acclimatises to English football is that any number of positions in the national team are up for grabs.

Capello’s most recent selection may have restored a few old favourites to the starting line-up — and would have included one more had Frank Lampard not been ill — but it does not mean that the trial period is over. Quite the opposite. Capello has not started on how England play. Right now, he is more interested in who can play and that is going to leave a few members of his squad with a big decision to make this summer.

This England manager does not have 40 years’ appreciation of the domestic game. He has none before January, in fact. Everything he does is based on recent experience and a player who is not in the starting line-up for his club cannot be assessed.

Take Peter Crouch. He was, by many accounts, Liverpool’s best player against Arsenal on Saturday, but he started only because Rafael Benítez was keeping his powder dry for the Champions League quarter-final, second leg against the same opponents tomorrow. Between England’s match against Switzerland on February 6 and the game against France in Paris on March 26, Crouch started two matches for Liverpool. The last of those was on February 16, so in the 5½weeks before Capello’s second match in charge, Crouch was on the field for 53 minutes. Capello’s people saw more of David Beckham — and he was playing on another continent.

Theo Walcott, Shaun Wright-Phillips, Joe Cole, Owen Hargreaves, Wayne Bridge and Michael Carrick, take note. The days of the bit-part England player are over. This guy wants players he can see. It may not have benefited Jermain Defoe yet, but his decision to leave Tottenham Hotspur for Portsmouth was the right one if he has England ambitions.

It is interesting that a return to Fratton Park could be one of the options available to Crouch in the summer. The loss to the elite clubs will be the rest of the Barclays Premier League’s gain if the England squad wakes up to the fact that no player is going to conquer the world under Capello from a berth on the bench, or from Liverpool’s reserve team.

DEBATE: Is there anyone Capello has missed? Which new faces, or neglected old ones, would you like to see in the England team?

Martin Samuel replies to your comments on his Debate: Is this the best FA Cup ever?

There has been a lot of talk about the attitude of the big four towards the FA Cup but the fact they have had a monopoly in recent years suggests they have taken it seriously enough. The problem is those teams that should go full tilt at the Cup (Manchester City, Aston Villa, Tottenham Hotspur, Newcastle United, Reading, West Ham United, Sunderland…) but choose not to, forsaking potential glory and Europe for mid table mediocrity. Well done Portsmouth and Harry Redknapp for taking the competition seriously. James Roberts.

MS: Couldn’t agree more, James (although I am sure Villa would love to take the competition seriously if only they could stop drawing Manchester United). It is those clubs putting out half-strength teams to consolidate 14th place that are the problem, and the supporters that have been brainwashed into endorsing this bizarre sense of priority.

If you still miss the big four just cast your mind back to the mediocrity of the final between Chelsea and Manchester United last season, or the time when Arsenal played for penalties against United from the first minute. Graham Parker.

MS: I agree. The anticipation of these epic battles is almost always greater than the reality.

I won't be watching and I bet I'm not alone. I would much rather watch teams that can play football. Can you seriously think Barnsley's style of football is entertaining? Chris Thurston.

MS: No, but this weekend is not necessarily about recreating Brazilian football from 1970, it is about an occasion and a dream that most supporters think is beyond their team. That has merit, too, surely?

The unpredictability of the FA Cup makes it unique. How boring have two-leg fixtures and group stages become? The FA Cup this season has been fantastic. Tom.

MS: I find it strange that in some rounds the FA Cup is one match, no replay, and in others it goes to two games. The League Cup is the same. There is a lot to be said for the one game, death or glory approach that we will see this weekend.

Matches that stick in my memory have usually involved at least one unexpected finalist – Manchester United against Brighton and Hove Albion, Coventry City against Tottenham, United against Crystal Palace. Of these semi-finalists, only West Brom have played in a final in my lifetime so I shall be specially looking forward to May. Variety is the spice of life. Martin Litchfield.

MS: Still think the Final needs Portsmouth, though, rather than an all-Championship clash (although if West Brom do win, good luck to them).

I love the play-off finals because they often produce exciting matches. The players involved in the FA Cup final this season will now be playing the biggest game of their lives. It could be the best of the century so far. Sam.

MS: An interesting point about the play-off finals, which some think have taken the place of the FA Cup final in the affections of the public. Not this year, apparently.

This is a freak Cup year, so enjoy it as that and no more

The English love an underdog, apparently. Just how much, we are about to find out.

What are your plans next weekend? Do you still have the frisson of excitement that was felt around the country as favourites tumbled in the quarter-finals? Have you continued to declare it the greatest FA Cup competition in history? And will you be in front of the television or heading to the pub, eagerly wondering whether West Bromwich Albion can overcome Portsmouth and set up the first Wembley Cup final to be played out between teams from beyond the top division?

Or has reality bitten? Is it now apparent that, on Sunday, Barnsley will be playing Cardiff City, an inferior match between inferior teams? Is giant-killing amusing only in the early rounds? By this stage, do we not want to see the best teams, the greatest players, in the country going at it hammer and tongs? Shouldn’t this be about Cristiano Ronaldo versus Cesc Fàbregas, not Brian Howard versus Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink?

Perhaps it is what it is. All the grandiose claims, all the hand-wringing disappointment miss the essence of it. This is a freak year, so enjoy it as that and no more. I will watch both games. The question is, will you?

Is this the best FA Cup ever, or has it been devalued by the absence of any of the so-called “Big Four” clubs?

Loan system debate: Martin Samuel responds

Martin Samuel argued in his debate that the case of Jermain Defoe and his ineligibility to play for Portsmouth against Tottenham Hotspur showed up the folly of the loan system. Not only did Martin say that Portsmouth were right to feel aggrieved, but also that loans should be scrapped altogeter. As ever, many of you posted impassioned responses. Martin has replied to a selection of them:

Premier League clubs are snapping up youngsters from such a young age and who is going to stay at Rochdale if there is interest from Manchester United? Without the loan system a player could rot in the reserves for seven years, not get within sniffing distance of the first team, until his release at 21 with no experience. Hed.

MS: Alternatively, the player would have to stay at the smaller club, who would then bring him through and sell him for real money at a later stage so that he moves up the career ladder, and everybody benefits. The loan system rewards stockpiling; it is just another way for the big clubs to exert power. Here’s Tom:

If the loan system was scrapped the big sides would be less likely to be able to hoard players, with the result that some quality footballers would filter back to the smaller teams, improving the level of football. At Manchester United, Darren Fletcher is never going to be one of the top players but could certainly emulate what Jonathan Greening has been doing at West Bromwich Albion. At the very least loaned players should only play for sides outside of their own division, which would protect the integrity of the deals and spread the wealth around the lower leagues. Tomred.

MS: Admit it, Tom, with fine socialist principles like that, you’re an FC United man, aren’t you?

The Debate: Premier League rule that snared Defoe was a fudge

Harry Redknapp was shocked to discover his striker, Jermain Defoe, could not play against Tottenham Hotspur on Saturday. He did not know a rule prevented a loaned player turning out against his previous club in the season of his move, even if the transfer became permanent. “It’s a load of nonsense,” said Redknapp. And it is. Tottenham and Portsmouth dealt honorably and the player wanted to play; but that was not the case with everybody, hence the new directive.

The Premier League acted because Manchester United converted Tim Howard’s loan to Everton to a permanent transfer last season, then struck a side deal stating he could not play against them. Sheffield United did the same when Steve Kabba went to Watford. To get around third-party interference rules, these clubs made gentlemen’s agreements. When this newspaper uncovered the scams, the Premier League came up with a poor compromise, not a solution.

The way forward is to outlaw the loan system and introduce an imperative that any private arrangement influencing the team selection at another club would incur severe punishment. The Premier League did not do this, as selfish chairmen always vote in favour of loans, and gentlemen’s agreements are by their nature devilishly hard to prove. Instead, they introduced rule M7, which snared Defoe. It was a fudge, for in the case of Howard, he would still not have been able to play against Manchester United, but would be available against United’s rivals, which was what was wrong. All that could be said is it made the issue black and white.

So if Redknapp has a grievance, it should be with his fellow managers, who did not play straight. Maybe he should just be thankful that Defoe is not still a Tottenham player, which he would be if English football did the sensible thing and stopped loans altogether.

Should the loan system be scrapped? Please join the debate and leave us a comment below.

Martin Samuel responds to your comments on which players are overrated

Every football fan has blind spots. The great player who always seemed overrated. The legend you thought was a myth. Using these criteria Martin Samuel questioned the qualities of Zlatan Ibrahimovic, but he wanted to know who you thought was overrated. Here, he responds to your replies:

As an Ipswich Town fan, I  think of the following three gems: Titus Bramble, Darren Bent and Finidi George. The most underrated player of the last 20 years? Stand up Matthew Le Tissier. Richard.

MS: Right, some ground rules from the start. The phrase overrated implies the player was highly regarded in the first place which, I think, pretty much puts Titus Bramble out, even if one of the most respected football writers in the country did tip him as part of an England team of the future early in his career. Also, we are dealing with posts in the hundreds here. We haven’t the time to go off on tangents about underrated players, too. Many of us have jobs.

Who is the most overrated player in Europe?

Zlatan Ibrahimovic is rumoured to be the highest-paid player in European football. So he must be good. His team, Inter Milan, rewrote the Italian record books last season and are runaway leaders again this year. So he must be good. His style has been described as half-ballerina, half-gangster and leading coaches queue up to endorse his brilliance. So he must be good.

Yet how many are still waiting to see him have a good game?

It is not just me because I have asked around. Clearly, I have been unlucky, but so have many others.

Last week, again, we waited in vain for Ibrahimovic to shine in the Champions League tie against Liverpool at the San Siro and all we saw was the pouting prima donna who had one chance and blew it, turned a couple of nice tricks, but when the game was going Liverpool’s way reacted only with gestures of frustration. Fernando Torres was a different class.

Ibrahimovic was at Juventus before this and I never saw it there, either. I know I am missing something. I feel the same about Raúl. I have seen him look good on a night when Real Madrid have looked good, but I’ve never seen him look great on a night when the team have been misfiring, never seen him pull his team to victory in the manner of Zinédine Zidane, or even Steven Gerrard.

Every football fan has blind spots. The great player who always seemed overrated. The legend you thought was a myth. Who is yours?

Martin Samuel responds to comments on what you think the future holds for Avram Grant at Chelsea

When Chelsea lost the Carling Cup final and were then knocked out of the FA Cup, Martin Samuel wondered whether Avram Grant's reign has made the Jose Mourinho years look quite sane. Your comments were plentiful and varied and here Martin responds to some of the best ... and worst.

It amazes me how quickly people and newspapers flip flop. I quote an article from this website on January 31, 2008. “Avram Grant may dress like an undertaker, but the manner in which he has breathed fresh life into Chelsea’s title challenge suggests that he could easily retrain as a paramedic.” It goes on like that. Sure, it's been over a month since then but it is still funny to see. Mo.

MS: If The Times was the work of a single person, Mo, you would have a point. That piece was written by Matt Hughes. Good lad, Matt, and a fine colleague. That doesn’t mean we always agree, or take the same editorial stance. When you buy The Times you get a variety of opinions, sometimes in the same edition, let alone six weeks apart. There is no a flip flop, just the thoughts of two individuals.

The Debate: Grant's reign has made the Mourinho years look quite sane

There is a growing feeling that Avram Grant will not be in charge at Chelsea next season. If he is sacked, however, the word is that he will then be moved upstairs by Roman Abramovich, the club’s owner and his friend.

To what end? Where is the worth in employing a man who has previously failed at the most important job at Stamford Bridge to oversee the work of his successor? Abramovich has Frank Arnesen running interference in his role as chief scout and director of youth development. Why does he need another pretend boss, another set of views?

This was Grant’s chance to shine. He was put in the driving seat and so far there has been little to suggest that the club have advanced under his stewardship. What would then qualify him for a further executive role, apart from his relationship with the owner? And is that any way to run a successful club?

Show me chaos and I will show you a director of football. As Chelsea’s policies are so often dictated by the personal relationships of Abramovich anyway, a potential fiasco is never far away. Indeed, despite the Portuguese’s fractious manner, the Mourinho years are increasingly looking like a little ray of sanity at Stamford Bridge. Before his arrival, the club were in thrall to Abramovich’s powerful advisers, including Pini Zahavi, the “super-agent”, and the squad was stuffed with frenziedly purchased rubbish.

After Mourinho left, Abramovich placed the most expensively assembled squad in world football in the hands of a relative novice, since when Chelsea have floundered against the best opposition.

Mourinho did not need a Greek chorus of advisers blowing in Abramovich’s ear. No good manager does. If Grant is not the man to steer, he is not the man to read maps, either.

What do you think the future holds for Avram Grant at Chelsea?

Martin Samuel responds to comments on whether anything goes with football chants

After last week's predictably effusive response to Martin Taylor's tackle on Eduardo, Martin Samuel posed the question "does anything go when it comes to football chants?" after songs directed towards the beleaguered Croatian striker by Aston Villa fans led to crowd violence at the Emirates.

Once again, you replied in your droves. Here, Martin responds to some of your comments.

One man`s tragedy, is another’s comedy, whether the death of Diana, or the plight of hostage Ken Bigley. The difference between a guy whispering a sick joke to his buddy at the office, and a crowd of many thousands voicing a chant about multi-fractured limb is anonymity. I find a lot of the baiting chants unpalatable, but short of enforcing draconian regulations and turning the sound of the terraces into murmurs and polite applause, I can’t see it changing. I've found myself screaming the foulest abuse at players in the heat of the moment on the Kop at Anfield, and been pulled along into the occasional chant I later felt guilty about, but I also recall the days when fans vented their spleen in a different fashion: torn seats, pitch invasions, physical abuse and violence, even death. And any song that has a crack at Heather Mills is OK in my books. Phil J Noonan.

MS: Interesting that you mention Ken Bigley. Remember all the fuss about the Billy Connolly gag at the time? I’ll admit: I laughed. As with so much humour that is on the edge, your ability to be offended comes down, not to what you necessarily find palatable, but what you find funny. The Bridgend joke that I mentioned in the original article made me laugh, too. The last time I saw Jerry Sadowitz he did McCann stuff and I laughed. Joan Rivers had a hysterical bit on the 9/11 widows. When a French journalist stormed into the press room on Saturday with a heightened sense of outrage about the Eduardo chant, most English journalists at first had sympathy. Then he read out a text message from his friend detailing how the chant went. At which point, many, including me, at least smiled. It was offensive dark, but still quite amusing. Would I have joined in had I been in the Aston Villa section? No. But it is a grey area, because human nature is to laugh at the inappropriate. Otherwise we end up like Ben Elton.

Does anything go when it comes to football chants?

Teenage suicides at epidemic level are not traditionally a rich vein for comedy, but if you want Bridgend jokes they are out there. Likewise the Suffolk Strangler. This is England. This is what we do. Did you really think that would change for a footballer with a broken leg?

You do not need to know the precise details of the song about Eduardo da Silva, except to say that it ends with a comparison to Heather Mills, the former model and Beatle WAG who was left with one leg after an accident involving a police motorcycle. Sung by Aston Villa fans visiting the Emirates Stadium, the ode to Eduardo was considered outrageous enough to provoke crowd violence inside and outside the Emirates Stadium on Saturday.

So where do we draw the line? When Tottenham Hotspur visited Arsenal in a Carling Cup semi-final recently anti-Semitic comments could be heard, and some of those who appeared to be most upset at the insensitivity of the Villa fans seemed to have no problem with that. The same could be said of many Manchester United followers, who were apoplectic at the possibility of Manchester City fans besmirching the Munich remembrance ceremony yet were happy to hurl a vile untruth at Arsène Wenger, the Arsenal manager, six days later.

At the Emirates on Saturday, foreign visitors seemed more vexed about the Eduardo chant than regular observers of the English game. We have heard it all before, and far worse, if one recalls some of the abuse that has been directed at Gary Neville over the years.

In the end, it is down to us. If we really think that anything goes, Eduardo is as much fair game as someone’s mother or the victims of a tragic accident. Only the supporters can decide where to draw the line and in the end we get the jokes and the songs we deserve.

What do you think? Should fans be allowed to chant what they like, or is there a line that should not be crossed?

Martin Samuel responds to your comments on whether referees should take a harder line on bad tackles

Those who are familiar with the column I write for TheGame in Monday’s newspaper may know that each week a topic is opened for debate, to be continued here, at timesonline. On Wednesday, I reply to a personal selection of the posts, sometimes agreeing, sometimes not. We have had some fun over the season and I hope my more snippy responses have been taken as part of a robust forum.

This week, I wrote about Martin Taylor’s tackle on Eduardo da Silva in the match between Birmingham City and Arsenal last weekend, suggesting that all of English football is in the dock because of our continued tolerance of dangerous play. The response was remarkable. I do not know how many posts there were, but the word count topped 16,000. That is a lot of debate.

Thank you to everybody who contributed. I try to edit the posts as sympathetically as possible although I cannot, obviously, reply to everybody owing to the fact that I have a day job. Martin Samuel

So do we want a non-contact sport? Every fan in the country cheers the tackle when their player wins the ball, and in doing so clatters his opponent. This is a physical game, where accidents happen. Football, or at least the Premier league, would not be the game we enjoy without the contact. Letting the game flow is an English thing, and maybe we have to think this could be one of the reasons that the English Premier League is the most watched league in the world. HP

The Debate: should referees take harder line on bad tackles?

It wasn’t a bad tackle. That is the standard line, isn’t it? In the gantry, in the studio, in the newspapers, on the radio. I didn’t think it looked that bad. I’m not sure there was much intent.

He’s not that kind of player. He was just too quick for him. He didn’t mean to break his leg. Now we can line those excuses up against the potential end of a man’s career at the age of 25 (today, actually, so happy birthday Eduardo), and consider what good we have done, with our trite mitigations and apologies. Martin Taylor, the Birmingham City defender, is said to be distraught at the damage he did to a fellow professional on Saturday. He should be. So should we all, for we are in the dock with him.

We hate divers, and rightly, but the vicious tackle has always been the worm in the apple of the English game. Our response is to glory in it. “Tommy’s coming home with a broken leg,” the club official says to the hard man’s wife. “Whose is it?” she replies. Oh, how we laughed. Except you don’t go home with a broken leg; you go to the operating theatre after several agonising hours of frantic treatment, oxygen and morphine, and the television companies won’t show what your limb looks like in case its precious audience is physically sick.

Any manager new to English football, asked for his first impressions, says the same thing. The referees never blow. Fabio Capello said it after a matter of weeks. How often do you hear: “The ref was good today, he let the game flow.” What that means is he let the players operate on the boundaries of what is legal.

It was always going to end in tears.

What do you think? Must referees take a harder line or should the excitement continue unchecked? Have your say in the comment field below

Martin Samuel replies to comments on whether Nani's seal act showed Arsenal the respect they deserved

Martin Samuel really lit the blue touch paper this week. His debate, "Did Nani's seal act show Arsenal the respect they deserved?", elicited a huge response and, for once, you nearly all agreed with him. Of course, there were a few die-hard Arsenal fans who refused to drink the milk of human kindness. Below, the five times Sports Journalist of the Year responds to a few of your comments.

What did Arsene Wenger say about that comedy penalty trick that went so badly wrong between Robert Pires and Thierry Henry a couple of seasons back? Were they showing respect to the opposition? Will Fred.

MS: Exactly. Once you start this respect issue, where does it end? Basically, if you have the ball I reckon you should be able to do whatever the hell you like with it, providing you stay within the laws. If you have found a way if dribbling around the opposition by balancing the ball on your nose, then go for it. I thought Arsenal’s penalty idea showed two players thinking about the boundaries of the game and, even if they ended up over-complicating it, that can only be a good thing. I wish more players would try the unexpected, like Nani. Indeed, I wish more players had the wit and ability to do it: particularly the English ones.

Martin Samuel's Debate: Nani's seal act showed Arsenal the respect they deserved

Lack of respect? Falling over in the penalty area when nobody has tripped you: that is a lack of respect. Playing half a team in an FA Cup tie at Old Trafford: that is a lack of respect. But, in the middle of a match, running with the ball while juggling it masterfully between feet, knees and head? If you are good enough, then why not?

Nani did nothing wrong in his little moment of showboating on Saturday and paying fans know it. They want to be entertained, not to have Arsène Wenger put his best players on the bench, or to see Emmanuel Adebayor fall to the ground in a wretched attempt to win a penalty by cheating.

Arsenal surrendered the moral high ground long before they tried to hack down Manchester United’s winger as he performed his little seal act. They are lucky Nani didn’t blow raspberries and stop to make bunny ears as he dribbled around them, really. It was what their performance deserved.

The game is about skill. It is, in its purest form, about trying to do something that places one player beyond the ability of his opponent. That is why it is so terribly depressing to hear a chorus of disapproval greet Nani’s cameo. It was the highlight of a second half that had been rendered redundant by Arsenal’s inability to compete, yet even Sir Alex Ferguson said he would have a word with his player about treating opponents with dignity.

Nani gave Arsenal the respect they deserved. He demonstrated what a good player can do against a team who play without heart. And he showed that, in the heat of battle, he has the wit to keep the ball and shield it in mid-air, while dribbling, a display of dexterity as impressive as any seen this season.

Respect.

Is Nani a showman or a show-off? Vote now and leave your comments below.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Martin Samuel responds to comments on whether the Premier League should play a 39th match abroad

Right, well the debate bit the dust this week. I asked who in their right mind would want the Republic of Ireland job, and it turned out the answer was Giovanni Trapattoni. Presumably, Billy Davies wasn’t available after all. Still credit where it is due, well done gentlemen, although if you think our own dear Fabio Capello likes to keep it tight, wait till you get a load of your bloke.

This does not mean we cannot have a heated debate, though. This 39th match business would appear to have got a few people going, including me. I’ve written three pieces on it in six days and by mid-day on Wednesday you guys had contributed roughly 6,500 words by way of response, so let’s go.

The Debate: Who in their right mind would want Ireland job?

Have you had your interview for the Ireland job yet? Don’t worry. They will get round to you eventually.

It would be fascinating to hear the three-man brains trust appointed to find Steve Staunton’s successor expound their logic. Right, over there, can we have managers who have won every trophy in Europe, plus seven Italian titles and the championship in three other countries? Nice to meet you, Signor Trapattoni. Right, now over there people recently sacked by Derby County. Has anyone seen Billy Davies?

It is day 111 in this search and some of the candidates could be forgiven for thinking that the job is not all it is cracked up to be. While the new era in English football began under Fabio Capello last week, Ireland, who lost their manager roughly one month earlier than the FA, staggered into a friendly against Brazil on Wednesday with Don Givens, the Ireland Under-21 manager, as caretaker and lost.

In this hiatus, leading players such as Steve Finnan have quit international football, while others, including Richard Dunne and Shay Given, have expressed bemusement at the delay. The panel, which comprises Givens, Don Howe and Ray Houghton, are the embodiment of comic Fred Allen’s definition of a committee: “A group of men who individually can do nothing but that, as a group, decide nothing can be done.”

John Delaney, the chief executive of the Football Association of Ireland, talks of getting the right man as if, at the end of this procedure, a click of the fingers will bring the chosen one running.

Yet suppose the perfect candidate has been interviewed and fails to respond having been kept hanging about for several months longer than is necessary. The question is no longer who should get the Ireland job, but who in their right mind would want it?

What do you think? Are Ireland merely being diligent in their search for a new manager or will this delay come back to haunt them? Have your say, e-mail thegame@thetimes.co.uk

Martin Samuel replies to comments on whether the FA be trusted with children's football

Martin Samuel's chosen subject for The Debate this week was can the FA be trusted with children's football? Below, our five-times Sports Writer of the Year replies to your responses.

More warm, yet empty, words from the Football Association. It's hopeless. Trevor Brooking has all the leadership skills of a blancmange. Sarah.

MS: The sweet dessert made with milk and sugar and thickened with gelatin or cornstarch or the synth-pop group from the mid-eighties, who enjoyed a minor hit with Living On The Ceiling? Be specific, Sarah. This is far too big an issue to deal in vague terminology.

The Debate: Can the FA be trusted with children's football?

Sir Trevor Brooking believes that children are the future. Indeed, he never stops banging on about the significance of teaching skills to the 5 to 11-year-old age group. Discussing issues including children playing on ridiculously oversized adult pitches this season, he talked proudly of the seven-a-side tournament for district teams run by the English Schools FA (ESFA), with smaller dimensions and smaller goals, ending with a final tournament at Wembley.

I went to the regional finals for the South East area on Saturday and somebody at the ESFA is not paying attention. It was a seven-a-side tournament but, despite the availability of many smaller pitches, took place on a nine-a-side pitch (80 yards by 50 yards). Even so, seven-a-side rules remained, so there was no offside, meaning that the tallest and most athletic teams could bang it long and play a sprinter as centre forward or man-mark the goalkeeper, as some did.

There were nine districts present from across southern England, but the identity of the winners was known to anyone with a clue about football before a ball had been kicked. The ESFA should have saved time, lined up the children against a wall in the car park and presented the trophy to the biggest team. The way the tournament was set out, the most imposing athletes could not fail. And the winners were, as predicted, huge boys. Many were a head taller than their opponents. In one game they scored seven goals in 14 minutes against the best district team in Bedfordshire.

Now this team had some lovely players, too. Maybe they would have won any form of competition. Yet what was remarkable was that the ESFA found time to create rules about underpants (rule 9, visible undergarments must not be worn), but not to contemplate that playing without offside on an 80-yard pitch corrupts the contest. Seven-a-side games should be on seven-a-side pitches — that is why they were invented.

Brooking talks a good game, but the ESFA does not play it. Yet, as the FA technical director, the buck stops with him. He could end this charade with one wave of the pen but chooses not to. There is no point paying Fabio Capello £6 million a year to heal the ills of English football. The future could be seen on Saturday. It’s pants.

What do you think? Can the FA be trusted with children’s football? Have your say: e-mail thegame@thetimes.co.uk

Martin Samuel replies to comments on whether it is time to forgive Milton Keynes Dons

Martin Samuel's chosen subject for The Debate this week was should Milton Keynes Dons and Pete Winkelman, their chairman, be welcomed into football’s fold? Below, our five-times Sports Writer of the Year replies to your responses.

Milton Keynes Dons should never be forgiven. The anger may fade with time, but the feeling Wimbledon fans had something stolen will not go away. Hardest to take is the justification that we didn't have many supporters in the first place. So what? We were a small club who, against all odds, became the first team to rise from non-league to the top division (an achievement only recently repeated by Wigan Athletic). Does the fact we did this and failed to pick up tens of thousands of fans in the meantime make us any less worthy of a league position? I do not doubt Pete Winkelman's dedication and enthusiasm. It is because of this that MK Dons are now doing well in League Two. However, why did he not put that passion and enthusiasm into Milton Keynes City? How much prouder would the children of Milton Keynes be if they knew their town had produced a club rather than bought one? Will Brewster.

MS: The subject of the children is an interesting one, because it is hard to blame a teenager in Milton Keynes for supporting a team that was formed several years ago as a result of a bitter argument that he could not possibly have been expected to understand at the time. When the Football Supporters Federation had a debate about whether to accept supporters groups from MK Dons, I thought there should be an invitation extended to younger supporters, who cannot be blamed for going to watch their local club, however it came into being. We would surely rather that than another provincial town full of big club replica shirts. This then raises the issue of local fathers taking their sons – as happens with a guy in my office – which is also hard to discourage and then the FSF policy requires a committee meeting to look at each individual MK Dons fan, and the whole thing becomes ridiculous. There is an age at which one is old enough to have known better, and I think that is where the pride issue that you raised, Will, kicks in. Interestingly, though, I was expecting heavy correspondence on this subject from MK Dons supporters, defending their club with the passion of a city in which football frenzy is underway. The only noise from Buckinghamshire has been rolling tumbleweeds. Wimbledon, meanwhile, has turned out in force. That tells you something.

The Debate: Is it time to forgive Milton Keynes Dons?

There is a South Park episode that involves an extended gag in which the word aides, as in helpers, is mistakenly understood to be the word Aids, as in the medical condition. When the misunderstanding is revealed, everybody throws a big party at the news that Aids is finally an appropriate subject for humour. A precise time is placed on the period it takes for a subject to pass from tragedy to comedy, in this case 22.3 years.

Something similar is afoot with Milton Keynes Dons. It is three years and seven months since the club were allowed to perform identity theft on Wimbledon, and some think the club and Pete Winkelman, their chairman, can now be welcomed into football’s fold. Still top of Coca-Cola League Two under the fine stewardship of Paul Ince, a glowing testimonial was devoted to them in a national newspaper last week. “Those with a tenuous grasp of history accused Winkelman of stealing another community’s football club,” the reporter sniffed.

Actually, those with a tenuous grasp of history think that a glib, throwaway line such as that will serve in place of some inconvenient truths about the formation of MK Dons. On the subject of fragile understandings, for instance, how about the numbers provided to the Football League Commission to prove that Wimbledon could not exist in London? Wimbledon officials arrived at the meeting without audited figures and amazingly the commission allowed projections. Losses for 2001 were estimated at £10.8 million and permission to relocate was granted. Later, the figure was adjusted to £6.6 million (although supporters groups claimed that even that was exaggerated).

Milton Keynes was also where, according to Winkelman, there was a “football frenzy waiting to happen” — yet the club drew 5,639 for their first match, with Burnley on September 27, 2003, substantially down on the 7,675 that saw the corresponding fixture at Selhurst Park in the 2001-02 season, before a supporter boycott in protest at the move began. Even now, there is negligible difference between gates at MK Dons and the club they smothered.

Those with a tenuous grasp of history may swallow the MK fairy story — which also killed the real football club in the area, Milton Keynes City, wound up in July 2003 — but no true football fan should. Even in 22.3 years, the demise of Wimbledon will not be funny. Titter ye not.

What do you think?

Have your say, e-mail thegame@thetimes.co.uk

Martin Samuel replies to comments on whether the FA should mark the Munich air disaster

Martin Samuel's chosen subject for The Debate this week was should the FA pay tribute to those who perished in the Munich air disaster? Martin argued that the Football Association ought to mark the 50th anniversary of 23 men losing their lives, particularly as four players who had been recognised by their country died that day and others would surely have followed, had they survived. Below, our five-times Sports Writer of the Year replies to those of your remarks that caught his eye. 

What we should all remember is that is was not just footballers that died in the tragedy, that is why Manchester United are insisting on silence not applause. The Football Association should recognise the anniversary with silence, too. It seems that when this friendly was arranged not a lot of thought was given to the date. There will be a memorial service at Old Trafford that day and surely the club would want all the current first team squad to be present. Teresa Keenaghan.

MS: The observation about the victims of the crash stretching beyond football is a valid one, and I can understand why, at the club, silence is considered more appropriate. At Wembley, though, the commemoration could be linked solely to football, with applause the compromise if the FA believes England fans could not be trusted. Personally, I think it is the other way around. I think silence would be observed at Wembley, but worry about the visit of Manchester City to Old Trafford on such a solemn day. As for the scheduling of the England fixture, the FA could do nothing about that: UEFA set these dates, I am afraid.

The Debate: should the FA pay tribute to those who perished in the Munich air disaster?

Duncan Edwards was not only a Manchester United player. Nor were Roger Byrne, David Pegg or Tommy Taylor. Pegg was tipped to succeed Tom Finney on England’s left wing. Byrne and Taylor were members of the 1954 World Cup squad. Had Edwards lived, Bobby Moore might not have been England’s World Cup-winning captain in 1966.

The decision of the FA to eschew a minute’s silence when England play Switzerland on February 6, the 50th anniversary of the Munich air disaster, is misguided. It may have been taken with the best intentions — unlike the Premier League scheduling of United’s match against Manchester City on February 10, which is an outrage waiting to happen — but it values hard-headed pragmatism over what is right and meaningful.

United suffered a loss that day, but England did, too; four players who had been recognised by their country died in Munich and others, such as Eddie Colman, surely would have been. By treating their commemoration as if it is a club matter, the FA has abdicated responsibility. If there was concern that an insensitive section of the crowd may use a silent tribute as an appalling way to insult United, there is the alternative of applause.

The modern concept is to applaud the memory of a great player and there is no reason why this should not be done at Wembley. Even if the FA will not reconsider, there is an opportunity for spontaneity when images of the players are shown on the large screen. England fans should be given the chance to pay respect to great Englishmen. For if they cannot, what have we become?

What do you think? Should there be a minute’s silence in memory of those who died in the Munich air crash? Have your say, e-mail thegame@thetimes.co.uk

The Debate: Martin Samuel tackles your replies

Martin Samuel posed the question in this week's TheGame debate whether foreign players were to blame for the apparent increase in two-footed tackles that had been blighting the Premier League in recent weeks.

Mr Samuel has perhaps got off more lightly than he might have expected on a subject which we thought would be like a red card to a bull but, rest assured, one or two of you attempted to take him out with a no-nonsense, studs-first lunge aimed just above the shinpads. Today, the five-times Sports Writer of the Year decides to retaliate, as is his prerogative if you are familiar with the format of our weekly exchange of views. It is an automatic three-game ban if you fail to read on for his replies.

Tackling is a skill that is just not taught anymore. Dangerous tackles are a problem but so are the numbers of really good ones that get given as fouls. Tackling seems to be a dying art. A good tackle – winning the ball cleanly and sending your man into touch - is a thing of beauty. Go to the park on a Sunday morning where such a thing still happens.
Glenn.

MS: I agree, Glenn, although the appreciation of it is also a very English thing. Visitors to our game are always surprised that a thundering tackle gets an English crowd going, the way a moment of perfect skill lifts a Spanish crowd. We are evolving, though.

The Debate: Do foreign players commit more reckless tackles?

There is a theory doing the rounds in football about the recent spate of two-footed, dangerous or reckless tackles, but we will have to whisper it. Phil Neville came closest to going public on the subject after the now traditional dismissal of John Obi Mikel last week. This is what he said: it’s a foreign thing.

“Mikel went for the ball, probably with his studs showing, but foreigners tend to tackle like that,” Neville reported. “You cannot do that. It is the type of tackle we want out of our game.”

And a rundown of the players sent off for bad challenges recently (Didier Zokora, Mikel, Brynjar Gunnarsson, Mikel, Ricardo Carvalho, Denilson, Mikel), plus those who should have been (Emmanuel Eboué, Dirk Kuyt, Steed Malbranque, probably Mikel) does show a degree of one-way traffic. Peter Crouch has been flying the flag, and the studs, for the Brits, but not in a particularly convincing way, and Joe Cole could have gone twice, but there does seem to be a trend.

One idea is that the extreme physical nature of the English league comes as a shock to players from abroad who, unused to such ferocity, overcompensate for fear of getting hurt. Interestingly, while condemning Mikel’s challenge, Neville also said he believed there was no malice in it.

Of course, there will always be those of a xenophobic tendency who will blame everything that is wrong with the English game on the influx of foreign players. No Englishman dives or feigns injury and every English tackle is of the hard but fair variety. Yet there does seem to be a pattern, so are we bringing the worst out of our imported players. Are we, in fact, getting the tackles we deserve?

What do you think? Do foreign players commit more two-footed tackles than home-grown footballers? Have your say, e-mail thegame@thetimes.co.uk.

The Debate: Martin Samuel responds to your comments

Martin Samuel asked whether it was time for Alan Shearer to get off the fence with regards to the Newcastle manager's job. Does Shearer want it or not? Our Chief Football Correspondent argued that the Newcastle fans would not shut up until the former England striker put up. The fans were quick to share their views, but of course, Martin didn't let them have it all their own way ...

The Debate: Is Shearer the man for Newcastle?

There comes a time to climb off the fence and for Alan Shearer it has arrived. Is he in or out? Even the obstinate Sam Allardyce appears exhausted by the incessant speculation over his future at Newcastle United. Shearer could stop much of it with a few well-chosen sentences. He chooses not to, as his non-committal statement last night on the BBC showed, so the unrest continues.

The Debate: Martin Samuel responds to your comments

Martin Samuel sparked some heated response in his Game Debate this week by suggesting that Liverpool aren't one of Europe's big clubs. Our Chief Football Correspondent argued that the lack of a Premier League title in the Anfield club's trophy cabinet is a more significant measurement of the club's stature than their recent successes in the Champions League. Not surprisingly, some of you disagreed. Martin, though, wasn't prepared to back down . . .

The Debate: Liverpool are 21-0 down on league titles

In Wednesday’s Times, I wrote that Liverpool paid a price for finishing second in their Champions League group, because there was a good chance they would now be pitted against one of the big clubs of Europe: AC Milan, Real Madrid, Barcelona or Inter Milan. Cue angry postings along the lines that, in Europe, Liverpool are a big club; five times, pal, two finals in three years, you know the argument.

Yet surely consistent domestic success is part of this process, too? Liverpool have not won the title in what would be termed the modern era, post Premier League. Since the successful 1989-90 season, their achievements have been one Champions League and one Uefa Cup win (it is pointless comparing domestic cups as these are not taken seriously by leading clubs in Italy and Spain).

In that time, Barcelona have won eight league titles and two European Cups; Real have five league titles and three European Cups; Inter have two league titles and three Uefa Cups and Milan have six league titles and three European Cups.

Inter are short a trophy with big ears, but by all other criteria Liverpool are overwhelmed.

This is not to belittle them. The point made was that recent results under Rafael Benítez in Europe suggest this quartet of clubs should be equally wary of playing Liverpool, but the big club argument goes further. I noticed that few of those insulted by the term were from Liverpool.

I think those that go to Anfield every week know the score. When Liverpool truly were the giants of the European game, they also dominated at home. What has happened in recent years is an anomaly. Unless Benítez can add the domestic title to his European achievements, there will always be a blank space on his Liverpool CV, because league form is the default measurement of success.

As it stands, in recent times, to the clubs mentioned, Liverpool are 21-0 down on league titles; and not even Steven Gerrard could pull that one back.

What do you think? Are the big clubs getting everything their own way? Have your say, e-mail thegame@thetimes.co.uk

The Debate: Martin Samuel responds to your remarks

Martin Samuel took issue with the Scottish Premier League this week for agreeing to the postponement of Rangers' weekend league game with Gretna, which gave Walter Smith's side more preparation time ahead of their crucial Champions League clash with Lyons at Ibrox.

Our five times Sports Writer of the Year thought that this set a dangerous precedent, favouring the big clubs over the small and denying the SPL's bottom side what might have proved a golden opportunity to turn the tables on their more illustrious rivals at a time when their focus could have been elsewhere.

For the most part, you disagreed, which is your prerogative, as it is Mr Samuel's to come back and tell you why he thinks you were wrong. If you suffer from a weak heart or acute hypertension, please consult your physician first before reading on. Otherwise, do so at your peril and continue the debate in the comment field at the bottom of this post if you so desire.

I see this period of cooperation as a positive thing for Scottish football. The smaller countries should be helping their teams at club and country level in any reasonable way they can.
Ian McDonald.

MS: Not if it has an impact on their domestic football, surely? Otherwise, why not set the whole fixture list up with one eye on Celtic and Rangers in the Champions League, give them every Saturday off prior to matches, or ensure they are at home against a team they could beat with the reserves out? Where does this end? The Scottish Premier League must have integrity.

The Debate: 'Are the big clubs getting everything their own way?'

As a newly promoted member of the Scottish Premier League, Gretna do not have much to recommend it. They cannot use their Raydale Park home and play instead at Fir Park, Motherwell. They have taken five points from a possible 45 and are nine points adrift. The crowd of 1,020 against Inverness Caledonian Thistle in October was the lowest crowd in the competition’s history.

Gretna were scheduled to play Rangers on Saturday. At face value, ritual slaughter beckoned. The underdogs, however, had one thing going for them. This week, Rangers are scheduled to play Lyons in the final match of Champions League group E. Rangers must draw to progress and Walter Smith, their manager, needed his team to be injury free.

So, against Rangers’ international stars, against the wealth and spending power of a club who have dominated Scottish football for decades, Gretna had one weapon: that Rangers might be distracted by the thought of Lyons or would have to rest players as a precaution (think of Liverpool at Reading on Saturday).

Twenty-six points separated the pair, so Rangers still should have had enough. But, just in case, the SPL intervened and postponed the match to help Rangers in Europe, putting it back to when they could be fully focused on stuffing Gretna.

Thank you for that, gentlemen. Thank you for setting a precedent that delivers further advantage to those holding every ace in the pack. Now that Rangers have won the right to revise the fixture list, it will not stop there. Celtic play big matches in Europe, too. The knockout phase is due next and to deny them would be to invite accusations of preferential treatment for Rangers.

José Mourinho could never understand why the Premier League did not help Chelsea more before a big European game. He said that the Portuguese authorities were more obliging to FC Porto when he managed them. Perhaps that is why the club have won the league in nine out of 13 seasons.

Already cursed by predictability, the ramifications for the SPL will be long-lasting. The gap between the favourites and the field just got bigger. And in a two-horse race, that is saying something.

What do you think? Are the big clubs getting everything their own way? Have your say, e-mail thegame@thetimes.co.uk

The Debate: Martin Samuel responds to your comments about Newcastle

Martin Samuel asked the question: What's going on at Newcastle United? in this week's edition of TheGame. You Toon supporters - generally not the biggest fans of Sam Allardyce, the under-pressure manager, were only too keen to get your frustrations off your chest.

Here, Martin, who was in Newcastle ahead of the crucial Premier League match with Arsenal, exercises his right of reply. And, just like some of the recent performances from the home side at St James' Park - it does, frankly, get a little ugly. Read on, if you dare.

It took Mark Hughes a fair while to sort things out at Blackburn Rovers, but the difference was that the board and fans knew he had inherited a difficult situation. By giving him time and space he was able to build a foundation. Sam Allardyce has inherited a Newcastle United squad low on confidence and if we trust he is a good manager then he should be given the opportunity Hughes had at Blackburn.
Jon, London.

MS: I agree, Jon, but Newcastle has different expectations. Although Blackburn won the Premier League, I do not think there was ever a big club mentality around the place. Newcastle have won next to nothing, but one look at the stadium tells you how the club sees itself.