Will you care about England as long as your club is doing well?

As Germany celebrate the deserved World Cup victory, it seems so long ago that England were eliminated from the tournament. It was actually 20th June (when Costa Rica beat Italy 1-0), the competition having started on the 12th. England lasted barely a week. The players went on holiday and will no doubt start pre-season training a little later than their non-international colleagues.

It will no doubt be just over a week before England fans forget about the ignominious World Cup showing and get down to the real business of supporting their own Premier League team.

And that's the problem.

If you want your team to compete at the top of the Premier League, you'll want it to buy the best players - and that probably means foreign players. At that point you don't care about the England team, only that your club is performing well in the Premier League.

I'm not sure we can have it both ways. Some might claim that Germany have managed it. But have they? They've won the World Cup as a nation, but are all their clubs' supporters happy with their club's showing? I don't know.

I do know that there's no quick fix for England's poor national team's performance. Greg Dyke might not have the perfect solution, but we should certainly give him credit for trying.

Gotze's volley gives Germany its deserved reward

Thank goodness for Mario Gotze's superb volley seven minutes before the end of extra time in the World Cup final last night. It saved us from the depressing spectacle of a penalty shoot-out which would have been an awful way to end an otherwise very good World Cup tournament.

There could be little denying that Germany deserved to win the trophy, although there was never any chance that they were going to put Argentina to the sword as they has done with Brazil four days earlier. Argentina put up a much stiffer test, although their inability to get a single shot on target - even with eventual Balon D'Or winner Lionel Messi in their line-up - suggests that they struggled to make any inroads into the German defence. However, that hides the reality of misses by Higuain, Messi and Palacio, as well as the dominating presence of Manuel Neuer in the German goal.

Gotze's chest control and volley on the turn were worthy of a World Cup final winning goal. It was just a pity a goal didn't come early to potentially spark the final into life. It never quite lived up to its billing.

Germany now join Italy on four World Cup wins and with this young team, there's no doubt at all that they will be challenging again in Russia in four years time. They also become the first country, apart from Brazil, to win the World Cup away from their home continent. Full credit should go to Joachim Low, but also to Germany as a whole for the rebuilding plan they put in place after the failure at the 2004 European Championships.

If only England would do something similar.

Referees are failing to apply the laws of the game

According to the BBC:

'Fifa vice-president Jim Boyce says referees have not been told to be lenient at the 2014 World Cup.

Some officials have been criticised for opting not to caution players during matches, with the average number of yellow cards per game just below three.

Boyce says: "I think the refereeing has been superb and it has not happened by chance.

"The referees have been told to only send a player off if they were 100% certain it was a red card, but nothing has ever been said about being lenient." '

The refereeing has emphatically NOT been superb at this World Cup and sadly, it is the delusion of FIFA that means that we have to suffer this poor refereeing on and on.

Quite simply, the referees do not apply the laws of the game. This leads to players taking small advantages, which become the norm, then the players try to take bigger advantages until they expect them to become the norm too.

A prime example is the ball in the corner quadrant. A few years ago this was changed so that the ball only had to overhang the quadrant line. This was as a direct result of players putting the ball outside the line. FIFA caved in and went with the players.

Here are some examples of laws which referees have ignored at this World Cup:

1. Gain of yardage at throw-ins. About 15 yards seems to be the expected gain.
2. Gain of yardage at free-kicks. Players stand where the offence took place and chuck the ball about fifteen yards forward (with minimal back spin).
3. Not booking players for waving imaginary yellow cards. This was expressly stated by FIFA, yet has not happened in any single case.
4. Encroachment of walls and players at free-kicks. Yes, we've all seen the magic spray, but the referees only ever draw it IN FRONT of the defenders. Why? Just walk the ten yards, draw the line and order the defenders to get behind the line. Oh yes, and BEHIND the line, not on it as some players have done.
5. Diving and simulation. It goes on. We all know it goes on. Yet not one culprit has been punished.
6. Time keeping (1). The added-on time is supposed to be a minimum, yet referees at this World Cup (indeed, all non-English matches), the time shown on the board is a MAXIMUM, with referees often blowing up before the time is up.
7. Time keeping (2). Substitutions, as one example, are supposed to result in an extra thirty seconds being added on. Yet, if a player is substituted during added on time,we never get the extra thirty seconds.
8. Time keeping (3). There has been a trend in this World Cup for goal celebrations to take up to two minutes. This is deliberate time wasting by the scoring team, and we never get this time back.
9. Not putting the ball on the penalty spot. Based on the "overhang at corner quadrant" rule change, players now seem to think they can put the ball near the penalty spot, just so long as it overhangs the spot.
10. Not booking players for foul play. There have been many examples. The Brazil v Colombia game was a farce.
11. Not allowing corner kicks to be taken! Yes, the old "Ryan Giggs" corner kick has been disallowed twice in this World Cup - once by Howard Webb. WHY?

Some may argue that of these points are trivial. "Oh, it doesn't matter if he gains five yards from a free-kick," they may claim. To which I would say, "If it doesn't matter, don't do it!"

Referees do not allow free-kicks to be taken with a moving ball (quite rightly), yet they are happy to let fifteen yards be gained. WHY?

Not applying the rules leads to players taking advantage, which then leads to cheating. Rugby referees apply the rules in their sport. Why don't football referees?

Argentina v The Netherlands - an inevitable damp squib

I suppose it was inevitable that the second semi-final would be a damp squib compared with the first. Nothing could match the dramatic happenings of Brazil v Germany on Tuesday.

It is nevertheless disappointing to see another 0-0 draw after penalties and the cop-out of a penalty shoot-out. This time there was no Tim Krul to save the Netherlands and Argentina progressed to their fifth World Cup final, and the third offering of a Germany v Argentina final.

I suppose it will be fitting to see one of the World's top players - Lionel Messi - gracing the occasion, but let us hope that Germany's brand of football prevails.

More importantly, let us hope we don't have to rely on penalty kicks to conclude proceedings. Nothing was as dreadful as the 0-0 final between Brazil and Italy in 1994, eventually ending with a Brazil shoot-out victory.

Argentina have some great players - Messi, Aguero, Mascherano, Di Maria - but their team has not quite come together during this tournament. Despite that, they have managed five wins and a penalty shoot-out victory - and that's a recipe for success.

Onward to Sunday's final, and we want better than this semi-final gave us.

Brazil's implosion is their "Kennedy moment"

Brazil 1, Germany 7.
Read it again. Astonishing.

Brazil's implosion in last night's World Cup semi-final will be a "Kennedy moment" for many people. They will always remember where they were when this happened. If you watched it , you will always remember where you were. For the poor Brazilians, both in the ground and watching on TVs around the country, they will never be able to forget it.

This was a Sunday morning park scoreline - in a World Cup semi-final (WCSF). Not since 1930 has a team scored six in a WCSF (both Uruguay and Argentina managed it their in 6-1 wins). Not since 1958 has a team scored five in a WCSF (Brazil 5, France 2). No team has ever scored seven in a WCSF.

Between 11 and 29 minutes Germany rattled in five goals against a Brazilian defence with about as much cover as a Copacabana bikini for an eponymous wax. It all got a bit embarrassing, unless you were German. The BBC commentators were amazed that Germany didn't sit on their 1-0, then their 2-0, then their 3-0 ... lead. Why go and score more goals? Good for Germany, I say. Attack, attack, attack. Let's hope this catches on. In the second half Germany added to their tally, making it 7-0 before Oscar scored what commentator Guy Mowbray scored "the most pointless goal in World Cup history" to make it 7-1.

Germany's tally now makes them the top scorers in World Cup tournament matches (223 in 105 matches to Brazil's 221 in 103). Germany might not win the World Cup (surely a stiffer test will meet them in the final), but they will always be remembered as the team that smashed Brazil.

Brazil were utterly humiliated. The nation must be in shock. Apparently there were some arson attacks in the aftermath, and maybe they'll get a bit angry tonight when it begins to sink in. I hope not.

They need to be realistic and take stock. This is a poor Brazilian team, which lost its two best players (Neymar and Thiago Silva) for the semi-final. Without them, they were a shambles. But having them in the other matches only disguised the truth.

In 2001 England beat Germany in a World Cup qualifier 5-1. The Germans had to beat Ukraine in a qualifying match to get to the 2002 World Cup. They did so and reached the final, losing 2-0 to Brazil in the countries' only other World Cup encounter. But they also went back to the drawing board to rectify problems with the national team. Spectacularly, they have achieved this.

Brazil now need to do the same.

As a footnote, so do England (but we all know that won't happen - reference 1-4 defeat to Germany in 2010 World Cup).

South America has the edge in semi-finals

And so we come to the Word Cup semi-finals.

South America v Europe in each case. As the competition is based in South America and no European team has ever won there, it would surely be foolish to call an all-European final. But are the South American teams good enough to beat their European opposition?

The truth is that no team has glowed consistently brightly throughout the tournament.

Brazil's results have been 3-1, 0-0, 4-1, 1-1 (won on penalties), 2-1.
Germany: 4-0, 2-2, 1-0, 2-1, 1-0.
Argentina: 2-1, 1-0, 3-2, 1-0, 1-0.
Holland: 5-1, 3-2, 2-0, 2-1, 0-0 (won on penalties).

No team has lost a game (which sometimes happens. Spain, for example, lost their first game in 2010, yet went on to win the trophy). But only Argentina have won all their five games. Sometimes late in the game!

Germany and Holland both started the competition with big wins, but have not been quite as impressive of late.

Argentina and Brazil have shown, shall we say, typical South American resilience, and buoyed by huge and loud local support, I'm going to go with them to make the final.

Lenient refereeing backs Brazil's niggling style

I'm not entirely comfortable with the way Brazil have progressed to the semi-final in this World Cup. This is certainly not the 'samba-style', free-flowing football Brazil of old. This team has no qualms about fouling, breaking up the game, niggling, and relying on support from the crowd, and, sadly, help from referees.

In my last point, I don't mean that the referees are 'crooked' in any way, but with 60,000+ supporters roaring at you, you can't help but be a little bit swayed - however much you try. The last Brazil game (v. Colombia) was, however, appallingly refereed by Carlos Velasco Carballo of Spain. He was so lenient that the game became almost a free-for-all, with Brazil being the worst culprits. Fernandinho's treatment of James Rodriguez was scandalous, yet the Brazilian - who should have been sent off - didn't even get a yellow card. To add ironic insult to injury, the referee did book Rodriguez for a contactless tackle.

Brazil were able to complain afterwards about how Zuniga caused the injury to their Number Ten Neymar, but the referee did play an advantage in Brazil's favour and to book Zuniga would have been contrary to his handling of the game.

Incredibly, the referee did book Brazil's Thiago Silva for preventing the the Colombian goalkeeper from clearing the ball and kicking into the Colombian net. Considering the number and type of fouls going on in the rest of this game, that decision was laughable. But it had the very serious effect of banning Silva from the semi-final.

I have no doubt in my mind that FIFA have told referees to book as few players as possible to try and ensure that the 'big players' remain available for the later rounds. Carballo will be in trouble for getting Silva banned.

For the good of football, however, it would be better if referees clamped down on fouling and got the dirty players removed from matches.

Time for the World Cup to catch fire

So we're through the Groups and into the knock-out rounds.

England, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Russia have all gone home with heads bowed, leaving the likes of Greece, Ivory Coast, USA and Algeria to battle it out for a place in the quarter-finals.

We've had 48 games (two-thirds of the total) with 136 goals at an average of 2.833 goals per game. There have been some good games, but some duffers too. It's not quite the mesmeric World Cup the TV pundits would like us to believe.

The next round has thrown up some interesting games, and some not so interesting.

Brazil v Chile will be fascinating as Chile have caught people's imagination. Colombia v Uruguay will set up and all-South American quarter final. Uruguay, feeling sorry for themselves after the Suarez affair, are unlikely to spring a surprise.

France and Germany both face African opposition (Nigeria and Algeria respectively) and will hope to set up a European quarter final. Algeria - who beat West Germany 2-1 in 1982 - will be hoping for revenge after they were knocked out in that tournament thanks to a cooked-up 1-0 win for West Germany over Austria which put them both through at Algeria's expense.

Belgium haven't quite hit their sweet spot, but three wins from three have given them a match against USA, followed by Argentina or Switzerland.

Let's hope the blue touch paper catches and we're not left with a round of nil-nil draws and penalty shoot-outs.

England have sunk and the outlook is bleak

The English team have returned home, landing even before the group phase of the World Cup has finished in Brazil.

On the face of it, it was a dismal showing. One point, two goals, two defeats, bottom of the group. We have also now won only one of our last eight games at World Cup finals:

2014
Costa Rica D 0-0
Uruguay L 1-2
Italy L 1-2

2010
Germany L 1-4
Slovenia W 1-0
Algeria D 0-0
USA D 1-1

2006
Portugal D 0-0 (lost on penalties)

It's a terrible record. I remember that after the 4-1 thrashing by Germany at the 2010 World Cup everyone said, "Ah, things will change now, they have to."

Well, nothing has changed. In fact, things have got worse. Our showing at World Cup 2014 was worse than 2010. We have fewer players playing in the Premier League now than then.

And there are no signs that it will get any better. The pundits talk about players and their abilities and coaches and youngsters being told they must win, etc.

The fact is that there are not enough England players to choose from. But with the Premier League clubs managed by mostly foreign managers and owned by foreign owners, there is no interest in making the England national team any stronger.

The future is bleak. We're already worse than Costa Rica. How long before we're fearing Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia and San Marino (along with Switzerland, the rest of out Euro 2016 qualifying group).

No surprise at England's failure

The only thing I'm surprised about is that there is any surprise.

Surely we had all lowered our expectations about England in this World Cup?

I thought we had, but then in the week leading up the finals (after our dismal 0-0 draw with Honduras) I noticed people saying things like "quarter-finals at least", and "we'll get through the group and see what happens", and "we'll beat Italy 3-1..."

Surely we've seen this demise coming?

But then, after the thrashing by Germany in the last World Cup (1-4 in the first knock-out round), there were sage noddings of heads to suggest that "it would all change now".

We're blind to our failures, and just because we're England we think we have some sort of right to be good. We don't and we're not.

FA Chairman Greg Dyke has come up with some sort of blueprint for England's future, but the nub of it is to give Premier League Clubs more presence in the Football League ('B' teams). It is doomed to failure.

The ONLY solution is to reduce the number of foreign players in the Premier League. Poor Roy Hodgson has about 60 English players in the Premier League to pick from. It's not enough.

But this solution will never happen because, as I've said before, the Premier League has foreign players, foreign managers, foreign coaches and foreign owners.

Iet used to England failure. It's here to stay.

Spain sent crashing - the end of an era?

Spain were sent crashing out of the World Cup yesterday after a 2-0 defeat by Chile. Spain looked tired and ragged and devoid of ideas up front. It's a far cry from the all-conquering team of the last six years. Maybe it's the end of their era.

But it shows that nothing - no great team - lasts forever.

Chile, however, looked good; defensively strong with some quick, skilful players up front. But surely winning the tournament will be beyond them.

It may be the earliest a World Cup holder has gone out of the tournament - although, of course, Spain still have to complete their group games, with a "wooden spoon" match against Australia.

Australia also went out of the competition yesterday, but they can hold their heads up high after giving it a go against Holland and giving the latter a bit of a scare.

Finally, Cameroon also crashed out yesterday, with a feeble 4-0 defeat against a revitalised Croatia, who now look a good bet to progress with Brazil from Group A.

Germany show the way to do it

The Germans don't mess around, do they?

They may not always win the World Cup, but they don't muck up their first round games. Four-nil (against Portugal yesterday) and an opponent sent off to make it easier. That's the way to do it!

No stress about reaching the second round, and they'll probably win the group in their second game, thereby enabling themselves to rest players in the third group game (against USA). Relaxed, they can approach the knock-out stage fresh and confident.

This is why they always do well at World (and European) Cups.

Contrast this with England who are usually left clutching at a last-ditch third match victory in the group to ensure progress. Thus, the players are stressed and tired and - inevitably - fall just short (usually on penalties).

And that is what is happening again. A 1-2 loss to Italy leaves us desperate to beat Uruguay on Thursday. And with Luis Suarez back in their line-up (as he is bound to be), that will not be easy.

A good start to the World Cup

The World Cup is going pretty well!

Thirty-seven goals in 11 games has given us an average of 3.4 goals per game so far.
Goal-line technology worked - although BBC commentator Jonathan Pearce seemed to be confused by it!

The disappearing spray to mark ten yards has also been a success, although why the referee allowed Ecuador to put the ball outside the area marked for the ball was a mystery - and almost inevitably led to a goal. I still wonder what will happen when a player or two step over that line. I suspect - rather like warnings against holding at corners which are actually a green light for holding when the corner is finally taken - nothing. Nevertheless it is a good step forward (no pun intended).

I am less happy that it means that each free kick now takes at least a minute - time which we never retrieve.

I was also disappointed when one referee allowed a substitution during four minutes of added time, and then blew up at precisely ninety-four minutes. Time wasting substitutions should not be allowed to deny us the football we deserve.

Overall, though, a good start.

England's win did nothing to raise expectations

England beat Peru 3-0 in their last warm-up game on home soil before the World Cup. Frankly the scoreline flattered England.

The highlight was undoubtedly Daniel Sturridge's left-foot beauty to open the scoring. A touch of class in an otherwise low-quality encounter. Sturridge got the man of the match award for his goal, but apart from that he was unimpressive.

England's insipid display was typical of their thrustless, sideways, stumbling performances. Without a Townsend, a Walcott or an Oxlade-Chamberlain, there is no one who is willing to carry the ball forward 20 or 30 yards and make the opposition start to worry. When Raheem Sterling came on in the second half, he DID show some of that forward thinking that is required. Passing it around the back four, the goalkeeper and the two holding midfielders will not worry the opposition. Neither will chipping the ball forward to tightly-marked attackers.

There were also troubling signs of defensive problems with several unforced errors. A weak Peru team was unable to punish them, but don't expect the same profligacy from Italy, Uruguay or even Costa Rica.

The only good thing about England's performance was that it will do nothing to raise expectations!

How the World Cup groups compare

With the Brazil 2014 World Cup just over two weeks away, it is time to assess the groups by FIFA rankings.

By adding up the ranking positions, the group with the lowest total would seem to be the toughest, etc, all the way down to the group with the highest points total being apparently the easiest.

Group G scores the lowest points and would therefore seem to be the hardest. With Germany (ranking 2) and Portugal (3), it is incredible that one group has two of the top three ranked teams in the world. (FIFA seedings committee - how can this happen?). USA (14) and Ghana (38) make this the Group of Death (total score 57).

Inevitably, England are in a group not far behind (we're never in the easiest group, are we?). Uruguay (6), Italy (9) are ahead of England (11), with Costa Rica at 34 in Group D. Total score 60.

Group E (total score 82) is headed by Switzerland (8) (yes, really), with France (16), South Americans Ecuador (28) and Honduras (30).

That group just pips Group C (total score 83), headed by Colombia (5), Greece (10) (how did they get there?), Ivory Coast (21) and Japan (47).

Spain (1) lead Group B, with the lowest ranked team, Australia (59), weighing it down. Otherwise, it looks tough, with Chile (13) and Holland (15). Total group score 88.

Group A is the sixth hardest, headed by hosts Brazil (4), followed by Mexico (19), Croatia (20) and Cameroon (50). The hosts should make easy progress from this group with a total score of 93.

The second easiest group is H, with the lowest ranked best team of any group - Belgium (12), leading Russia (18), with Algeria (25) and South Korea (55) making the four and a group score of 110.

The apparent weakest Group is F, where Argentina (7) will be favourites to progress, with Bosnia-Herzegovina (25), Iran (37) and Nigeria (44) fighting to join them.

Hodgson springs few surprises

It is hard to argue with Roy Hodgson's England World Cup Squad. I guess the most contentious decisions are to omit Ashley Cole and to include Frank Lampard. 

Cole has served England well, but there are now two better options in Baines and Shaw, so that decision is correct.

I'm not sure about Frank Lampard. I think he, too, might have reached the end of the road, but obviously not for Hodgson. Michael Carrick's considered passing game might have been better to suited to the difficult climatic conditions that are likely in Brazil, but Lampard certainly presents a greater goal threat.

But let's be realistic. England are going to come nowhere near winning this World Cup. If we get out of the group, we will have done well. 

Good luck to all the chosen squad members.

Joe Hart (Manchester City)

Ben Foster (West Bromwich Albion)

Fraser Forster (Celtic)

Leighton Baines (Everton)

Gary Cahill (Chelsea)

Phil Jagielka (Everton)

Glen Johnson (Liverpool)

Phil Jones (Man Utd)

Luke Shaw (Southampton)

Chris Smalling (Man Utd)

Steven Gerrard (Liverpool) - captain

Ross Barkley (Everton)

Jordan Henderson (Liverpool)

Adam Lallana (Southampton)

Frank Lampard (Chelsea)

James Milner (Manchester City)

Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (Arsenal)

Raheem Sterling (Liverpool)

Jack Wilshere (Arsenal)

Rickie Lambert (Southampton)

Wayne Rooney (Manchester United)

Daniel Sturridge (Liverpool)

Danny Welbeck (Manchester United)

Michael Carrick (Manchester United)

Andy Carroll (West Ham United)

Tom Cleverley (Manchester United)

Jermain Defoe (Toronto FC)

Jon Flanagan (Liverpool)

John Ruddy (Norwich City)

John Stones (Everton)

Lallana and Shaw shine in drab England display

"Expectations have never been lower" for England approaching a World Cup apparently. And after the tame 1-0 win over Denmark on Wednesday night, those expectations are about right.

It was good to get a win. After two 0-2 home defeats, all sorts of records were just waiting to be broken or equalled in the event of another no-scoring home loss.

But let's face it, the performance was uninspiring, insipid, lack-lustre and at time downright boring. There were chances and Denmark's goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel made some good saves, but most passes exchanged between England players were probably between Gary Cahill and Chris Smalling, the two centre-backs. Keeping possession is one thing, but doing so deep in your own half is possession that only wastes time and gets you deeper and deeper until you go back to the keeper who (in many cases) smashes it aimlessly forward - to lose possession.

In the World Cup finals better teams will take advantage.

The dearth of English talent is of course the fault of the Premier League and its clubs who have no interest in the England team and pursue foreign talent to fill their ranks. Perhaps the notable exception is Southampton whose Adam Lallana and Luke Shaw were the shining lights as second-half substitutes in an otherwise drab display.

How deadly is England's Group of Death?

So apparently England find themselves in another "Group of Death" in Brazil 2014. But just how deadly is it?

Group D consists of England (13th in the FIFA rankings), Uruguay (6), Italy (7) and Costa Rica (31). If we use a simple addition of the ranking positions to get a total for the group, this comes to 57, and is the second toughest group in these terms.

The hardest group of all is Group G, consisting of Germany (2), Portugal (5), USA (14) and Ghana (24). I can't imagine Germany being too fazed, though, can you? 45 points.

Next is Group C (perhaps surprisingly), consisting of Colombia (4), Greece (12), Ivory Coast (17) and Japan (48). 81 points.

Fourth hardest group is B, with Spain (1), Netherlands (9), Chile (59) and Australia (59 - currently the lowest ranked team in the competition). 84 points.

Fourth easiest group is E, with Switzerland (8), France (19), Ecuador (23), Honduras (41). Total 91 points.

Next is Group A, consisting of Brazil (10), Croatia (16), Mexico (20), Cameroon (51). Total 97 points.

The second easiest group, by rankings, is Group F, with Argentina (3), Bosnia-Herzegovina (21), Nigeria (36), Iran (45). Total 105 points.

And, presumably, the Group of Cruise is Group H, with: Belgium (11), Russia (22), Algeria (26), South Korea (54). Total 113 points.

It is interesting to note that England are the highest third ranked team in any group. and four groups have a second best team that is lower ranked than England. England's group also has the second best fourth ranked team.

Also, by World Cup Winners (by descending order of total rankings);
Group G has one (Germany) with three wins in total.
Group D has three winners (Uruguay (2), Italy (4), England (1)) for seven wins in total.
Group C: Nil wins.
Group B: One winner, Spain (1).
Group E: One winner, France (1).
Group A: One winner, Brazil (5 times winners).
Group F: One winner, Argentina (2).
Group H: Nil wins.

England's group is indeed a killer.

I know that FIFA don't actually "seed" teams, but put them in pots according to Confederation and other political considerations. It doesn't always lead to the most level of playing fields.

World Cup seedings mystify us again

It is now just over six months until the World Cup begins in Brazil and we are just a few days away from the draw.

The recent collapse of part of the stadium under construction in Sao Paulo was very sad, and has brought the usual doubts about whether the venues will be ready in time. Indeed, Brazil has admitted that six stadiums might not be ready in time. FIFA have announced that there are no plans to move the World Cup to a different country, despite the problems. I hope Brazil works through the difficulties and is ready in time.

As for the draw, there is the usual scare-talk of England being in a potential "Group of Death" with the likes of Brazil, USA and France.

However, with the likes of Switzerland in Pot One, how about a group with Switzerland (World Ranking 8), Australia (59) and Cameroon (51). We couldn't complain at that!

The Pots will NOT be organised by World Rankings alone, but I am mystified as to why Switzerland (8) and Belgium (11) are said to be top-seeded, whereas Portugal (5) and Italy (7) are not. Other Pots will hold teams from the same Federations as far as possible.

If the teams were grouped by the latest rankings the Pots would be:

One: Spain (1), Germany (2), Argentina (3), Colombia (4), Portugal (5), Uruguay (6), Italy (7), Switzerland (8).

Two: Holland (9), Brazil (10), Belgium (11), Greece (12), England (13), USA (14), Chile (15), Croatia (16).

Three: Ivory Coast (17), France (19), Mexico (20), Bosnia-Herzegovina (21), Russia (22), Ecuador (23), Ghana (24), Algeria (26).

Four: Costa Rica (31), Nigeria (36), Honduras (41), Iran (45), Japan (48), Cameroon (51), South Korea (54), Australia (59).

Incidentally, with talk of cutting Europe's representation in future World Cups, the top eight teams not to qualify for next year's tournament are: Ukraine (17), Denmark (25), Sweden (27), Czech Republic (28), Slovenia (29), Serbia (30), Romania (32), Scotland (33). ALL are European.

If you really want to apply zero tolerance, Blatter, take the World Cup away from Russia

I find it fascinating that Sepp Blatter "calls for zero tolerance towards racism" (BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24690192).

Blatter said: "If we are not able to go zero tolerance, we have failed."

Yet it was his organisation that gave the 2018 World Cup to Russia, the country in which Manchester City's Yaya Toure complained about monkey chants last week. IT is, of course, not the first time such incidents have been reported.

Blattter, speaking at a news conference in London, said: "In the first case there should be a warning, in a second case sanctions, disciplinary sanctions or to play without spectators. But the third one is that you have to deduct points or expel a team from a competition."

"The [Fifa] congress has said we have to go zero tolerance. The congress was standing, there was not one voice against that.

"Everybody wants it to happen. Now we have to apply it and have to have the courage to have to do it."

Fine words - applicable to clubs - but awarding the most high-profile sporting event in the world to the country of Russia is a deed that gives lie to those words.

The courageous thing to do would be take the World Cup away from Russia.

THAT would demonstrate zero tolerance to racism.