A note of caution

Hyperbole is a often overused thing in sport and it appears as if the media are falling into the trap again. With the apparent decline of the Australian cricket side, many observers have been touting an England win in next summer’s Ashes series. Cricketing luminaries have been weighing in with their assorted two cents - Sir Ian Botham has gone so far as to publicly predict an easy win for England. Such enthusiasm for the contest is to be welcomed, but there’s comes a point where the noises and opinions become plain daft. This is one of those times.

How anyone can confidently predict a comfortable England series win is utterly foolish. Australia’s current ‘demise’ saw them lose their first test series since the fabled ‘05 Ashes as they went down, albeit fighting, 2-0 in India. Bearing in mind the fact that India is probably one of the hardest places to tour in the world, those who say that the Aussie defeat bodes well for England are getting confused. It is England themselves who play a test series in India next month and one can hardly assume they will fare any better than Australia did.

Admittedly, Australia have been feeling the effects of losing three of their greatest players ever in Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Adam Gilchrist. Behind the stumps, Brad Haddin has failed to convince. His performance in India both with the gloves and with the bat left much to be desired. Warne’s absence was always going to be felt the strongest and Brett Lee, Stuart Clark and Mitchell Johnson have struggled to replicate the accuracy and consistency of McGrath, although they have impressed.

A possible sign of how much in decline Australia are is their batting performance in the current home test series with New Zealand. The Indian defeat came with legitimate excuses but to crumble twice on a home ground against a mediocre New Zealand attack is a possible indication of how things are on the wane. However, to assume that this slump is permanent is a mistake. Australia are the masters of proving people wrong and one could easily see them coming back between now and next summer and becoming something like the team they were.

One must also take into account England at the moment. Their test form is currently inconsistent, notably the batting. Shackled by the likes of New Zealand and South Africa recently, one has to assume they will struggle against Australia’s pacers. Kevin Pietersen aside, England’s batsman seem to be going through a transitional period and it is hard to feel confident of a good score from them. Talented they may be but if they can’t beat South Africa at home, then why is everyone assuming they will beat Australia?

The other factor to bear in mind is the fact that it is the Ashes. These contests are rarely walkovers (ignore events last time out, please) and especially not in England’s favour. Even in 2005, when England thoroughly outplayed the Australians, the score was only 2-1 and not a single England fan or player had many nails left by the end of August. Bottom line - England may possibly be good and Australia may possibly be bad but ignore the spectacle of the Ashes at your peril.

Australia have plenty of time to improve. And for that matter, so do England. What is evident is that both teams have a lot to prove, both to the cricketing world and to themselves. Australia seem torn between clinging on to the past and wiping the slate clean with their new team. England appear to be… just torn. But one things for sure, England will unlikely be thinking that they will walk this series and fans and pundits shouldn’t be either.

It’s not just about current form, people. There’s a whole year to wait.

Benitez fashions Gerrard's England sick note

Another England game, another club versus country debate. But whilst the Rafael Benitez’s and Alex Ferguson’s of this world may sit in their offices with their Fabio Capello voodoo dolls at the ready, many fans are simply disappointed to see England have to put out a skeleton side in a game against one of the world’s best. And did anyone take the time to ask Mr Gerrard how he feels about being not playing? One suspects not.

The issue of club managers becoming possessive of their players has reared its ugly head before and will continue to do so unless an England boss or F.A executive has the cojones to stop it. This latest example is another act of sheer single mindedness from a Premier League team and, notably, a top four team. Steven Gerrard, the sometime cog of the England midfield, the man who played a scoring role in a league game against Bolton at the weekend, had previously been prevented from joining the England squad after suffering "a tear in the adductor magnus muscle in his right leg", as the Liverpool website so helpfully put it.

The announcement smacked of a conspiracy. Benitez was clearly not going to have his best player representing his country where a nasty thing like an injury could happen. Not by a long shot. The fact that Gerrard had played ninety minutes at the weekend was clearly immaterial - Steven was injured, end of story. Capello then showed some of the fight necessary to beat the greedy club managers. He called Gerrard in for an England medical check up. They would be the ones to judge if he was available or not.

As it turns out, Gerrard was ruled out. It has to be said, along with others - Wayne Rooney, Rio Ferdinand, Frank Lampard, Joe Cole, Ashley Cole, Wes Brown, Emile Heskey, Joe Hart and now, wonderfully, Theo Walcott are all closer to the injury table than they are to the pitch. Admittedly, the majority of those are genuine injuries or injury concerns that have legitimately ruled the player out. But the Gerrard saga shouldn’t sit right with England fans. England players have a responsibility to represent their country. It is, or should be, the pinnacle of a player’s career.

It is hard to blame Gerrard in this. One gets the feeling that he would want to play and that he is being advised, or rather held back, by the Scouse powers that be. But Benitez has no right to do it. Yes, the game is a friendly but it’s Germany away in Berlin. Try telling me that any member of the squad, either initially named or called as backup, would not want to play in this game? Capello and, indeed, the England fans deserve more respect from managers like Benitez and others who have played the ‘sudden injury’ game before. That’s you, Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger.

A similar situation occurred in the dying embers of Steve McClaren’s reign. Michael Owen, coming back from injury, was called up into the England squad to play Estonia and Russia at Wembley. Then Newcastle boss Sam Allardyce protested furiously at this, saying that England were rushing his precious asset back. The truth is England and McClaren needed and wanted him. Why shouldn’t they have him if he wanted to play? Owen duly played both games, scored three goals and played a blinder against Russia. He returned to St James Park happy and in good form. Can’t players going away with their countries be a good thing?

One can understand the concern of managers that they do not want their star players being injured in meaningless friendly games. But a different perspective and attitude must be taken. Good players will play for their country - it’s a fact. They may pick up an occasional knock but that is just bad luck. Sometimes, there will be a positive effect and players can come back better and happier. It is their international manager’s choice, not their club boss.

Heaven knows, it is not up to Rafael Benitez to pick the England squad.

Critically assess to what extent mass communications has been central to the establishment of American power in the global context

Americanisation is a term derived to describe the influence of the United States on the rest of the world. It refers to the process in which the American culture is spreading around the world having an effect on other cultures and influencing them. There are many possible vehicles of Americanization - the process of mass communication is certainly one of these methods.

Mass communication takes on many forms. The spread of American media such as TV, films, radio and news around the world is a heavy influence on the spread of Americanization. American news is broadcast all around the world with stations such as Fox News, CNN and CNBC being found in many parts of the globe. The establishment of American power around the world is intrinsically linked with mass communications - how powerful would the US be if their media wasn’t thrust upon the rest of world?

Certainly, the technological revolution has greatly benefited the idea of American power spreading through the world. The fateful events of September 11th were covered in great detail in the media with American newscasters being seen all around the world. Several US newscasters were shown in different countries around the world covering their perspective of the event - generally an American perspective of the event.

Most of the world was shown the horrific events through the eyes of the American media and the American people. The generally sympathetic and concerned nature of the news coverage was spread across the world, leading many to feel the same. Whilst it can be said that people should have been feeling this anyway, there is an argument that the spread of media around the world has contributed to the global opinion of the 9/11 attacks.

There is a feeling that the 9/11 incident contributed to the Middle East/West divide and that that divide has been reinforced by media coverage of both 9/11 and the subsequent Iraq war. US news broadcasters were criticised for their overly patriotic nature of news coverage. Respected journalist Dan Rather told the BBC in 2001 that American journalist were scared of asking the real questions and risking showing the US in a bad light. The divide in opinion between the West and the Middle East has possibly been perpetuated by the media and their coverage, which has undoubtedly shaped the opinions of not only the American people but others in the Western world as well.

A website article claims that Western journalists should feel a burden of guilt for much that has happened in the Middle East as they are, in part, responsible for selling a ‘fictitious version of events’. Of course, Of course, if there was one and only one news broadcaster for the whole world, providing a neutral and impartial version of accounts, then a lot of the worlds conflict or divides wouldn’t be as bad.

The idea of ‘new media’ encompasses the development of burgeoning media technologies. It goes without saying that as new media continues to grow, the flow of news around the globe is made easier and better. Therefore, new media has helped to shape and influence the process of globalization - the world getting smaller and more in touch with itself.

Has the greater flow of media and technology perpetuated the growth of American hegemony? Arguably yes, as American media is everywhere - American news channels are seen all over the world, American websites are frequently among the most visited on the Internet and American TV shows are broadcast all around the globe.

It is not just news channels that spread the American view. American TV shows are shown all around the world and it is possible that they could be spreading American values and power. English channel E4 is a hotbed for US dramas and comedies with many shows such as Lost, Scrubs and One Tree Hill all being shown at peak times for English viewers. American values are core to these programmes and the spreading of these shows around the world can only be beneficial to the flow of American power around the world.

However, an from the New York Times in 2003 would suggest that the power of American TV is on the decline. The article suggests that American shows that would be shown in primetime viewing slots are now being shunted into late night times as the demand for them in foreign countries has lessened. The assumption is that as the actions taken by America around the time of the second Gulf war led to many people taking a negative view of the country. Thereby, the force of American culture on television declined as people no longer held the superpower in that much esteem.

Is globalization simply another form of Americanization? Globalization can be described as the process of the people in the world unifying into a single society or culture. As the spread of Americanization continues then surely this ‘single society’ is just the remnants of an American one? The notion of the world becoming a giant America is a slightly disconcerting one but one needs to ascertain just how accurate it is. Indeed, talk of the six billion people around the world all becoming one is unrealistic. New media has projected a more unified culture around the world and it is no coincidence that much of this new media, such as the Internet, has a large American backing. It is not just the internet. American exports and products are strong in the world market - one needs only look at the term ‘cocacolanization’.

However, if you look at globalization on a larger scale then there is a strong argument that it is not just America that is spreading itself around the world. You may see McDonalds restaurants in countries all around the world but you will also see food from around the world dominating the US cuisine landscape. China are the biggest users of the internet in the world, beating the likes of the US and the UK. It is not just America that is projecting itself onto the world, other countries are trying it out as well.

There is a problem with Americanization being linked with globalization. It has caused people from around the world to have negative views of America and to stereotype them. Americanization has not only created hatred towards America but has allowed people who carry this hatred to use it - through new technologies. The man behind the first World Trade Centre bombing kept all his plans for the attack on his laptop computer. Osama bin Laden ran, for a time, at least, a multinational online Jihad. Technology has allowed people to give an action to their hatred.

There is an idea that Americanization threatens the cultures and beliefs of other nations - thus leading to this dislike of the US. There are those who claim that Americanization must be stopped or dramatically lowered in order to bring a halt to the burgeoning dislike that grows with every new Starbucks built around the world.

The way the American media portrayed their involvement in the first Gulf War was a key moment in the development of American power around the world. This war was the first to be covered in such high detail. From reporters travelling with soldiers to live pictures of Baghdad being bombed, this was the first instance in the history of global conflict of a war being so graphically detailed.

This war saw a period of US journalism in which many reporters abandoned their neutrality for a sense of patriotism. Reporters were criticised for their lack of professionalism and how they were more in favour of raising public morale for the war effort. The sight of CBS’s Dan Rather shaking hands with a general after a interview at the end of the war and saying the words ‘Congratulations on a job wonderfully done!’ symbolised the cheerleading style of the American media throughout this time.

What most people had come to expect from the US press was an impartiality and a sense of not being on either side. The press were there to report what was happening in the war honestly and with no obvious sense of patriotism. Many were let down by what they felt was a disappointing viewpoint taken by their reporters. It was as if the government were spoon feeding their media outlets with what to say to the American people to keep the war going well for both the soldiers out there and the people back home, worrying.

If people around the world were to follow American news, as many did, then they too would be forced to accept what they were being told and to accept the sort of cheerleading, pro-American way of reporting. It seems that the process of Americanization lead the world into believing what America were saying. While they weren’t lying about what was happening, it was not the neutral news casting that one would hope for if there was a global audience.

Perhaps this has perpetuated the negative American view that some people across the world now hold? The legacy of the way that war was reported still lives on today. The way that subsequent conflicts are reported is tainted by the way that the media coverage of the first Gulf War was plagued with censorship and unwarranted ’flag waving’. Certainly, the second Gulf War was portrayed just as patriotically.

If people around the world with little or no information on the way a war is going, then they are likely to believe what they are told. The spread of American news broadcasters means that this is possible. America is a superpower in the world order and their economic, military and business power is of the highest order. It is only logical that their media will follow suit and try to establish itself amongst the worlds elite.

The media certainly helps this process. The growth of the internet and other new technologies can only have helped spread the American culture. American newspapers, websites, TV stations and radio channels are influential in spreading the American opinion around the globe and there can be no doubting that the growth of mass communication heavily helps the growth of American power on a global scale.

The key issue remains; what is it separates Globalization and Americanization?

There is a key difference between Globalization and Americanization. Whereas Americanization focuses more on the way that one country’s values and culture is becoming spread around,
Globalization revolves more around the world’s values all becoming homogenised into a more singular values. The idea that the cultures and ideas of the different societies in the world are slowly becoming merged together, not so much that they disappear but more so that they become more aligned with each other. Globalization is the spread of all ideas through out the world and Americanization is the effort of one country to spread its ideas, whether they be good or bad.

Longing for the days of nervous Robbo

Our columnist Mark Tilley on why error prone Gomes makes him miss Paul Robinson

When Tottenham shelled out around £7 million for Brazilian keeper Heurelho Gomes, it appeared to be an, albeit calculated, gamble. Gomes, 27, had played magnificently in helping his former team PSV Eindhoven defeat Tottenham in the UEFA Cup last year, saving two penalties into the bargain. Tall, agile and brave, fans hoped Gomes would be the keeper they had craved ever since Paul Robinson's nerves got the better of him.

How things changed. Gomes has become almost a replica version of Robinson. Yes, he makes excellent saves. Yes, you can't fault his commitment. But his propensity to make calamitous errors? It is obvious to all. Tottenham appear to have replaced an error strewn goalkeeper with a - more expensive, error strewn goalkeeper.

It all looked rosy at the start. Gomes delivered a fine performance in the 1-1 draw at Chelsea, excellently tipping over a Frank Lampard chip and claiming every high ball that went near him. From there, it went wrong. Gomes allowed a tame shot to squeeze past him against Aston Villa, a goal that pretty much gave Villa the game. Against Udinese in the UEFA Cup, Gomes suffered a rush of blood to the head and failed to clear a back pass, resulting in a yellow card, a penalty and a 1-0 deficit.

In Harry Redknapp's first game as boss, Gomes made a series of awful attempts to punch the ball clear, often colliding with his own players instead. Spurs escaped that game with a 2-0 win but the Brazilian was back at it at the Emirates as he let in four goals, missed a clearance for their first goal and generally gave his defenders a heart attack every time to ball approached him. Then on Saturday night, Gomes went from the sublime to the ridiculous, maginificently tipping Steven Gerrard's deflected shot on to a post and then a few minutes later playing a hospital pass to Ledley King which resulted in Gerrard lofting the ball on to the crossbar.

Robinson was much the same in his final season at Tottenham. He had been an outstanding keeper in his time at White Hart Lane, pulling off amazing stops, becoming a fans favourite and getting the England number one spot. However, a few minor errors got to him, mentally. The unfortunate 'back pass' incident in Croatia led to howls of derision in the press. The media and opposition fans unfairly got on his back and he never recovered. His performances were afflicted with nerves.

Gone was the confident, reliable shot stopper we had come to love. Robinson was a wreck and cost many a goal in his final season. As much as the fans loved him, it really was time for him to move on. At Blackburn, his new club, he hasn't made a noticeable error.

Gomes is now suffering from the same problem. A combination of nerves and the fear of making another error. He is without question a very capable goal keeper and the problem must be a mental one. Every goalkeeper makes errors occasionally, but the good ones make sure they don't make a habit of it.

What hope can Gomes have under Harry and for the rest of season? Redknapp has been surprisingly complimentary of his Brazilian number one, describing him as 'brave' and saying that himself and Pat Jennings, the goalkeeping coach, feel that he can be 'a big goalkeeper in this league'. One cannot avoid the rumour pages, however, and reports of a loan move for Manchester United's Ben Foster are rampant. Foster is young and talented and his possible arrival would surely force Gomes out the door.

Speculation is, however, speculation. It is likely that Redknapp will give Gomes more time to prove himself, not just to the coach and the fans, but to himself. To be a successful keeper, you cannot have the self-doubt and the nerves that Robbo had. If Gomes believes he's an excellent keeper then he can be.

However, Harry's patience cannot be everlasting and a permanent decision must be made by the New Year. Do Tottenham stick or do they twist?

(tottenhamhotspur-mad.co.uk, 2008)

No surprises at Old Trafford but UEFA cup proves more difficult for English sides

Celtics hopes of Champions League progress are hanging by a thread after a crushing defeat at the hands of Manchester United at Old Trafford. The English champions delivered a convincing display to show the gulf in class between the two sides although there were legitimate offside doubts for United first two goals. However, one could hardly complain at the result and it leaves Celtic with just one point from their first three games, six points behind both United and Villarreal.

The Bhoys were under strength and it clearly showed as both teams took the field at Old Trafford. Celtic were nursing a dismal away record in the Champions League and they never looked like improving it. That being said, the men in green and white can point to some debatable decisions for United first two goals, both netted by Dimitar Berbatov.

The first came after half an hour. Nani’s corner was flicked on by John O’Shea, into the path of Berbatov, who coolly stuck out a leg and in the ball went. However, the masses of Celtic fans were left nursing a sense of injustice, as it appeared Berbatov was heavily offside. Just after half time, there was more controversy as United doubled their lead, again through the expensive Bulgarian.

Cristiano Ronaldo’s vicious free kick was palmed away by Artur Boruc and Berbatov pounced – again from an offside position. By the time Wayne Rooney had added a fine third, Celtic were way adrift. Unlucky maybe, given the nature of the first two goals, but Celtic rarely threatened and could hardly argue at the result. They did have one or two moments to pipe up – Aiden McGeady forcing Edwin van der Sar into an early stop but this was as good as it got for the away side.

Gordon Strachan was in a generous mood afterwards, describing Man Utd as ‘the best team in Europe they have played’. He also refused to blame the officials, noting that his side were second best anyway. The travelling Celtic fans will have reflected his views. The Bhoys couldn’t have been faulted for their effort and determination but it was easy to tell which side were European champions. Sometimes, even a team’s best just isn’t good enough.

So, what now for Scotland’s sole European representative? Well, if the UEFA Cup wasn’t a priority before Tuesday night, it will most definitely be now. Celtic appear to be a in a direct battle with Aalborg for third place in the group, with both sides on a solitary point. They host Man Utd and Villarreal at Celtic Park in the next two games before a crunch match away at their direct rivals Aalborg. Celtic appear capable of securing that third place spot but they have failed to score in the group stages so far and will have to improve vastly in order to extend their European adventure this season.

Elsewhere in Europe, the English teams performed admirably. Arsenal showed great attacking strength in blasting aside Fenerbache 5-2 away in Turkey. The Gunners young guns showed great promise in a fine display and Arsenal appear set up to coast through their group. The same can be said of Chelsea, who dominated their 1-0 home win over Italian side Roma. John Terry headed home the winner in a lacklustre game in which the home side were rarely threatened. Liverpool travelled away to Athletico Madrid in arguably their toughest game and came away with a point. Robbie Keane had put the Reds in front only for Simao to equalise for Athletico late on.

The UEFA Cup didn’t represent as much success for English teams however. Tottenham suffered a disappointing 2-0 reverse at Italian side Udinese. Spurs keeper Heurelho Gomes suffered a rush of blood to the head in giving away a penalty to the home side. Jamie O’Hara was sent off for Tottenham and as the visitors pushed forward, Udinese scored on the break. Tottenham’s calamitous season continues. Things were worse for Portsmouth in Portugal as they went down 3-0 to Braga. They could hardly be blamed for the first goal – Braga’s Luis Aguiar cracking a fantastic free kick past David James but Pompey didn’t really look like getting into the game and will have to improve drastically for their next game: the massive home tie with AC Milan.

There was one ray of success for English teams as Aston Villa defeated Ajax of Holland at Villa Park. Villa were ahead through skipper Martin Laursen only to be pegged back by Thomas Vermaelen’s header. However, Gareth Barry slotted home the winner from Ashley Young’s corner to give Villa a great start to their group.

With the way things are going, Celtic could very well be joining their British counterparts in the UEFA Cup later on this season. One thing is for sure, they will need to step up, at least, a few gears.

(scotzine.com, 2008)

Who Doesn't Love a False Dawn?

So the inevitable finally happened, and Senor Ramos was given the boot. Hardly surprising, given the teams diabolical start to the league season. Ramos is obviously a talented coach but he never really sparked in England, that Carling Cup win aside. For various reasons, Ramos was unable to get the best out of his players and you always got the unnerving feeling that he was often using players he had not chosen. In summary, it was like Ramos never had full control over what he was doing.

Into the Spaniard’s place, steps Harry Redknapp. Spurs have apparently given Portsmouth £5 million in compensation and have this time avoided the shambles that took place in trying to secure Ramos’ signature, this time last year. Redknapp brings with him a great deal of experience. Often known as a ‘wheeler-dealer’ type manager, Redknapp does have a knack for plucking obscure players out of nowhere and turning them into greats.

Redknapp’s only black mark on his career was when he left Portsmouth to join bitter rivals Southampton, only for them to be relegated. He promptly returned to Pompey and has transformed them into a tough, challenging Premier League side, culminating in their FA Cup success last season.

Perhaps, what is more satisfying for Spurs fans, however, is the fact that much maligned Sporting Director Damien Comolli has also left the club – and will not be replaced. In a frank and forthright open letter to the Tottenham fans on the club website, chairman Daniel Levy spoke about this and how Tottenham have reverted to the traditional English system of management. For years, Spurs have employed a sporting director and it never seemed to pay any rich dividends. One could argue that it cost Juande Ramos his job.

Comolli’s shoddy handling of the Berbatov affair left Ramos short of strikers, a plight which eventually lead to his downfall at Tottenham. Redknapp will now be the man responsible for signing players and it is a system which makes more sense than the previous one – the manager signs the players HE wants.

Levy is an often criticised chairman. Spurs fans generally don’t like him for the businessman like way in which it appears he runs the club. But his honest views given on the Spurs website today paint the portrait of a man who may simply just want the best for his team. He may have made mistakes, but find me a chairman who hasn’t? Levy has brought Tottenham back to the way they believe the club should be run and until that policy backfires, he should be given something of a break from the barracking Tottenham hordes.

He should also be praised for his choice of managerial appointment. Redknapp has never managed a club the size of Tottenham, but he is adept at getting results for teams that desperately need it. And make no mistake, Tottenham are in severe need of points to lift themselves from the mess they find themselves in.

Should Tottenham expect the world from Redknapp? Probably no, not right away, at least. Patience is, indeed, a virtue and one that the most suffered of Spurs fans should dig deep to find. Redknapp’s priorities should be to stabilise and then to build this club back to its former glories. It may take time but Redknapp is likely more equipped than most others to do it.

It’s the start of yet another new dawn at White Hart Lane. One can only hope, for the sake of their fan's sanity, that this one provides at least a modicum of success.

Celtic ploughing a lone furrow for Scottish teams in Europe

With the awful European campaign attempted by Rangers this year and the usual failure in the UEFA Cup of Scotland’s ’second best’ sides, the sole representation is Celtic FC. And even their participation in Europe’s premier competition looks to be coming to an end at the first hurdle after a poor start to the group. A goalless draw at home to unfancied Aalborg was followed by a defeat away to Villarreal and it doesn’t get any easier for the Bhoys - they travel to Old Trafford this week to take on the English champions Manchester United.

Should Celtic fans be giving up all hope? Judging by the last time these teams played, then the answer is a resounding no. Needing a win to progress from group stage of this very tournament two years ago, Celtic took the spoils by one Shunsuke Nakamura goal and a penalty miss from Louis Saha. Given, this time out there will be no passionate Glasgow crowd to urge them on.

However, the corresponding fixture at Old Trafford still brought a modicum of Scottish success. After taking the lead, Celtic were pegged back by two Louis Saha goals only for Nakamura to bring it back at two-two with a wonderful free kick. Celtic matched their opponents for most of the game that night and were stunned by a late United winner from Ole Gunnar Solskjaer.

The writing may be on the wall already for Gordon Strachan’s men. Strachan has already conceded that Celtic have ‘a mountain to climb’ to reach the last sixteen and that preparation for the UEFA Cup may be a more realistic ambition. However, that may be easier said than done. Aalborg were a team Celtic expected to comfortably beat and they struggled. It is difficult to see the Bhoys gaining any points out of the two clashes with Man Utd. Therefore, Celtic may be faced with the task of winning their last two games in order to stay in Europe.

United surely look the classier outfit going into Tuesday’s game. Fired by the golden strike force of Carlos Tevez, Dimitar Berbatov, Cristiano Ronaldo and the in-form Wayne Rooney, United appear capable of scoring at will. Their defence has rapidly improved since that cold night in Glasgow two years ago and Celtic will have to work tirelessly to break them down.

The game has also been marred by events from last season’s UEFA Cup final, in which Rangers were defeated by Zenit St Petersburg. Over 100,000 Rangers fans made their way south of the border to Manchester and the ensuing trouble on the streets after the game made for ugly reading. Now, ticketless Celtic fans are being told to stay at home in an effort to prevent the possibility of scenes witnessed last May.

With the form Utd are in however, there shouldn’t be that much motivation for Celtic’s fans to stream southwards.

Where Scotland have just the one team involved in Europe this year, England have plenty. Arsenal will hope to build on their good result against Porto but may find it tricky away in Turkey to Fenerbache. Liverpool face a hard evening when they travel to the Spanish capital to play Athletico Madrid. Fernando Torres will miss the game with his old team due to injury and Liverpool will face their toughest European challenge yet this season. Chelsea face Roma at home and will need a victory after the poor draw away to Cluj.

Three English team will play in the UEFA Cup this week with Aston Villa hosting Ajax as the showpiece game. Ajax are no longer the force they once were but Villa will be taking nothing for granted and will be going all out to secure the three points. Tottenham travel to Italy to face Udinese, in arguably their toughest match of the group. Spurs are in poor form and will hope to use the UEFA Cup as a springboard to kickstart their season. Portsmouth face Braga away in Portgual, having narrowly beaten Braga’s compatriots Guimaraes in qualifying.

All in all, it appears to be a decisive week for British teams in Europe.

The above article was written by our new Champions League/UEFA Cup Blogger Mark Tilley

(article for www.scotzine.com)

Europe a haven from domestic turmoil?

Columnist Mark Tilley on his hopes for the crunch tie in Krakow

If there's one thing that can console the most suffering of all Tottenham fans, it's a European night. Throughout the stuttering starts of the last few seasons, the early UEFA Cup games generally are a great release for fans and players alike. So, as Juande Ramos takes his battle hardened troops to Poland for the second leg against Wisla Krakow with a slim advantage, should Spurs fans be expecting triumph? And what could and should befall Ramos if the worst happens?

Recent rumblings in the media point to Ramos being on the edge of the managerial comfort zone, or at least dangerously close to it. The disenchanted cries from Tottenham fans at Portsmouth (they chanted 'you don't know what you're doing' towards the Spurs bench) on Sunday do indicate a growing lack of faith in the Spaniard. The main concerns are his apparent inability to settle on a best eleven. His insistence on playing just the one striker continues to baffle as it is crystal clear that neither Darren Bent or Roman Pavyluchenko are capable of playing in such an isolated role.

Both strikers also appear to be suffering from a lack of confidence - one assumes that this will subside with a goal or two but time isn't on their side. Also, Ramos appears to have little or no faith in Frazier Campbell, the last minute makeweight in the Berbatov transfer fiasco. Campbell came on to good effect in the first leg and set up Darren Bent's winner but has been sparsely used by Ramos. Surely two of these three strikers should be played in unison?

With consistency being something of a buzz word in sport these days, one could point an accusatory finger at Ramos. Much like fellow Spanish boss Rafael Benitez, Ramos has chopped and changed his team all season to the point where no team selection has played more than one game consecutively. Ledley King's ongoing injury concerns do allow for some leniency but the continuous rotation of the full backs is a mystery. One game it could be Benoit Assou Ekotto on the left, the next it could be Gareth Bale. One game Vedran Corluka could line up on the right, only to have Chris Gunter playing the next match.

Another large concern with fans is the apparent prioritisation of the UEFA Cup by Ramos and the Tottenham coaching staff. Key players have been rested for important Premier League games with the full intention of playing them in Europe. Ledley King was not played at Portsmouth yet is likely to lead the team out in Krakow on Thursday. Whilst trying to win a continental competition is very admirable - Spurs appear the best qualified to do it out of England's other UEFA Cup representatives - nine out of ten fans would prefer progress in the league.

Surely the financial gains and the appeal of confirming our status as the fifth best team in England are more motivating? Given the choice, most fans would probably want to avoid the ignominy of seeing Tottenham neatly sandwiched in the middle of the table alongside the likes of West Ham and Middlesbrough. If Ramos really wants to win the UEFA Cup, as he did twice with Sevilla, then fine. But neglecting the Premiership to appease this plan would be a fatal mistake.

For the time being Ramos is under the spotlight. Tottenham should beat Wisla Krakow - they hold a two one advantage and Wisla's away goal shouldn't really pose a problem as Tottenham should be able to outplay them. But taking their eye off the ball and messing it up could mean disaster for these beleaguered players. Not to mention their coach.

(article for www.tottenhamhotspur-mad.co.uk)