Grounded Wingman

It seems simplistic but surely any team, particularly an international one (due to the limitations on player and coaching time), should begin by having a defined philosophy and a strong leader. Take the Germans as an example. Klinsmann chose how he wanted to play, and stuck to his principles, even if it involved upsetting big name players. Low has done similar since replacing him. Spain chose their way of playing and Aragones also stuck to his principles, with his replacement (Del Bosque) doing the same. Klinsmann and Aragones are both strong characters, so that helped as they shaped the redefinition of their teams. Their replacements were a little less charismatic, but just continued the work that had already begun. I'm not sure that Hodgson is strong enough to do that for England, and nobody talks about defining how England play - just who should play. There is also the fact the England don't really have a plan how to win, meaning victories against teams of a similar level are more by luck than judgement.

Not if Madrid play their usual game. The standard Madrid transfer tactic is to noise up the player, try to get him to spit the dummy and refuse to play, so they can swoop in near deadline day and pick him up cheaply (all while reminding the world what a classy club they are). I'm fairly certain that Suarez would play his part in those shenanigans, so the question is whether Liverpool's board have the stones to say no to a fee of around £30m for a player who would refuse to play if he is made to stay, and let him rot for the remainder of his contract. Moneyball/Soccernomics says they won't.

It's on Sky Sports 1

I'm not blaming the problems of Scottish football on the non Old Firm clubs. In fact, it'll be interesting to see how Celtic react to any SPL re-structure proposals without the Old Firm buddy system to help them manipulate the 11-1 voting nonsense, for a few years at least. I know that Killie lost some good players to Rangers over the years (Boyd, Naismith). Hell, I remember when Saintees lost Momo Sylla to Celtic a number of years back, pretty much because he played a blinder when we beat Rangers, but clubs can still put good teams together, and Neil Lennon hasn't done much shopping in Scotland for players since he took charge. I remember, in my younger days, thinking that if a team can put together a squad that can beat the 9 non Old Firm clubs most of the time then they'd be challenging for the title regardless of results against Rangers or Celtic. The cups have been good, because Rangers and Celtic have been getting worse over time (it's not as if Larsson and Laudrup quality players are in Scotland anymore). That means there is all the more reason to believe you can beat them. I just think some clubs should extend that belief beyond one off games and into the league overall. Also - it's not clubs like Motherwell, Kilmarnock, St Mirren and St Johnstone that need to take a look at themselves. It's clubs like Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs.

It would help if the other teams had the ambition to win it - from what I've heard this week they are all saying that Rangers' demise means they can aim to finish 2nd now. It's part of Scottish football's problem - clubs just aiming to be the 'best of the rest' in the league, and the national team happy to lose as long as they don't get embarrassed and the fans can have a party. In recent years the likes of Aberdeen, Motherwell and Hearts and have almost run themselves into the ground trying to get on a par with Rangers Celtic. It's hardly a lack of ambition. It's a lack of means. I understand your point, but I don't think the clubs have used their means well enough anyway and, apart from Hearts for one season, none of the 3 teams mentioned talked of themselves as title challengers. Logically, Celtic and Rangers can offer more money to buy players from clubs and more wages to entice them, but they can only play eleven players at a time, and let's not kid ourselves into thinking that either side has been awash with top class individuals in recent years. Hearts proved that a title challenge is achievable, before Burley left. You can see in other leagues that they are not always won by the richest sides. Montpellier won the French league last year, AZ and Twente have recently won the Eredivisie, Wolfsburg and Stuttgart the Bundesliga. Even in the less rich leagues - Molde, Stabaek and Brann have won in Norway, when common sense dictates that Rosenborg should walk that league. Genk won the Belgian league ahead of Anderlecht, Club Brugges and Standard Liege. Bursaspor won the Turkish league in 2010. I just think that the first step into making something possible is to believe that it's possible. That doesn't mean living outwith your economic capabilities, it just means maximizing them and daring to aim big.

It would help if the other teams had the ambition to win it - from what I've heard this week they are all saying that Rangers' demise means they can aim to finish 2nd now. It's part of Scottish football's problem - clubs just aiming to be the 'best of the rest' in the league, and the national team happy to lose as long as they don't get embarrassed and the fans can have a party.

I'm sure I read that Lille signed Marvin Martin from Sochaux for €10M, which is a good bit of business for them.

Just announced that England will play Scotland in August 2013, as part of the FA's 150th anniversary celebrations.

He'd struggle to be worse than Rosenborg was in the first game.

Rangers need 7 of the other 11 clubs to vote them in and, as I've said before, the clubs will vote them in for purely financial reasons (both tv deal and higher gate receipts). The 11 SPL clubs won't do what's best for the game, and certainly won't feel they have responsibility beyond protecting their own interests. Hell, those in charge of the game won't do what's best for it - they'd rather sit in their closed shop/old boys club and line their pockets, so why should the clubs be any different?

What odds on Everton going for Howard Kendall?

I'd definitely want to strengthen the West Ham midfield, and Elia and Krasic, whilst out of Big Sam's range you'd assume, would give better movement on the counter. Insanely quick, can take on men and are willing to drop back (usually) to help give the midfield more numbers and better solidarity. I did love the rumour that Big Sam is only after Elia and Krasic because Wolves have turned down bids for Jarvis and Kightly. It's a bit weird when your back up transfer options are significantly better than your first choice ones.

He won't go to the Middle East. I just can't see him and Kevin Bond travelling from Sandbanks to Qatar, and back, every day.

Daniel Levy just needs to turn up on Sky Sports News claiming he's not wanting to talk about the rumours, but that David Moyes is a terrific manager and he'd love to have him at Tottenham, but he doesn't want to be accused of tapping him up.

I think he just fits in a group of senior players at some clubs where they seem to be all powerful. Sort of player/manager/chief executive/referee hybrids - Liverpool have Carragher and Gerrard, Man Utd had Gary Neville and Roy Keane, Chelsea have Cole and Terry with Lampard lumped in as well.