City's 'kamikaze' spending not so crazy
Posted on 23/08/2010Manchester City's summer spending spree has come under fire in recent weeks, but bucking the trend, Martin Samuel in The Daily Mail believes City may not be as silly as they appear.
Kamikaze spending, Sir Alex Ferguson called it, in one of those soundbites destined to pass into history judging by how widely it has been quoted this week. Yet what else are Manchester City to do? It is not their fault that a club with ambition has to approach the transfer market on the divine wind.A ticking clock counts down the minutes to the end of this transfer window on the sports news channel, but there is a Doomsday scenario extending beyond that.
The next window, in January, is the last that will not feel the impact of the financial regulations imposed by Michel Platini, the UEFA president. By the time of the following financial year, April 2011 to April 2012, clubs must start to reduce losses and while there are four more seasons before the regulations properly take hold, the rules are complex and incorporate retrospective calculation.In simple terms, after this year, all transfers will contribute in some way to UEFA's reckoning. City may not be getting the greatest value for money right now, but if there is an element of Supermarket Sweep about their behaviour, that is because Platini's legislation makes it now or never for big spenders.
The elite clubs, like Ferguson's Manchester United, can sit pretty knowing that once the controls are in place they will always have the largest budgets. It is the likes of City, desperately scrambling to get through the door before it shuts, who have been condemned to spend, spend, spend.
So, of course, the policy appears irrational. City have paid as much for James Milner, who had an erratic World Cup, as Real Madrid did combined for Mesut Ozil and Sami Khedira of Germany, two of the revelations of the tournament.
David Silva, who could not make the Spanish team, has come in at a price not far behind David Villa, arguably the most talented striker in the world. Yaya Toure cost £24million, at a time when Inter Milan have balked at paying a similar price for a better holding midfield player - the captain of Argentina, Javier Mascherano of Liverpool.
Manchester City's total transfer bill since Sheik Mansour's arrival is over £350m, but why the surprise? The moment Platini made his flawed theories a reality, there was always going to be a reckless, lastminute scramble. By spending now, City no doubt hope to buck the system, assembling a powerful squad and achieving success before it becomes almost impossible for the little guy to get ahead.
Depending on how City manage the accounts, there could be an even greater advantage. Transfer expenditure is listed in one of two ways: as an outgoing lump sum, or with the fee spread over the years of the contract. So payment for Milner could be shown as £24m now or, for instance, £4.8m over five years, a process known as amortisation.
If City choose this option, some of Milner's transfer money will eventually be part of UEFA's calculation of City's budget; but put wholly into this year's accounts will fall outside UEFA's remit. Then, if Milner is later sold, the fee received counts as money coming into the club and helps increase the size of the budget. City's owners, unlike most rivals, actually have the capital to do this. They may not be as silly as they look.
It is easy to mock City's pretensions and excesses, but harsh to hold them solely responsible. Yes, even without Platini's new rules they would have spent big in the hope of entering the Champions League next season; but the utter abandon of their activity this summer is another gift to football from UEFA.Platini has been let off the hook repeatedly in interviews when asked how he is going to maintain competition and mobility while limiting the investment potential of ambitious smaller clubs. He has been allowed to blather that it is something UEFA will look at.
In doing so, he is carving out football's equivalent of the policy in Iraq: a hugely significant decision with no thought given to its consequences. Indeed, by forcing a club such as City into ever greater short-term spirals of recklessness and financial aggression, Platini hasn't even considered the potential for damage in the prelude, let alone the aftermath.
Solid as a cardboard castle
Meanwhile, following England's first Test defeat of the summer, the post mortem will begin looking into England's batting collapse. Simon Hughes in The Telegraph considers the team's batting frailties.
When the ball moves off the straight they are about as solid as a cardboard castle. The facts speak for themselves. Discounting the Tests against Bangladesh, England have made only one total of 400-plus since July last year. That is 19 innings against Australia, South Africa and Pakistan with only one imposing total – 574 for nine declared in Durban – to show for all their collective endeavour. Those statistics explain in a nutshell why England continue to prefer six specialist batsmen in the team.In a way this is an admission of the flaws of modern batsmanship. Few players in the world are equipped to deal with the ball when it swings. Flat pitches and a dearth of top-class fast bowling has spawned a generation of batsmen who think attack first and defence second. A ball is an opportunity, not a threat. There is nothing wrong with this overall principle and it keeps the game entertaining. But there is a time and a place for it.
This muggy summer, batsmen have needed to be more adaptable. In conditions good for swing bowling with a batch of Duke balls that bend to the bowler's persuasion, a batsman has to be more flexible. But some of England's batting methods are too rigid. Those who automatically stride forward to meet the ball on the rise (Kevin Pietersen) or play predominantly from the crease (Andrew Strauss, Paul Collingwood) look fallible.
In England's last 10 innings against decent attacks (two Tests against South Africa and three against Pakistan) the top six batsmen have been dismissed caught off the edge 31 times (either by the keeper or in the slip cordon). That is a very high proportion of the 55 dismissals in total. It would have been worse if Pakistan hadn't dropped a dozen catches at Edgbaston. English bats are drawn to the moving ball like the proverbial moth to light.
Of course, it is ridiculous to expect players with excellent overall records to change their game-plans completely. Strauss can't suddenly bat like John Edrich or Pietersen like Geoff Boycott. Please no! But Alastair Cook's excellent hundred on Friday was instructive. His lead boots were left in the dressing room and instead he wore well, if not quite ballet shoes, then at least plimsolls. He moved his feet smartly to the pitch of the ball, getting properly forward if it was full. He bent his front knee. It got him in excellent positions not only to defend but also to score.
That is crucial. Batting is not a stonewalling exercise. Runs are the name of the game. Throughout his innings Cook had positive intent. This doesn't mean big booming drives or slashes at anything wide. It means looking busy, with neat pushes for a single, clips for two, the odd crisp drive and general purpose to stop the bowler building up pressure. A batsman can be busy without being reckless. Matt Prior has proved that. In the three Pakistan Tests he and Jonathan Trott have been England's best players, striding well forward to defend or drive, but also moving decisively back if the ball is shorter, using the depth of the crease rather than being stuck on it.
England have proved themselves ingenious at finding new ways to practice.
The most recent innovation is using one of those plastic throwing sticks used for dogs to propel the ball at the batsman, increasing the height and velocity of the delivery (and saving the batting coach Graham Gooch's throwing arm). It is brilliant for increasing reaction speeds. What they need to find this week in the lead-up to Lord's is something more subtle: a way of practising against a ball at a more moderate speed that swings late in flight. It requires assertive foot movement but playing the good length ball a tad later so that the edge, if taken, tends to go down.
England should take a leaf out of Mohammad Yousuf's manual. Be deft rather than daring. A thick edge for four that trickles over the line may not look or feel as impressive as an imperious drive on the up that thwacks into the fence but it counts the same and drives the bowler nuts. The Atherton-like squirt through gully has become a lost art. Now is the time to remember the old Australian mantra – it's not how, it's how many.