England Again... It Didn't Take Long

As I start to write this I only intend it to be a short blog, so we'll see how that goes. The reason it's short is because I didn't get to properly watch the England v Norway game tonight as I was working, but I got the gist of what was going on from what I saw.

As some of you may have seen, I have written a few blogs about England over the past few months, and as expected tonight just proved that whilst there is great talk of change and building for the future and all that sort of stuff, nothing has actually changed.

Under Roy Hodgson England are still far too defensive. They're still playing a 4-2-3-1 formation. And most annoyingly, they're still accommodating Wayne Rooney. Worse than that, they've even made him captain. I've said on many occasions that right now in football to be a top team it is integral that you are playing two strikers. I've said it about Liverpool that it's not even that important who they are, as long as you are playing two. People argue in Rooney's favour saying that he is not being played as a striker and that's why he's not performing, but in all honesty that doesn't even matter. Rooney can not play that strikers role anyway. Rooney's game, as I've said many times before, consists solely of dropping deep to get the ball, playing a long diagonal ball to the wing, then getting in the box for a cross. That's all he does.

I'm not saying that Rooney was not, at one time, a good striker. I am not saying that Rooney was not, at one time, a good player. But now that his game consists solely of dropping deep to get the ball, playing a long diagonal ball to the wing, then getting in the box for a cross, he is not good enough to play for England. Players have to adapt their game as they get older, just look at Steven Gerrard having to become a holding midfielder for Liverpool, but the way Rooney has developed his game into what it is today there is no way he can be adapted to fit the team. He can not play as a striker, and there are better players than him in midfield who would have to miss out just to accommodate him in that position. Doing what Rooney does now he is nowhere near the best player in the England squad in his position. Rooney is average and a lot of players can do what he does. Someone like Joey Barton could do what Rooney is doing now and do it just as well.

Sticking with Rooney is just moronic, and the view some fans have is detrimental to the national team, believing Rooney deserves his place in the team based on the chance he may do something special, even though there's no evidence to suggest he will. As I said, Rooney's game has changed now he's got older and to believe he may somehow become the player he was in 2004 is just stupid. Especially picking him for a team, actually accommodating him in a team and leaving out other players for him.

As I said on twitter tonight, people are still clinging on to the idea that Rooney is a good player. England is clinging on to the idea that Rooney is a good player. And this is what is stopping them from moving forward.

Football Fight Club

Football Fight Club was the latest BBC documentary to tackle the age old issue of violence at football matches. This subject is an easy way to get views, the majority of the country likes football, and they live in fear of violence. Put the two together and you'll spark most people's interest. For me, the whole culture around football is something I'm very interested in, and I did in fact do my dissertation in uni on the portrayal of football violence in the media. However, this programme was a piss take, so don't be expecting a dissertation. If you've read my previous blogs (and if you haven't, why not?) expect it to be more like that.

BBC have added their own twist to this latest hooligan hurrah, they will apparently be focusing on a new breed of football hooligan. These twats:

For lads who are involved in something illegal they don't half spend a lot of time taking photos of themselves in this programme. Like with most mainstream coverage of football hooliganism, this documentary uses footage of random riots that can be found on the internet to intersect clips they've filmed of the main subjects of the documentary, to create the illusion that this violence is happening with these people on a much more widespread basis than it actually is. 

If you were watching this and didn't know anything about football or the culture surrounding it, you would have a completely false view of what actually happens. According to this, Manchester City's "reputation has been maimed by their youth hooligan firm." That's bollocks like. I'm not sure if the "firm" who are the main subjects of this documentary are actually real. Their "youth" firm is ran by Carl, 24, who by the looks of things had a tough fucking paper round:

And you know how I was saying that they don't seem real, well this photo here is not a picture of a real group of people going the match: 

Now don't get me wrong, I love all the original casuals clobber, it looks great in the film The Firm, but people don't go the match dressed like this any more. People definitely don't turn up to scraps dressed like this. I mean, look at the fella on the right, he's wearing blue 1980s shorts. He's not involved in any scraps him.

That's not the worst of it though. We haven't found out what the name of the firm is yet. What name could they possibly give to this firm of hooligans that are maiming Manchester City's good name with all their acts of violence?.. The Blazing Squad. The fucking Blazing Squad. Do they not know that The Blazing Squad were a group of wannabe English rappers who had a few hits a decade ago, and who's most famous member was called Kenzie and he was on Big Brother? 

Blazin's Squad fo lyf

On second thought, when you compare the two pictures maybe they were aware of the Blazing Squad and named themselves after them. Next we'll be hearing about their biggest rival firm, the Bolton Boyzone.

We get to meet the boys from the Blazing Squad trying to look all mean and that:

They all joined up when they were 16, so maybe they are unaware of the original Blazing Squad that they're embarrassingly named after. I think the fella at the bottom is unaware of the Fonejacker as well, because his outfit is a ringer for him:

"Hello, is that West Ham?"

If you don't get the "Hello, is that West Ham?" reference it will all become clear later in the blog. Back to that earlier photo though, get on the fella holding the nightstick he bought off ebay. I reckon that nightstick has been used for more photos than it has for fights. They all go on about how they hide on the estate then attack the away fans, which just doesn't happen these days. For this entire documentary, the lads in it just repeat stuff they've read in old hooligan books. They're living a fantasy, with old hooligan autobiographies as their bible.

In Bury... the girls dress like this:

"In Bury..." is genuinely what the narrator is saying when this shot is on the screen, and is possibly the only part of the show that has comedic intentions. Anyway, what's actually happening in Bury is that the Bury boys are preparing to face their biggest rivals, York City. I don't think they'll have much to worry about though, because judging by this photo York's main firm are the Yorkshire Building Society:

I genuinely reckon them lads meant to buy an England flag but got that one by mistake. Either the England flag's were sold out or they saw that one and thought it actually was an England flag with a sick red hand symbol on it.

The inevitable happens next. They move on to talk about fashion. I think there's like a template for any documentary, or film for that matter, about football hooliganism. You focus on the individual young lads who've been drawn in by the firm, you create the big rivalry, you talk about the fashion, the big rivalry fight happens. The boys in the Football Fight Club are all into their Adidas Gazelle's:

Football and fashion have been very importantly linked over the years, but in this show they've got the reasons why all mixed up. Don't get me wrong, I like Gazelle's but the only reason these lads are wearing them is because they've read some old hooligans book and he's said he only ever wore Gazelle's. The thing is though, he was wearing them in 1980 when he probably only had a choice between them, Stan Smith's and Samba Super's. The whole link between football and fashion has been about innovation. It was about lads turning up at places across the country wearing trainers, jeans and wedge haircuts, being confronted by fellas in boots with a skinhead, who'd laugh at them, then a year later be wearing the same thing they were the year before. It's not about flicking through a sale rack looking for something made by Stone Island for no other reason than the fact it's made by Stone Island.

Wearing stuff you've read about in an old book or, as with the picture earlier, trying to look like you're in the film The Firm, isn't what football fashion is all about. I don't know, maybe innovating terrace wear is just a Liverpool thing.

Anyway, that rant over... now we meet Dante from Tottenham's firm. As Carl so eloquently puts it "he's the Yid's main kid." Tottenham's youth firm are called The Yid Army (we can't call them it, but they can call themselves it) which is definitely an improvement on The Blazing Squad. Carl is friends with Dante on Facebook. Here's a tip for the police, if you want to catch Britain's top football hooligans, just have a look on Carl's Facebook, he's probably friends with them. We should all have a look at Carl's Facebook actually:

Works at Blazing Squad Manchester. Works. At. Blazing. Squad. Manchester. And they thought you couldn't get any worse than "Works at full time mummy". I seriously hope that because of that job description Carl is always getting messages off places like Popworld thinking he's a member of the actual Blazing Squad asking him to do personal appearances. 

Next we meet one of the younger lads, Aaron, who comes out with the immortal line "It's like going to a theme park but it's free... and it's ten times better." Best description of fighting I ever heard. However, even though were halfway through a show about lads who love to fight we're actually yet to see a fight. Even when the boys have arranged to go on their own away day for the sole purpose of meeting up to have a fight, they decide they don't want the BBC cameras to go with them. So essentially the lads were just going to fight, it has nothing to do with football. And the BBC didn't film it anyway, some documentary on football hooligan's this.

Have you ever been to Alton Towers though Aaron?

When we go back to Dante we find out that he's stopped going to football. Some documentary on football hooligans this is turning out to be. So far we've got a group of lads who travel to different parts of the country when there isn't a match on, and have fights with people that are totally unrelated to football that the BBC aren't allowed to film anyway, and a firm leader who doesn't actually go the game or get involved with violence any more. It appears all Dante does now is take part in workouts that resemble a Rocky montage:

I'll be disappointed if he wasn't listening to Hearts On Fire on his ipod there.

They start to build towards the climax of the show now. It seems that they're going to finish with a big fight between the City boys and West Ham. After talking about how many lads are going to be there for it, and showing the West Ham fans arriving at the stadium, we get the major anti-climax of Aaron on the phone miles from the ground arranging a four on four fight:

And now the reference I made earlier should become clear. It may not have been the climax we were hoping for, but this really did provide the highlight of the show. I could use some of the jokes that were going round on twitter as my own here, but it would be better if I just showed them in their original form. 

I think it's quite important to show that the main thing to come out of this documentary was a joke about a lad phoning West Ham, because that's all the show was, a joke. As you can imagine, like with every bit of promised violence in this show the fight with West Ham doesn't occur, the lads just spend the next few minutes driving round a rain soaked Manchester in a little Peugeot doing nothing. They question why the West Ham lads don't show up for the fight, but I imagine it probably has something to do with the fact they've been told that the Blazing Squad are bringing a BBC camera crew to an illegal arranged brawl.

Apart from a pretty gay scene where Carl and Dante walk together along a canal, the documentary is pretty much over. We find out what the boys are up to now. Aaron has joined the army, probably because he's realised he's going to appear on national television organising football hooliganism so it was either that or prison. And the ultimate cliche... Carl is bringing out a book... about The Blazing Squad...

Ironic, the man who's life is based on football hooligan autobiography is writing his own football hooligan autobiography. So, if all the football hooligan books that are already out there aren't good enough for you - you know, the ones set in a time when football hooliganism was actually happening, involving full blown street riots and people getting stabbed - you can buy Carl's book, about trying and failing to arrange four vs four fights with West Ham and roaming the streets of Manchester in the rain and never actually getting involved in any football hooliganism.

@adamheath

England: The Future's Grim

Whilst the English are currently getting all emotionally confused about their World Cup exit, directing all their anger at Luis Suarez for an incident that didn't even effect them, I'm just going to point out some of the issues that I feel led to England's worst World Cup since 1958. This is the third blog I've written about England and this World Cup now, it's a hatrick, a trilogy, and like England matches in the World Cup, I'm doing three and I'm out. This blog sort of continues on from the last one, so if you want to read the previous blogs the links are below.

Rooney. England. Stuff...

England and the World Cup

I'll just start out by pointing out three teams who are excelling at this World Cup; France, Argentina and Colombia. The reason I mention these teams is because they are all performing well despite missing their top players. France left Samir Nasri out of the squad, Argentina left Carlos Tevez out the squad, and Radamal Falcao was forced to miss the tournament through injury. The English could not understand before the tournament the cases with France and Argentina, because as I mentioned in my last blog the English always think it's necessary to play the biggest names rather than the best teams. Samir Nasri didn't fit the team, so he was left out the squad. Carlos Tevez didn't fit the team, so he was left out the squad. Wayne Rooney didn't do anything playing on the left, so England moved their best player out to the right so Rooney could play in the middle. And still be ineffective.

"Left out of the squad friend"

It takes four years to make up for World Cup mistakes, and unfortunately England are now facing that four year wait. For me there is no argument with England to stick with tried and tested players, because these players have never won anything. In the case of Colombia, without Falcao, James Rodriguez has stepped up to the plate and been a revelation at this tournament. Okay, he wasn't exactly unknown, but if Falcao was fit no one would be talking about him. If England would have done what was necessary, and dropped Rooney from the team, Ross Barkley or Raheem Sterling could have been their James Rodriguez. I said it in my last blog, the World Cup is not the time to play it safe, it's the time to take risks. It lasts one month, and then it's gone for four years.

James Rodriguez scoring the goal of the tournament

After giving three examples of teams who have done well at the World Cup without star names, I'll give you an example of three clubs who went out in the group stages: Spain, England and Portugal. And all three of them have the same issue, not knowing when it's time to move on. You can let Spain off, because their players are proven winners, but England had no excuse. The fact the English are even blaming not taking Ashley Cole and not taking John Terry for their failure just shows that things are unlikely to ever change as well, hence the title of this blog.

The other issue I have with that is that I feel England did not under perform at the World Cup because of their defence, they lost games because of their attack. Like Spain and Portugal, England stuck religiously to a 4-2-3-1 formation. This formation is just a defensive managers way of disguising a defensive system as an attacking one. Roy Hodgson is a defensive manager, and he only plays one attacker. Even in the must win game against Uruguay, Hodgson didn't bring on a second striker until the 87th minute. Every substitution Hodgson made at the World Cup was a like for like, in the sense it was one player off and his replacement played in exactly the same position. He can't change a game as he only has one way of playing, but he can always use the reasoning that he played four attackers because of that formation. But 4-2-3-1 just doesn't work like that, the majority of the time Daniel Sturridge was isolated up front. The only game England looked remotely dangerous in was against Italy when Sterling was playing in the middle of the attacking three, and that's just because he's that good, and also his pace meant England could counter attack, which is one of the very few weapons a defensive team has. England were at their very best in the tournament when Sterling and Ross Barkley were both on the pitch against Italy. And that was as brave as Hodgson got, he went back to his defensive ways against Uruguay.

The future

And somehow Roy Hodgson has managed to keep his job. He's lucky, because he's pretty much guaranteed to qualify for Euro 2016 because the amount of teams in the tournament has been extended, so that will buy him some time. But I still think England will only qualify in third place after a play-off. Will England win Euro 2016 though? Not a chance, I imagine they will struggle to get out the group again. And what will the future hold then? Well in four years time I'll probably be writing a new blog about England, writing about how they failed so miserably at Russia 2018, with Rooney as captain.

@adamheath

Suarez In Context

I've seen a lot of people wondering why the Uruguayan FA are so upset about the Suarez decision. Well it's because the Uruguayan's look at the incident in the context of the game of football and not with the sensationalist and agenda driven attitude of the English.

Suarez biting someone is terrible, but the punishment he received is far inflated from anything else that has happened recently in football, and Uruguay can see this. For example, a few seasons ago Pepe of Real Madrid and Portugal kicked another player in anger whilst he was on the floor. At this World Cup Pepe head butted another player. Pepe's punishment was a one match regular red card ban. If previous behaviour is a grounds for Suarez to receive such a punishment, why is the same campaign for suspension not being launched by the English against Pepe? Is kicking someone on the floor and head butting someone not as bad as biting them? Of course, if Pepe had scored two goals to knock out England then head butted someone in the next game, it might have been...

Likewise, Pepe plays for Real Madrid, but no one is telling Madrid they should sell him because of his behaviour. But Real Madrid wouldn't do that anyway, because they're the biggest football club in the world, and they don't sell their players due to public pressure. Especially not pressure from fans of other teams and outside media.

As a Liverpool fan, it kills me to say this, but probably the second biggest football club in the world is Manchester United. Manchester United have had players who were victims of similar media campaigns as Luis Suarez. In the 2006 world cup, Cristiano Ronaldo got Rooney sent off and then winked. This wink, like Suarez bite, was given far more importance than it should have by the English media, and Ronaldo became the subject of a hate campaign with the English media blaming him for the country's exit from the competition. United were being told to sell Ronaldo, the press were reporting that Rooney and Ronaldo would never play together again. But did United buckle under this media pressure? No. Because they're one of the biggest clubs in the world and they don't sell their best players. United rode the storm and kept hold of Ronaldo, Rooney didn't have a problem with playing with him, and he went on to win a few league titles and the European cup with them before being sold for an £80mil record transfer fee.

This isn't the only time United have stuck by players who have brought controversy to the club. They stuck by Cantona when he was banned for karate kicking a fan, and went on to win the double with him. They stuck by Ferdinand when he had a nine month ban for missing a drugs test and he went on to win a fair few league titles and the European Cup with them. They stuck by David Beckham when he was blamed for England's World Cup exit in 1998 after kicking out at Diego Simeone and we all know how he turned out. The biggest clubs don't sell their best players.

Speaking of the David Beckham incident in 1998, this brings me on nicely to my next point. The English always need a scapegoat. However, at this World Cup, there's no one to blame for their terrible performance. There's no sly Portugese who got England's star man sent off, there's no young, stupid boy who got himself sent off in a moment of madness, there's no missed penalties or goalkeeping mistakes. And then what happens, the man who scored the two goals that knocked England out the tournament goes and bites someone. We haven't got a scapegoat so lets put all the attention on that.

The English love a villain. England is the only footballing country in the world that still considers Maradona a villain, and they will even turn on their own as in the case of David Beckham. The Suarez biting incident took place in a game didn't even effect England, yet they're the only ones who are outraged. Even the Italians aren't bothered, because like the Uruguayan's they view what Suarez did in the context of football. Getting Suarez to do what he did is the Italians speciality. In the 2006 World Cup final Zinedine Zidane was pulling the strings, so what do the Italians do? Wind him up until he flips, then capitalise by beating a Zidaneless France. And now in 2014, down to ten men themselves, the Italians pin point Uruguay's biggest threat and get him to lose it. Unfortunately (for them) the ref didn't see it, so they couldn't capitalise against ten men. 

In England, the incident has now been blown out of all proportion. People calling for life bans and the like. As the title of this blog mentions context, well let me give you some: On the BBC news tonight the top three stories were Jimmy Savile for years of paedophilia, Rebekah Brooks for phone hacking, and Suarez for biting. This is supposed to be the pinnacle of British journalism.

Liverpool, yet again, just have to ride the storm with Suarez. There's a fine line between genius and madness, and we have to accept that. Anyone who wants to sell him because of this, well people were saying the same after the last biting incident, but it didn't stop them celebrating his goals that took us to our best Premier League finish in years. People who think they're taking the big club attitude by saying "no one man is bigger than the club" are wrong, the big club attitude is that you don't sell your best players, and you don't bow to media pressure. When you do what the media want you to do, you end up with Roy Hodgson as your manager. And believe me, if we were to sell Suarez, the rest of the country and it's media would just see it as a victory for themselves. And fickle as they are, if we sold Suarez and he started banging them in somewhere else, we'd be getting slated for letting him go.

So Liverpool fans, if you're reading this, don't listen to what fans of other clubs are saying, because if it was announced they're club was signing Suarez they'd soon change their mind on him. They're all just jealous. And John Henry, if you're reading this (which I'm sure you are) now wouldn't be a bad time to come out and say Suarez isn't going anywhere, because it would settle the situation, and it would just be hilarious to see the media crying over it. All the best.

@adamheath

Suarez... Again

Yes, again. It does get annoying, always having to talk about negative things Suarez has done. But I do feel some perspective is needed.

Straight off I will say this isn't a defence. Biting someone is wrong, not in football, not anywhere. He shouldn't have done it, simple as, and he should be punished for it. But I feel there's been an overreaction, and I can't understand the campaign to get Suarez a massive ban.

Last night I posted this tweet. I'll go into more detail about what I meant by it here, because it's hard to explain on twitter:

The way I see it, biting is not a problem in football. Suarez has done it three times, no one else has done it, no one is copying him. Biting isn't a trend that's sweeping across football. The outcome of a football match has never been effected by someone being bitten. When I heard Suarez had bitten Chiellini I didn't think "Italy have been cheated" or "this has ruined the world cup" I just thought "what an idiot he's going to get banned again."

During every match at this World Cup, players are diving, play acting, trying to get opposition players sent off. Basically cheating. Stuff like this, that annoys me more than Suarez biting someone. That ruins the game that I love. Yet no one seems to be bothered about this. If the same vendetta went into getting players banned for stuff like this as it has for Suarez biting we could improve the game of football as a whole.

Banning Suarez for two years or something like that will not improve the game. The game will still be the same because biting isn't an issue in football. There are more important things in my opinion. The only thing it will do is take away one of the most exciting players in football.

If all of this fuss had been over cheating, I'd agree with it because that is ruining the game. If it had been over racism, I'd agree with it because that is ruining the game. If it had been over match fixing or corruption, I'd agree with it because that is ruining the game. But over a bite? Seriously? Ban him for the rest of the World Cup and move on.

@adamheath

England and the World Cup

Even though I've written a couple of blogs about the subject and talked about it quite a lot on twitter, I'm actually not that bothered about international football or England. When the World Cup is on I change between calling them "us" or "we" and calling England "them". Sometimes I feel a connection with them, sometimes I don't. Well, most of the time I don't. It's hard to support a team with players you hate for the rest of the season. However, the current England squad is made up of a lot more players that I actually like than previous ones. With one exception... Rooney.

Gobshite

I don't just dislike Rooney because he's a Manchester United player though, it's because Rooney sums up everything that's wrong with the national team. It would be a lot easier to support England if it felt like they were doing things properly to give themselves the best chance of succeeding, but they just don't.

I've pointed out on many occasions that I don't think that Wayne Rooney is a good player. He definitely isn't the English Messi or Ronaldo that the people of this country make him out to be. One of the biggest problems with England is that they always push the wrong players and turn them into heroes. It's the reason why Paul Gascoigne is an English hero when a far better player than him like John Barnes isn't. Gazza was great, but John Barnes is world renowned. It's the same with Rooney now, he's been elevated to a level in this country but if you ask the rest of the world they just don't think he's that good, he hasn't had an impact on that stage. It's like that scene in Mike Bassett where they're interviewing Pele about who will win the World Cup and no matter how much they hint at it he won't say England. The rest of the world is Pele and England is asking them who they think the world's best players are, and they're going down the list naming Messi, Ronaldo, Ibrahimovic and after about thirty players England is like "what about Rooney?" and the rest of the world is like "Rooney? Well he's okay I suppose."

"Rooney?"

I've already mentioned John Barnes and I'm criticising Rooney, so this may seem like a little bit of Liverpool bias, and that may be the case, but... For the past decade or so the best English player has been by far Steven Gerrard. Unlike Rooney, Gerrard is a player renowned across Europe. At one time even Zinedine Zidane said every top club in Europe would have signed him. Has anyone ever heard of a major European team wanting to sign Rooney by the way? With Gerrard, England should have built the team around him a long time ago. After the 2002 World Cup in fact, I think it became quite clear that Gerrard was the best English player. Yes, Rooney was fantastic at Euro 2004, it was his best tournament in an England shirt, but he wasn't the type of player you could build a team around. 

I can't understand why England didn't spot the potential with Gerrard though. It's like one day the FA were having a meeting about the future of England and they were all in agreement that the team should be built around Gerrard, but then one person was like "but what about Frank Lampard?" And the rest of them said "what about him?" And that one person was like "well he plays in exactly the same position as Gerrard, and he's not as good as him, but why don't we play both of them?" And somehow they were all persuaded, and what followed was a decade of attempting to play two players together in the same team who clearly didn't work and basically cutting the English nose off to spite it's face.

A decade together. Still shite

Rooney and Lampard are like the ugly sisters of football and the rest of the world is Prince Charming. England are trying to sell it's ugly sisters to Prince Charming, but Prince Charming has seen Cinderella Steven Gerrard in the corner and is like "I don't give a shit about them, there's a worldy over there." I've just compared the English football to Cinderella, fuck me right? 

The problem with international football is you don't have enough games to experiment like you do with club football. I'm going to have to do another Liverpool related comparison here, so I'm sorry to any none Liverpool fans but it's just what I know best. When Liverpool signed Robbie Keane, they tried to play him in the team with Fernando Torres. They tried playing the two together up until Christmas but it just didn't work. Robbie Keane was a big name, he cost a lot of money, but he wasn't as good as Fernando Torres, so he was the one who had to go. With England, Lampard is the Robbie Keane to Gerrard's Fernando Torres. However, with international football you don't have the time to keep trying to make it work. Liverpool gave Keane and Torres up until Christmas. If you say that's 19 league games, plus some cup games it's about 25 games to try and make it work. In international football 25 games could be 4 years, you just can't wait that long. They should have cut Lampard from the team a lot earlier.

The reason I make this point is because the World Cup only comes around once every four years. Once it's gone, it's gone. England were making the mistake of playing Gerrard and Lampard together, along with trying to accommodate other players, going out of the World Cup, then waiting four years only to make the same mistakes again! With this World Cup now, there is a lot of talk about whether to play Rooney and other so called experienced players. My first argument is what are they experienced in? They've never won an international tournament and they've failed to qualify for one in 2008. Secondly, once the World Cup is over it's gone for four years. This isn't the time to be thinking "let's play it safe", this is the time to be thinking let's mix it up and see how far we can go.

All of them except Rooney please

Personally, at this World Cup I think England should play Wilshere, should play Barkley, should play Henderson, should play Sterling, should play Lallana and so on. Give these players a chance. One of the most common things you hear at the moment is "the back four picks itself" and that's an absolute blessing. Players like Cahill, Jagielka and Baines fucking deserve their chance after England stuck for years with the three tossers at the back who never won anything. It's just a shame they haven't been forced into the rest of the team picking itself. The only senior player I want to see is Gerrard, and again you may say it's Liverpool bias but I also think he deserves it after the way he's been treated by England. Even at the last World Cup he was playing left midfield to accommodate Lampard, and he should have been captain in 2006 he shouldn't have had to wait as long as he did.

Anyway, that's just a few thoughts about England and the World Cup, and I'll finish by saying I'd be happy to see "us" lift the World Cup if "we" do the right thing at the tournament. But if "they" continue with the same crap "they've" been pulling for the last 15 years I won't have to worry about "them" lifting it anyway.

@adamheath

Molly's Wrecking Ballz

Once upon a time I went on a journey into the dark, underground realm of parody pornography. I did this entirely for blogging purposes of course... and what followed was a critique of some of the strangest videos I'd seen on the internet; Katy Perry and Elmo, and the legendary ET Porns Home (http://lfcadam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/internet-porn.html).

To be honest, this isn't a genre I ever intended to return to. My blog has moved on since then, I have moved on since then... But that was until I came across this little gem. A Miley Cyrus porn parody. It's not the premise of the movie that drew me in, but the name itself: Molly's Wrecking Ballz. Brilliant.

Like with all good parody pornos, they don't name the victim, they just use a clever title to give it away. It's also quite obvious who it's about, and Miley's not the only celebrity who features in the video...

I'll just point out that I've only seen the trailer for this, you have to pay for the full video, and I'm not that high up in the erotic movie reviewing ladder to be sent a preliminary copy.

But anyway, from the start of the trailer I was quite impressed by the attention to detail. Get on their Miley, they've given her the haircut and they've got her doing the tongue thing.

If you wanted to see what Miley Cyrus looked like having sex (which now I think about it is probably the reason people would watch this movie) then this wouldn't be far off. Like the last blog I wrote on this subject though it does make me think how she got the role. Did the porn career come first or was she just a lookalike who's life took a turn?

The attention to detail is excellent. Fair play to the girl, she's got that Miley facial expression nailed on. She's a good Miley but I'm not happy with that sub standard couch. There's only one true couch in porn and that's the casting couch. How dare it stand where he stood.

They don't tell you this in the trailer, but the lad in the first scene there is supposed to be Liam Hemsworth. It looks a bit like him I suppose. However, in the next part, we get a bit of lesbian action and I genuinely could not tell who the other bird was meant to be. So, I looked it up, and ladies and gentlemen, I give you... Beyonce

All the single ladies

I agree. Terrible. They aren't suggesting Beyonce has a big black schlong by the way. That's a strap on, just to clarify. 

It's not hard to guess who this is in the next scene though

Say Beetlejuice three times and Miley gets fucked

No it's not Beetlejuice, it's Robin Thicke. Again, the attention to detail is fantastic, Miley's even got the big foam finger. If you were watching this for the usual purposes that one might watch porn, you'd probably be a bit disappointed with the realism. Because to be fair the person who's come up with this hasn't had to do much thinking, it's what we all thought probably happened after seeing that performance at the VMA's. And porn's supposed to be a bit more fantasy than reality. So yeah.

Robin Thicke's not so thick dick cums all over Miley's head. 

The hair is spot on, she's got the facial expression, the tongue's out, and she manages to throw the two fingers up, all whilst being ejaculated on. This girl is the consummate professional.

In the last scene Miley has a go on someone who I believe to be Justin Bieber. In a limo. I suppose if I want to find out how Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber ended up in a limo together having sex I'd have to buy the full movie. So good job trailer man for leaving me wanting more (not really) (really). 

Here's Justin not really looking anything like the real Justin.

You know, they worked so hard on casting an excellent Miley in this, and she worked so hard on nailing all of Miley's characteristics, that I actually feel a bit like they let her down with the casting of her partners. Particularly Beyonce, it's like they've just measured her skin colour on a Dulux paint chart and gone "she'll do". Porn is supposed to give you unrealistic expectations of women, not ruin them!

Justin never takes his sunglasses off the entire time they're having sex, just in case you were wondering. As a side not, limo sex doesn't work for me because I always just think of this guy from Hot Shots

Twerk it with your mouth

Anyway, it's only a two minute trailer, and that's the last scene. Sure you'll all be rushing out to watch the full movie after reading this though. My advice would be to stick to Elmo and ET, the comedy value is a lot better. If anyone actually managed to read this well done and nice one for that. Peace. 

@adamheath