What Makes A Truly Great Stadium?

Behind every great team, there is an iconic stadium. Be it the Bernabeu, the Nou Camp, or Old Trafford, the essence of every club comes from the ground they play on. People often underestimate its importance in football - I have seen grounds change matches, seasons, and even end championship dreams. But when considering the world's best stadium, there is often a lot of discussion.

The first, and most obvious criterion, is aesthetics. There are many stadia around the world that are beautiful examples of architecture - the Emirates in London, the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City or the Etihad in Manchester. As a Man City fan, it should come as little surprise that I add the City stadium to this list, particularly at night. However, my personal favourite for aesthetics has to be the Allianz Arena in Munich. The perfect blend of modern technology mixed with modern architecture, the Bayern stadium has to be up there with the most aesthetically pleasing of all time.

The Etihad at night - one of the more beautiful stadia in world football?

But it is important to consider that looks are not everything. There are many more components to the perfect stadium, some often as important as looks alone.

Firstly, history plays a part. Certainly not as much as Man United and Liverpool fans like to make out, but it certainly is an aspect behind an iconic ground. Seeing some of the most important moments in world football's history does mean that a stadium becomes one of the world's greats. These are almost always not the most aesthetically pleasing - look at the mish-mashed development that is Old Trafford or Liverpool's rather disjointed city centre Anfield ground. Both have seen some of the greatest moments in football, and should certainly be considered. Outside of the UK, the San Siro and Nou Camp have been at the heart of football's dramas, but neither are, in my opinion, particularly attractive. However, as we have begun to see, football clubs with some of the more beautiful grounds have begun to see dramatic moments - who can forget 'Aguerooooooo'?

And secondly, it is important to consider atmosphere. Though the best looking stadia have their advantages, they are also often not the most atmospheric. As I said earlier, I have seen games and titles decided by the atmosphere created in a ground. Here is where the less attractive grounds often have the advantage. It's strange, but the older grounds in the UK tend to keep the atmosphere within better than the newer builds, and give fans the sense of being closer and more integral to the action. The best example I have of this is last season's critical late season match between Crystal Palace and Liverpool at Selhurst Park. 3-0 down, the home fans' enthusiasm was relentless, and ultimately dragged their side back into the game. An incredible comeback ensued to secure a 3-3 draw and destroy the Reds' title hopes.

So, with all those in mind, what makes the perfect stadium? In my eyes, a great stadium has to look appealing. I understand that the historic gates at Anfield have their own appeal, and I actually accept that point, even though the ground itself is not necessarily the most beautiful. Having said that, what does put me right off is the way that stadia like Old Trafford have pretty much killed any of the history of the ground by continually extending sections. The core heart of the historic ground has gone, and in my view, if you're going to build, you may as well make it attractive.

On top of this, it surprises me that science either hasn't been consulted or successfully used when creating a new ground to keep the atmosphere within and rival older grounds. I don't know if its simply nostalgia, but there still seems most enjoyable at historic grounds. Whether that will change, I don't know, but I hope so, as the best of both worlds would make it a ground people want to visit and enjoy once they are there.

Having considered all three of these elements, here is my list of 10 top grounds:

1. Allianz Arena, Bayern Munich
2. Santiago Bernabeu, Real Madrid
3. Nou Camp, Barcelona
4. Estadio do Maracana, Rio di Janeiro
5. Estadio Azteca, Mexico City
6. Anfield, Liverpool
7. Etihad Stadium, Manchester
8. Olympiastadion, Berlin
9. AmsterdamArena, Amsterdam
10. Estadio de Luz, Lisbon

FIFA 14 Realism Series: Review: Two Steps Forward and One Step Back

                       This weekend, I will be doing a three-part mini series, celebrating and analysing the release of the most successful and popular football game series of all time. I am, of course, speaking of the immortal FIFA series. A franchise that has generated upwards of £3.7 billion since its inception in 1993, the game has made its way into the hearts (and homes) of football fans and gamers across the country. Last year's edition of the game has seen over 4.5 billion goals scored, at a staggering average of 13.3 million per day. The hotly anticipated release of their '14' version, which hit the shelves last Friday, sold over 2.5 million copies on the day of release. Having got my copy on the day, I have decided to see whether FIFA 14 can be considered to have achieved its primary objective: to be realistic.

                         This first post of the series will focus predominantly on reviewing the game itself. I will examine what makes FIFA 14 arguably the most realistic football game of all time, and assess just how realistic I really think the game is. By looking at the progression of the gameplay (and the graphics) over the past few years, we will get some indication of whether they are moving in the right direction for realism. I will also be giving my opinion on whether it is possible to make FIFA too realistic, where it being true to life actually works to its detriment.

                           Over the last few years, FIFA fans have seen a dramatic overhaul of the vast majority of gameplay and graphics involved in the game. Since the transfer of the game from the PS2 to PS3 platforms, we have seen a plethora of advances made. With the introduction of HD, the look, feel and sound of the game is far more realistic than that to which I had been accustomed in my younger years. I will examine the beneficial changes and the pitfalls in more detail later, but now I will briefly run through the major changes made to the game in the last three editions. FIFA 11, the first game I played in HD, saw the gameplay develop significantly from the previous year, and began to concentrate more on the touch and moment of players, with close control generally speaking the way that games were won and lost. The defending, whilst improved on previous editions, remained sluggish and primitive, with diving into challenges the only real way of reclaiming possession. It meant that teams could easily be cut open with passing and touch alone, and as a result many more goals than normal were scored. In terms of realism, the movement and passing between players became more realistic, but the instantaneous control and difficulty defending means that the series still had some way to go.

                             FIFA 12 saw major alterations to the methods of defending, with interesting (and often infuriating) lessons to be re-learnt about how to best play the game. The touch remained perfect, and therefore unrealistic, but it therefore became far more difficult to rack up the huge scores that happened the previous year. The addition of 'second man marking', where a player can send a computer player to challenge the man on the ball, also helped prevent this. However, FIFA 12, unlike any FIFA I had previously experienced, was overly reliant on the speed of the individual. A simple long ball for a quick player to run onto was sufficient to score the majority of goals. This prevented the need for any real possession football, and in my mind, ruined the realism of the game. It also had the knock-on effect of nullifying the difference between gold, silver and bronze players, as any quick player could get in behind the defence and finish. It meant that a player like Omar Cummings, from the MLS, was much easier to play with than Wayne Rooney or Didier Drogba, adding to lack of realism.

                              FIFA 13 saw fewer major overhauls than its predecessor, but there were still a few changes that were made to find that elusive realism that the EA Sports team so crave. Touch was the main focus for last year's offering, with this aimed to create an element of difference between the various levels of player. To an extent, this worked, as gold players did control the ball more quickly than their silver and bronze counterparts. However, there was no real differentiation between the different types of gold, silver and bronze player. For example, in reality, David Silva will have a considerably better first touch than the likes of Peter Crouch, but this was not really addressed on the game. The speed remained an issue, as players with high speed kept an unfair advantage over all other types of player. This is proven by the sheer amount of online Ultimate Team players that select only the fastest players in their teams. This plagued the FIFA games, denying them that realism that they desired.

                              So how have FIFA rectified these errors? And are there any areas that could be improved upon? Certainly, the touch issue has been rectified. There is a marked difference between those more creative players and those that are more defensive. There is also a clear difference between the three different classes of player, meaning that it has now become much harder to player with bronze and silver players than it is to play with those top quality individuals. Speed has also been lessened as an essential attribute, as the strength of players has now been taken into effect. Stronger players can now prevent those quicker players from exploiting the space quite as easily, making the balance of the game more realistic. However, it still does appear that speedy players have retained a small advantage, meaning that whilst this is a step in the right direction, there is still some way to go.

                               Despite the positives, this newest FIFA installment has thrown up a few new problems, which calls into question the realism debate. All of these have been discovered whilst playing the game, some of which will be quick fixes with future patches, and some will take far more work. The first of these is the fact that on occasions, if a player is not passed the ball directly to his feet, he just stops dead, allowing the opposition to come and steal the ball unchallenged. Whilst this is only a minor change, it remains a fault with the game, and one could argue that it denies the EA Sports team the 'realistic' tag. A second problem that I have unearthed is that the new shooting system, whilst perhaps making shooting within the box more realistic, does this to the detriment of long-range shots. Gone are the days where you knew exactly where to shoot from and curling it beautifully into the top corner, and this is undoubtedly a good thing, as it removes the element of predictability. However, I think that FIFA have perhaps gone a stage too far in this process, meaning that long shots are now much harder to score, and for the lower leagues, they are next to impossible. If we look at action from the Football League, we often see individual moments of brilliance or the odd 30 yard screamer. In FIFA 14, these have become even more difficult to do, meaning that the vast majority of goals (or mine at least) are scored within the confines of the 18-yard area. Not particularly realistic.

                                  So has FIFA 14 become the most realistic football game in history? I would say yes. There are issues that need to be solved, but I think that absolute realism is an impossible goal that they will be forever chasing. We therefore have to applaud how close they come on a yearly basis, as some of the graphics and gameplay are superb. However, the final thing I will say on the matter of realism in this post is, is it really a good thing for FIFA to be truly realistic? If we look at fixtures that take place across the world, there are an awful lot of appalling games of football, with the ball marooned in the centre of the pitch, scrappy and sloppy passing and tackling, wayward shots and overhit crosses. Would it really be enjoyable for a significant portion of game time to be spent playing matches like that? Yet this is apparently the goal that EA are chasing. I would argue that ensuring the game is enjoyable comes above and beyond the realism. If you want enjoyable realism, continue to add detail to the stadiums, pitches and fans, so that the atmosphere matches that of a football stadium. The makers have done a remarkable job with FIFA as a series. I simply worry about where they will go with it from here. If it is towards true realism, I fear that there will be a step backwards from previous editions of the game.

England's Future: Should We Prepare For Success?

                        As the Premier League season takes a break for international qualifiers, our attention has turned to the national side. With World Cup 2014 qualifiers this weekend against Moldova and Ukraine, there has been much discussion over what our expectations should be for present and future tournaments. English football in recent years has, in general, been burdened with a ridiculously heightened set of expectations. Every pre-tournament begins with a select group of fans insisting that 'this will be our year'. And it never has been.

                        The subject has reared its head once again with the new FA Chairman Greg Dyke making his first official speech in his new capacity. Having been appointed as David Bernstein's successor in March, beginning his new role in July, the 66 year old has been making headlines in recent days. Yesterday, the news broke that Dyke expects England to be capable of reaching the Euro 2020 semi finals, and then potentially win the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. In this post, I will be examining just how realistic this statement is, and giving my opinions on England's chances over the next decade or so.

                          A good place to start when examining this statement is to look at England's historical performances in tournaments. If Dyke's comments are to be believed, then an upward trend, no matter how small, should be expected in order to see a progression towards the later stages of competitions. This would give evidence for such optimism. I will go back to my earliest memories of England, to see if we have progressed since the mid-90s. Euro 96' was obviously a massive competition for the nation, as it was the first time since 1966 that England had hosted an international tournament. With the home crowd urging their side on, England progressed to the semi finals of a major tournament. There they faced the pre-tournament favourites Germany, and after 120 minutes the two could not be separated. In a repeat of the famous 1990 World Cup semi, England were to lose on penalties, with Gareth Southgate the man to shoulder the responsibility. This penalty shootout would start an alarming pattern of spot-kick exits. In 1998, England made the short journey to France for the World Cup. After getting through the groups, they met Argentina in the knock-out round. This game will best be remembered for the emergence of Michael Owen, who at 18 scored a wondergoal, and then the dismissal of David Beckham, for a retaliatory kick on Diego Simeone. These events would lead to another penalty shootout, with David Batty the unfortunate individual this time around.

                            In 2000, England were placed in a 'Group of Death' with Germany, Portugal and Romania. Having lost their opening game by the narrowest of margins to the Portuguese, the English gained revenge over their great rivals Germany, meaning a final game showdown with the Romanians. There, despite leading 2-1 at half time, England let that slip, eventually losing 3-2 to exit the tournament at the group stage. The Japan/South Korea World Cup of 2002 saw the English once again placed in the toughest group, with Sweden, Nigeria and Argentina their opponents. After drawing their opening game, the English claimed revenge for their 1998 defeat to Argentina, with Beckham redeeming himself with the winning goal from the spot. Another draw with Nigeria saw the English scrape through in second place, where they met Denmark. There they cruised through, winning 3-0 to face Brazil in the quarter final. With many saying that the winner would come from this match, England raced into a lead, with Owen opening the scoring mid-way through the half. But once again they conspired to lose, with goals from Rivaldo and a freak free-kick from Ronaldinho knocking the English out. Euro 2004 saw the return of the penalty kick exit. After progressing through the groups relatively easily, England faced hosts Portugal in the quarters. After taking the lead, the English lost prodigy Wayne Rooney to a broken metatarsal, before Portugal fought back to take the match to penalties. There, misses from Darius Vassell and, most spectacularly, from David Beckham condemned England to another exit.

                               Germany hosted the 2006 World Cup, and after a comfortable journey through the group, England edged past Ecuador thanks to a Beckham free-kick. The quarter-finals saw the English up against Portugal, and after a controversial red card to Rooney, with Cristiano Ronaldo the villain, England once again exited on penalties. After misses from Lampard, Gerrard and Carragher, it was over to Ronaldo to deal the final blow. Two years later, after a dismal campaign under manager Steve McLaren, England lost 3-2 to Croatia in their final qualifying game to deny them a place in Austria-Switzerland. Fabio Capello's England managed to qualify for South Africa 2010 without losing, but they struggled to get out of the easiest group in the competition. After dismal draws against the USA and Algeria, they laboured to a 1-0 win against Slovenia. The knockout round saw them face the Germans, where they were destroyed 4-1. Most recently, last summer saw the English side travel to Poland-Ukraine, where after cruising through the group, they met a strong Italian outfit in the quarters. After 120 minutes of stalemate, it was once again down to the lottery of a penalty shootout. There, misses from Young and Cole sent England packing. In none of the last seven tournaments have England progressed past the quarter finals. Rather than the upward trend that would support the claims, it has been almost the exact opposite, so Dyke's comments that he expects England to win the 2022 World Cup seem completely against historical evidence.

                                   But maybe I am being pessimistic on our young and upcoming players. Perhaps we have in our youth ranks the next Lionel Messi, who will lead England to stardom and success. If these prospects are what Dyke is basing his claims on, it is therefore worth looking at England's up and coming talent. If we discard those players that are over the 30 year old mark, England's next team will roughly consist of: Hart, Baines, Jones, Cahill, Walker, Wilshere, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Cleverley, Welbeck, Rooney. Whilst an above average team, I would not consider this side capable of winning major international honours, especially when compared with the Spanish and the Brazilians. In terms of the youth prospects, players like Ross Barkley and Nathan Redmond have started this new season well, but they are hardly likely to push England to the international victory that is being suggested. The longer-term future prospects are not much better either, as the grassroots game has all too often been criticised for not bringing the players through. Dyke's argument seems to assume that we are now at as good if not a better position than the 'Golden Era' of 2002-2006. This is backed up by his recent comments that an English World Cup win in 2014 is 'unlikely'. The very fact that we are thinking about it seems deluded, as we do not have the history or the squad to support these claims.

                                       The final reason why I believe Dyke's claim of England's chances of victory in 2022 is ridiculous is a simple one: it takes place in Qatar. There has already been a great deal of controversy over whether a summer World Cup in the Middle East country is possible, with temperatures of up to 50C expected. It is no coincidence that England tend to do badly in countries with a high temperature. South Africa 2010 is a good example of this, and I expect to see another example next summer. Sides that are used to the Middle Eastern climate will benefit from the 2022 World Cup, unless the switch to a winter World Cup occurs. I disagree with the idea, but it would level the playing field somewhat. The climate alone would ordinarily be enough to leave England at a disadvantage, and I suspect that that is what we will see in 2022.

                                          So how can we rectify this situation? I think we have to start from square one, go right back to basics and make revolutionary changes to the grassroots of our game. Having considerable experience of youth football, having been a player, and later, a referee, I know all too well the problems that young players face. Even from a very young age, technical ability and training is bred out of players, replaced by the desire to win at all costs. This leaves current players with an exceptionally bad attitude, to both referees and managers, and lacking in the technical ability to move to the next level. This is not aided by the way that I have observed families behave on the touchlines of matches. In my refereeing days, I genuinely enjoyed the matches, and the kids in general were well-behaved. You at times got the odd one that would mouth off, but the majority were respectful. The parents, on the other hand, were disgraceful. The abuse and language that I as the referee, the opposing players, and even their own children would recieve was horrendous, and it made me despair of parenting in this country. It is not difficult to see how players pick up those disrespectful habits, and this, coupled with the lack of training, is precisely why English players are not as successful. For those who complain that we do not see enough English transfers, this is simply because we want to be the best league in the world, and those who blame this on the national side's failure start the blaming process too late in the players' development.

                                              I think we have to adopt a much more Spanish or German approach, with the emphasis on training and nurturing, rather than the victory-based emphasis on resentment and anger that currently exists. We have to do this from the very earliest age, with any talent encouraged and technique valued over victory. Parents forget that their children are not fighting for £50,000 a week and 3 points in the Premier League, and they need to calm down. I would happily hand out lifetime bans for misbehaviour at football grounds and school fields. That may appear harsh, but some of what I have witnessed and been subjected to from parents is astonishing and disgusting, and I would never want any referee (bear in mind I was only 14 at the time) going through that. We see this happen all too often in the Premier League (the Respect campaign is, in my opinion, a joke), and children and parents are inevitably going to continue this. Stamping it out, like we have seen with racism, is the only way we are going to improve.

                                               As for the English game and their chances, I think that Dyke appears to be one of those England supporters that goes into every tournament with a sense of optimism about England's chances. I, for one would like to hear some refreshing honesty from the upper echelons of the FA for once. Saying things like 'we should expect to win the World Cup in 2022' is at best laughable, as I see no reason why the slump we have become so accustomed to will not continue. It is perhaps best to accept that England as a footballing nation are no better than a quarter final place at major tournaments. That way we won't have to feel the disappointment and anger at our players when we lose on penalties to Portugal. Without an overhaul of our mentality at the grassroots level, both in terms of training and anger management, I fail to see England winning anything for a long time.

The £85 Million Man: Is Bale Worth It?

                       In one of the summer's most drawn-out transfer sagas, Welsh winger Gareth Bale has finally got his wish and will don the famous white shirt for Real Madrid this season. In what has been reported as a world record fee of £85.3 Million, eclipsing the £80 Million that Madrid paid Manchester United for Cristiano Ronaldo back in 2008, Bale will have to bear the burden of that enormous fee. In this post, I will be looking back at the history of the world transfer record, and its progression through the decades. I will also be assessing Bale's abilities, asking whether he will be able to live up to that price tag, and, even more basic, whether he was worth that money in the first place?

                        Transfers between clubs were introduced a short while after player registrations in 1885. Transfer fees soon followed, as clubs realised that their players were financial assets. This led to the transfer record being set at £100 for West Bromwich Albion's Willie Groves, paid by Aston Villa. 12 years later, Middlesbrough would break the £1,000 mark for Sunderland's Alf Common. By 1928, that figure had added another 0, with Bolton Wanderers's David Jack transferring to Herbert Chapman's Arsenal for a fee of £10,890. The 1929 Wall Street Crash prevented the European clubs further breaking the record, but it did little to stem spending on transfer fees, with the next record set just 3 years later. Argentinian side River Plate bought Bernabe Ferreyra from fellow Argentine club Tigre for £23,000, more than doubling the previous record. That record remained until after the Second World War, with Derby County's £24,000 bid for Manchester United's Johnny Morris.

                           A year later, the record was £30,000, as Aston Villa sold Trevor Ford to Sunderland. After the half way point of the century, the records started to tumble as the price escalated. In 1952, the record had passed the £50,000 mark, with the first of seven consecutive Italian based records. Atalanta's Hans Jeppson was sold to Napoli for £52,000. Within two years, that had increased to £72,000, as AC Milan bought Penarol's Juan Schiaffino. The next landmark was passed in 1961, as Inter Milan's bid for Barcelona's Luis Suarez (not the bitey one) passed the six figure mark, at £152,000. Two years later, another landmark was passed, as Roma paid the first ever quarter of a million pounds fee for Mantova's Angelo Sormani. By 1968, that had doubled, with Pietro Anastasi bringing Varese £500,000 of Juventus's cash. After Johan Cruyff's move to Barcelona in 1973 for a fee of £922,000, the £1 Million mark was finally broken as Napoli paid £1.2 Million for Bologna's Giuseppe Savoldi. This would spark an even more rapid acceleration in fees.

                             The passing of the £1 Million mark was a significant point in football transfer history, as within ten years of that point, the record had quintupled. A year after Savoldi's transfer, Paolo Rossi added another £500,000 to the record, transferring from Vicenza to Juventus. Then came a pair of records for the same man, just two years apart. The world's best player at the time, and arguably of all time, Diego Maradona, smashed the record in 1982, moving from Argentinian side Boca Juniors to Barcelona for a fee of £3 Million. After the briefest of spells with the Catalan side, he was on the move again two years later, breaking his own record with a £5 Million move to Napoli. That record would not last until the end of the decade however, with Ruud Gullit's 1987 transfer from PSV Eindhoven to AC Milan adding another £1 Million to the record. Just 5 years later, we saw the start of the 'modern era' of transfer fees, with the inaugural £10 Million transfer for Marseille's Jean-Pierre Papin from AC Milan. That record would not last a year, with first Gianluca Vialli's move to Juventus (£12 Million) and then Gianluigi Lentini's to AC Milan (£13 Million).

                               The final English team to break the world transfer record to date occurred in 1996, with the return of the 'prodigal son' Alan Shearer to his hometown Newcastle United from Blackburn, for a fee of £15 Million. At the time, this transfer was considered to be obscene. Few could have predicted the course the next 15 or so years would take in terms of finances. For each of the next 5 years, the transfer record was repeatedly broken. 1997 saw Brazilian legend Ronaldo move from Barcelona to Inter Milan for a reported £19.5 Million. In 1998, Denilson would add another £2.5 Million to this, taking the total past the £20 Million mark with his move to Real Betis. The following year, Christian Vieri's move from Lazio to Inter Milan blitzed this, with a fee of £32 Million. And still the spending did not stop. The turn of the millenium saw the record broken twice, with firstly Hernan Crespo's move to Lazio from Parma (£35.5 Million), before Luis Figo made the controversial move across the El Clasico line from Barcelona to Real Madrid for £37 Million. This marked the beginning of the Real Madrid dominance in terms of transfer records, as another three would follow.

                                A year later, in 2001, Zinedine Zidane saw the completion of the famous 'Galacticos' of the early 2000's. His transfer from Juventus for £46.6 Million completed an unbelievable run of spending from the Spanish side, and many believed that the fee commanded by the Italians would never be beaten. It certainly ended the run of yearly record-breaking, leaving a good 8 years before the next record. However, the Real Madrid spending of the late 90s and early 2000's sparked an inflated price for all footballers, and £10-20 Million fees became commonplace in Europe's top leagues. By 2009, financial powerhouses like Chelsea, and then Manchester City were beginning to come to the fore, but the election of Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez sparked another bout of staggering spending. He firstly spent £56 Million on Brazil's playmaker Kaka, who had led AC Milan to Champions League glory two seasons before, and then obliterated that record just two months later, landing Manchester United's prolific forward Cristiano Ronaldo for a ridiculous £80 Million. This is the record that Gareth Bale has outdone with his transfer today.

                                 Or has he? If we adjust the previous transfer records for inflation since the records were made, we see some vast increases. Here are a few notable changes. The very first transfer record, set by Willie Groves in 1885 at £100, would today be worth £10,417.26. The first £10,000 transfer, set in 1928, David Jack, would now cost £578,804.59, and the 1952 £52,000 transfer of Hans Jeppson would set a modern club back £1,267,432.40. These changes indicate the relative value of players to today's standards, as a £1.2 Million player would be considered a steal. Even Diego Maradona, considered one of the best players ever to have played, cannot challenge the value of his contemporary peers. His 1984 move to Napoli for £5 Million would cost just £13,626,500.00, or less than Wilfried Zaha. Whilst the young Englishman looks a prospect, few would expect him to be in the same league as the Argentine.

                                   As we moved into the modern day era, here we can begin to discover whether Bale really is the world's most valuable player. Alan Shearer's 1996 fee of £15 Million equates to £23,848,500, Luis Figo's 2000 £37 Million transfer becomes £52,784,200, and Zinedine Zidane, the most expensive of the Galaticos at £46.6 Million in 2001, gets even closer at £65,305,240. He beats Kaka (£63 Million), but even he remains a good £20 Million away from the Bale fee. Only Cristiano Ronaldo's £80 Million price is left between Bale and the MVP accolade. However, in the four years that have passed since that transfer, inflation has taken the value of Ronaldo past the £90 Million mark, at a grand total of £90,848,000.00. This makes Ronaldo the most valuable player in the history of association football, but Bale retains the 'highest transfer fee commanded' tag.

                                    Semantics aside, £85.3 Million is a whole lot of money to pay for an individual player. So is the Welshman worth it? I will start by assessing whether Bale will be able to live up to the pressure of the £85.3 Million price tag placed on his shoulders, before comparing his attributes to that of previous greats to determine whether he is worth that relative to other players. A major concern for clubs when agreeing a deal for that amount is whether the numbers will act as a weight on the back of the player in question. I will give an example. Fernando Torres, at both Atletico Madrid and Liverpool, was a scoring machine. Consistently into 20/30 goals a season, his £15 Million transfer from Spain to Merseyside seemed a bargain, and it evidently put no pressure on him. However, Chelsea's January 2011 £50 Million move for the Spaniard seemingly pressurised him. 'El Nino's' spark was gone, and he has yet to fully recover, having failed to trouble the top goalscorers in the Premier League since his big money move down South. The worry is that Bale will react in a similar way. Having arrived at Spurs for a mere £10 Million back in 2007, the winger has had no expectations thrust upon him, and as a result has been able to ride the crest of the wave. Now, he will instantly find every move he makes under intense scrutiny. Some players can handle it, and some cannot.

                                      However, one of his new teammates knows all about the pressure of a big price tag. Cristiano Ronaldo has thrived since his £80 Million move from Man United in 2009, and he will undoubtedly play a significant role in ensuring Bale stays at the top of his game. The Portuguese striker has been in Bale's place, and will be able to give the Welshman valuable advice on dealing with the pressure. I am not saying that Bale will not have wobbles, or find himself out of form at times, but he will have someone that understands his situation, and will be able to help him through the hard times.

                                       But is Bale really worth £85 Million? How do his abilities compare with those of his fellow record breakers? He is certainly no better at passing than Zidane, or any quicker than Ronaldo, or better at finishing than Vieri, but he does have that spark. The ability to create something out of nothing is a rare one indeed, and you see it in so few top players. As for the valuation placed on that ability, I think that unless he single-handledly wins them multiple Champions League titles, which is highly unlikely, he will not come close to paying back that amount. I personally disagree with the idea that any footballer is worth that sum, however, perhaps it is best to say that it is similar to art. It is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

2013 Wimbledon Finals: A Place In History Beckons?

                    As I mentioned in my Wimbledon preview post, I have been a tennis neutral for the entire Wimbledon fortnight, and as a result have been able to enjoy some truly outstanding tennis. From controversy, to shocks, to outrageous shots, this year's tournament has had it all. What would have rounded everything off perfectly, in my opinion, would have been to have a Goran Ivanisevic-esque fairytale victory at the end of it. A Murray-Djokovic final in the men's singles means that that dream will have to wait another year. Shame. However, the shocks in the women's draw means that a final between two unexpected names has come to fruition, with Sabine Lisicki seeing off favourite Serena Williams on her way to meet Marion Bartoli in today's showpiece.

                    One of the two women involved in the match today will take their place in history as a first-time Grand Slam winner. Whilst Bartoli has more experience of Grand Slam finals than her opponent, I do not believe that in any way makes her the strong favourite for the match. Lisicki has shown in the past two weeks that she is more than capable of upsetting the apple cart and rising to the big occasions. If this was something we hadn't seen in her exit in the Wimbledon semi-finals a couple of years ago, it is certainly something we saw against Serena just a matter of days ago. In this post, I will be reviewing the form of both the women, and the men's finalists, before deciding who I believe should be the favourite.

                     In terms of the title of this piece, however, it is not difficult to see what it is I am referring to. The presence of Andy Murray in a Wimbledon final for the second consecutive year means another chance to end Britain's incredible barren spell at Wimbledon. Whilst I explained in my opening post why I personally do not feel inclined to support him over any other athlete, he has certainly performed well over the past two weeks and deserves his place there. Whilst all will remember his emotional speech after defeat to Roger Federer in last year's final, many will be hoping for better fortunes this time around. A Murray victory tomorrow would certainly see an eminently forgettable page of British tennis history consigned to the memory banks, and a breakthrough of even greater proportions than that of his US Open victory last summer.

                    However, regardless of whether he takes that place in history tomorrow, there is one thing that will be forever untouchable, in my opinion, to the Scot. I have been saddened to hear the BBC commentators debating whether Wimbledon's iconic Henman Hill should be renamed in Murray's honour. I have issues with this. Firstly, Murray Mound sounds rubbish. Secondly, I believe that Tim Henman as a tennis player sums up not just the traditional British tennis player, but the entire British mindset in terms of sport. Starts with a vast overestimation of ability by the press and the crowd, who all proclaim that 'this will be the year', only to be eliminated at the quarters/semis. If tennis had penalties, this would sum up another sport incredibly accurately. I think, as a reminder of our typical British disappointment, Henman Hill is an essential part of Wimbledon, and should always remain as such.

                    Getting back to the matches over the next two days, it is worth looking at the run that each of the finalists have had, and therefore who should be considered the favourites. Starting with today's women's final, we see that both of the competitors went through their opening games in straight sets, with Lisicki particularly convincing in a 6-1, 6-2 victory over the usually strong Francesca Schiavone. Another pair of straight sets results followed in the second round, with the German once again being more emphatic in her victory. The third round saw a change in the pattern, as the Bartoli progressed in two close, but straight sets, whilst Lisicki was pushed all the way to three by the fiery Samantha Stosur, eventually winning 4-6, 6-2, 6-1. What happened in the fourth round made the tennis world sit up and take notice. Serena Williams, the shoo-in favourite for the title after the carnage of the 26th of June, was unceremoniously dumped out by Lisicki. After a strong first set, which the German won 6-2, the American world number 1 came storming back to take the second 6-1. This led analysts to assume that Serena would just steamroller her way through the third set. But it was not to be, with the German Lisicki picking up arguably the most memorable win of her career, and continuing her incredible record against French Open champions at Wimbledon.

                    Whilst Bartoli did win in straight sets on the same day, it was nowhere near as impressive as the Lisicki victory. This also started to shift fan support towards the German underdog, as the British crowd are always likely to get behind that! With another pair of straight sets victories in the quarter finals, Lisicki and Bartoli were only one game away from a place in the pinnacle of tennis. A stroll for Bartoli, who came through her semi-final 6-1, 6-2 against the novice Flipkens of Belgium. Lisicki on the other hand, had another tough game against number 4 seed Agnieska Radwanska. An enthralling semi-final, which swung first one way and then the other, ending with an incredible 6-4, 2-6, 9-7 to the German. After an energy sapping semi, along with the draining victory against Serena, I fear for Lisicki's energy levels. If they hold up, however, the tough tests she has endured should give her a fantastic platform to claim the first piece of silverware of her career.
                
                       Moving onto the men's final, we have to consider the advantage that the crowd gives the Scot in his quest for his first Wimbledon title. Whilst I have made my feelings about the crowd's hypocrisy clear, there can be no doubt that they will hold a key role in the outcome of the match tomorrow. The form may give an initial indicator, but the adrenaline and momentum shift that the crowd can give is another variable. In terms of the route, both were imperious in the first week, successfully avoiding the drama and progressing with ease to the quarter final stage. There, Djokovic claimed another straight sets victory over Thomas Berdych, but Murray, despite having the crowd on his side, toiled against Fernando Verdasco. Comprehensively outplayed by the Spaniard in the first two sets, the Scot fought back to level the match. The final set was a tough and edgy affair, with both players fortunate on several occasions to hold serve. But it was Murray who claimed the decisive break to take the match 4-6, 3-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-5 and progress to the semi finals.

                        Yesterday saw arguably the most incredible semi-final in Wimbledon history, with Novak Djokovic and Juan Martin Del Potro contested another memorable 5 set match. Played in fantastic spirits, with both players in fine form and sportsmanlike mood, we saw a number of incredible rallies and at times unbelievable passing shots. Nowhere was that more evident than in the fourth set tie-breaker. With Djokovic two sets to one up, and at 6-4 in the breaker, Del Potro had two match points to save. The first one was particularly memorable. After a number of excellent shots, two incredible gets from Djokovic made it look as if Del Potro was going home. But the Argentine pulled out an incredible forehand to force the Serb to stretch and put the ball long. This changed the momentum, with Del Potro eventually taking the fourth set. The fifth maintained the frenetic pace, with no sign of letting up. After more incredible rallies, Djokovic broke the Argentine, and, after four hours and 45 minutes, the Serb took the match to set the record for the longest Wimbledon semi-final. Murray's route was considerably easier, beating the inexperienced Jerzy Janowicz in four sets. After fighting back from a set down, the Scot took advantage of the 22 year old's unforced errors to lead by two sets to one. After a brief delay as the roof was closed, Murray closed the match out in fine form, eventually winning 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-3.

                          In terms of the favourite for tomorrow's final, I slightly favour Djokovic. Murray will inevitably feel the pressure after the events of last year. However, I would not be in the least bit surprised if the crowd lifts Murray, or the nerves fade after the victory in Flushing Meadows. I personally think that Murray has more to prove, but equally has the greater support. I anticipate one of the great Wimbledon finals, with a five setter on the cards. Eventually, my choice comes down to experience, with the Serb having more experience of the victories in finals, especially against Murray. However, whatever the result, both the men's and women's tournaments have been fantastic viewing, and those that come out victorious have deserved the titles.