England Managers: What Does An Illustrious Club Career Actually Mean?

After the aberration of England's Euro 2016 exit to Iceland, it was clear that the tenure of Roy Hodgson was over. Cue a narrow, and slightly xenophobic search for England's next manager. From, let's be honest, a rather shallow pool of candidates, came the rather underwhelming announcement of Sam Allardyce. The ex-Newcastle, Bolton, West Ham, Blackburn and Sunderland manager has never really hit the heights in his club career, but was given the top job regardless.

However, how important is a successful club manager in the international game? To figure this out, I've looked back at the past 25 years of successful and failed England managers to compare their win rates, which should hopefully highlight a discernible trend.

Name	Clubs managed (pre-England)	W	D	L	Win rate	England win rate	Tournament high
Kevin Keegan	Newcastle United, Fulham	176	63	73	56.4%	38.89%	Group stage Euro 2000
Fabio Capello	AC Milan, Real Madrid, Roma, Juventus	311	165	79	56%	66.67%	R16 World Cup 2010
Sven Goran Eriksson	Goteborg, Benfica, Roma, Fiorentina, Sampdoria, Lazio	402	205	157	52.6%	59.7%	QF World Cup 2002, Euro 2004, World Cup 2006
Graham Taylor	Lincoln, Watford, Aston Villa	372	210	237	45.4%	47.3%	Group stage Euro 1992
Terry Venables	Crystal Palace, Queens Park Rangers, Barcelona, Tottenham Hotspur	297	193	183	44.1%	47.83%	SF Euro 1996
Sir Bobby Robson	Fulham, Ipswich	326	182	241	43.5%	49.47%	SF World Cup 1990
Roy Hodgson	18 clubs and countries, inc Inter Milan, Switzerland, Copenhagen, Liverpool	403	285	257	42.6%	58.93%	QF Euro 2012
Steve McClaren	Middlesbrough	97	60	93	38.8%	50%	Qualification Euro 2008
Glenn Hoddle	Swindon Town, Chelsea	102	86	84	37.5%	60.71%	R16 World Cup 1998

Looking at the statistics, it's interesting to see that arguably the three most successful England managers of the past quarter of a century (Sir Bobby Robson, Terry Venables and Sven Goran Eriksson) do not top the table when it comes to either club win rate, or indeed England win rate, with Fabio Capello and Glenn Hoddle, at the bottom when it comes to his club career, actually topping the England win percentage table.

From the table above, it certainly appears that there is no real rhyme or reason behind the club/national win ratios. It's absolutely not the case that the higher your win rate in club football, the higher your England win rate, or the more successful your career. If anything, it's slightly the opposite. Not so much in terms of percentages, but in terms of tournament performance, with the only semi final appearances in the last quarter century coming from individuals that have around 45 per cent win rates. However, the three below Venables and Robson have hardly done well in tournaments!

Interestingly, Sam Allardyce's current club win ratio stands at around 39 per cent across his time at a number of clubs including Bolton, Blackburn, Newcastle, Sunderland and West Ham United. I know we've just proven that this ultimately means very little, but it's interesting to see that he's not too far from the percentage of Steve McClaren at Middlesbrough (and we all know how that turned out!).

On a separate note, I'm always rather bemused by the immediate assumption that we'll only pick an Englishman. Why? One of our more successful managers of the last quarter of a century was foreign, and given the following couple of white, middle aged, dull Englishmen ultimately failing (ignoring the tumultuous reign of Fabio Capello), I don't understand why it isn't considered. It would be completely understandable to pick an Englishman if we invested in young talent for the long term. For example, my pick for the job was Bournemouth's Eddie Howe. Now, I know this is possibly asking too much in today's game, but give him as much time as he needs (almost regardless of results in the short term), because as Man United proved, only through patience can you reach your potential.

Alternatively, there was a Premier League winner available, with a management style that would certainly suit the typically reserved English style. Manuel Pellegrini has shown himself to value attacking and free-flowing football, which would certainly resonate with the English fans following the arguably defensive style of Roy Hodgson, while also being astute and softly spoken in interviews.

However, there is no use crying over spilt milk (a phrase I've never really understood the origins of - I mean, who's that upset at the concept of wasted calcium?), so we have to work with what we've got i.e. Big Sam. With him at the helm, and uncertainty already around the captaincy, who do we see coming into the squad, given his previous playing styles? Obviously, a lot will rest on form, but all things being even, this is my prediction for his first 25-man England squad:

Goalkeepers: Joe Hart (Manchester City), Fraser Forster (Southampton), Jack Butland (Stoke City)

Defenders: Danny Rose (Tottenham Hotspur), Aaron Cresswell (West Ham United), Chris Smalling (Manchester United), Gary Cahill (Chelsea), John Stones (Everton), Phil Jagielka (Everton), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), Nathaniel Clyne (Liverpool), Kyle Walker (Tottenham Hotspur)

Midfielders: Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Mark Noble (West Ham United), James Milner (Liverpool), Eric Dier (Tottenham Hotspur), Adam Lallana (Liverpool), Ross Barkley (Everton), Dele Alli (Tottenham Hotspur), Raheem Sterling (Manchester City)

Strikers: Wayne Rooney (Manchester United), Jamie Vardy (Leicester City), Jermain Defoe (Sunderland), Harry Kane (Tottenham Hotspur), Andy Carroll (West Ham United)

Bitesize Rants #4: The Self-Aggrandisement of Olympic Athletes

Let me preface this rant by saying I'm a big fan of the Olympics as a concept. Amateur sportsmen and women given the opportunity to compete on a large stage is an excellent idea, and one we should be fully behind. I was also against the inclusion of professionals in the competition, like we've seen from football, tennis and now golf in recent years.

However, as the exposure to athletics has become ever more significant, the egos on many of the Olympic athletes seem to have grown larger and larger. From a competition based on demonstrating one's amateur athletic ability for no profit (an admirable accomplishment), Olympic athletes have now become so accustomed to the celebrity and pageantry around the event that they seem to expect this each time, raking in sponsorship money galore (as well as money from the taxpayer to fund what is supposed to be their hobby!).

The tag of the Olympics as the 'Greatest show on Earth' has further heightened this feeling of superiority, and I'll highlight a key example from this year. Over the last few months, fears around the Zika virus have been highlighted as the cause of many pro golfers and tennis players pulling out. Cue widespread backlash from existing Olympic athletes, with names like Louis Smith and Rebecca Adlington mocking their decision and citing this tag of the Olympics being a higher level of competition than anything else.

When you consider the reasons for the withdrawal, it is simply ridiculous. We have all seen the horrific pictures of the impact of the Zika virus, and any athlete that fears for their safety should feel well within their rights to withdraw, regardless of what other athletes feel about the competition!

It’s also not like the Olympics are squeaky clean. Like my previous post on MMA, the Olympics have not been without their own drug scandals. Whether it's Ben Johnson, Linford Christie or the entire Russian team, performance enhancers have been endemic in athletic competition over the past 20 years.

This latter problem is by no means sorted, and athletes should be careful of throwing stones, especially from the greenhouses they currently live in.

My message to the Olympics and Olympians worldwide: put in place a rigorous drug testing and punishment system, go back to wholly amateur competition, and stop inflating the heads of your athletes.

UFC 200: The Rotten Core of MMA

For a sport on the rise, a bit of scandal can sometimes be a good thing. However, if there is anything we have learnt from the Olympics/Russia debacle, allegations of doping from the elite level athletes is certainly not one of them.

So for those of you not familiar (but if you're not, I'm not entirely sure you're reading the right article), the UFC, the dominant mixed martial arts (MMA) promotion in the world, is celebrating its 200th edition with a truly stacked card. WWE and ex-UFC superstar Brock Lesnar is back after a four year hiatus from the MMA world to fight a true knockout artist in Mark Hunt, there are two title fights, as well as the return of Cain Velasquez. That's before we even get to the headliner: the second instalment of a fierce and bitter rivalry between light-heavyweight champ Daniel Cormier and the nominally unbeaten Jon Jones, widely regarded the number one pound for pound fighter in the world.

However, that headliner was rocked earlier today with the announcement that Jones, so outspoken in his condemnation of drug cheats, had failed a pre-fight screening. While the exact substance has not been announced as yet, Jones was unceremoniously dropped from the card, with the Lesnar/Hunt bout promoted to the main event. Cue a tearful Jones in a press conference, sending heartfelt apologies and denying that he was aware of taking anything unlawful.

While many, including myself, will lament the removal of what would in all likelihood have been an incredible fight, this hides an issue that has for so long gone relatively unchecked, and remains a serious problem in the sport. Doping, and more accurately, steroid or hormone abuse, has plagued the sport from its inception, with so many of its most high profile individuals accused, or even convicted, of previous offences. I won't go into detail on all the cases, but below are just a handful of the very top names that have been convicted of doping, with most continuing to fight despite this:

• Anderson Silva - convicted of steroid use in 2015
• Chael Sonnen - convicted of TRT supplement use in 2010 and steroid use in 2014
• Nate Marquardt - convicted of steroid use in 2005 and TRT supplement use in 2011
• Royce Gracie - convicted of steroid use in 2007
• Tim Sylvia - convicted of steroid use in 2003
• Cris 'Cyborg' Santos - convicted of steroid use in 2012
• Alistair Overeem - convicted of TRT supplement use in 2012
• Vitor Belfort - convicted of TRT supplement use in 2006 and 2014
• Josh Barnett - convicted of steroid use in 2002 and 2009
• Ken Shamrock - convicted of three counts of steroid use in 2009
• BJ Penn - convicted of TRT supplement use in 2016

This list is by no means exhaustive, but still includes the two standout fighters from the very first UFC tournament, as well as two UFC heavyweight champions, a UFC light-heavyweight champion, a UFC middleweight champion, a UFC heavyweight title challenger, a UFC light-heavyweight title challenger, three UFC middleweight title challenges, the most dominant female fighter of all time, and the greatest MMA fighter of all time. Hardly slim pickings!

There are also stories of fighters going to great lengths to avoid drug tests, highlighting further instances of guilt. My favourite is Wanderlei Silva, who practically fled the country when a sample collector turned up at his gym!

Bearing in mind that this is a sport in existence since 1993, there has until recently been a worrying lack of emphasis placed on tackling drug abuse by the UFC and the various athletic commissions that have sanctioned the events. This gets worse, however. Following UFC 182, which saw Jones defeat Cormier to retain his title, it emerged that Jones had tested positive for cocaine in a pre-fight test - a fact which was buried by the UFC. Similarly, since Vitor Belfort's UFC 152 title fight with Jones, evidence has been unsurfaced that the UFC knew of the Brazilian's TRT positive test, while it is widely accepted that many of UFC middleweight champion Michael Bisping's UFC losses have come at the hands of people using performance enhancing drugs.

So for those to suggest that this is an isolated incident, or even that UFC fighters are a class above boxers in terms of fair play, is simply idiotic. This is a pandemic. Anything you can use to gain a competitive advantage, people will use, and that includes drugs. For Dana White to suggest that steroid use isn't that bad is at best naive and wishful thinking, and at worse flat out lies. Fighters aren't going to stop taking drugs of their own volition or moral compass, so you have to make them.

Having taken his head out of the sand following those comments over steroids, Dana White unveiled a new partnership with the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA) in July 2015, designed to cut down, and ultimately eliminate the use of performance enhancing drugs in MMA. Some may say 22 years too late, but better late than never, I guess!

As part of the new regulations, athletes must be available for random drug testing up to four months before any fight, at any time in any place. While cheaters will still find some ways around this system, it is about as robust as it is possible to be, and will undoubtedly help the UFC become much more clean.

That is, as long as Zuffa (the company behind the UFC) doesn't put its commercial interests ahead of the sport (ironically something Dana White has accused rival promotions like Strikeforce, Elite XC and Bellator of doing). Having set up these robust rules, the UFC found itself in somewhat of a quandary when global superstar Conor McGregor pulled out of plans for UFC 200 in April. Needing to find a suitable replacement, they turned to the man responsible for the most pay-per-view buys in history: Brock Lesnar. However, a deal for Lesnar to return was not officially in place until 6 June, just one month before the fight date. Or more importantly, three months too late for USADA. What were the UFC to do?

Fortunately, there had been some very careful loopholes put in place for such a scenario. You know, the same kind of loopholes that politicians put in the tax system so they can adequately exploit them to their own advantage. In the event of a retired fighter, who had left the company before the introduction of USADA, rejoining the UFC, a special exemption could be granted to enable them to fight. Seemingly custom-built for Brock Lesnar - is anyone else more than a little suspicious? Now don't get me wrong, I am a massive fan of Brock Lesnar's, and I can't wait to see that fight with Mark Hunt, but it is more important that the integrity of the sport remains unquestionably intact.

Another aspect to USADA that confused me today was the handling of the Jones drug screening that cost us the main event. When the news came out that there was not enough time to re-test the sample that Jones tested positive on, I had assumed that it was taken in the days immediately preceding the fight. It came as a great surprise, then, to find out that the sample had actually been taken on 16 June, nearly a month before the event. How was it that it took so long to reveal it was positive? And if they knew ahead of time, why could we not have retested the sample to check whether the cancellation of the bout was necessary? Everyone makes mistakes, and if it turns out to be a false positive, we may have been robbed of the icing on top of the cake: one of the best main events in the history of the UFC.

This episode enables us to draw some conclusions. Put simply, if you want to make MMA a legitimate sport, and not just a business for profit, you need to eradicate doping. That means removing all loopholes, and imposing an inescapable system of screening. This process should be as transparent as possible, to remove any confusion or doubt, and all test results should be given a publication date and published publicly.

USADA is certainly a step in the right direction, but this must only be the start. There are a number of niggles with the current system, which must be ironed out to ensure fair competition. Finally, in my opinion, a real deterrent has to be put in place to prevent drug cheats, and that means life bans. Obviously, in the case of false positives or legitimate medications (e.g. Bigfoot Silva's gigantism meds), this can be rescinded, but this must be the penalty.

MMA and the UFC will not be fully legitimised, and the incredible athletes at the heart of the sport will not be recognised until we remove the rotten core. The message to Dana White and the Fertitta brothers is simple: it may not be best for your wallet in the short term, but it will be best for the sport in the long.