Elvis impersonation is a serious business. There is a lot of money to be made if you are good, but ...   more »

I have read a lot recently about the SKY PPV broadcast of Harrison vs Haye being a rip off... I think this is a naive point of view for people to take. The fight was brilliantly sold and hyped by both fighters and the marketing machine of SKY. As a life long fan of Boxing I was amazed to see learned and respected fight commentators giving Harrison more than the proverbial 'punchers chance'.

I told many friends and family to bet on a finish under 3 rounds. Harrison is a habitual under achiever, a man who literally fights scared and who frankly, as a profesional, is not world or even really British title class. It was a no brainer.

But Harrison had won Olympic gold, he was a big man, he should have done better... it's his destiny. great words, great sell and boy did we fall for it. Aaaah but when i say 'we' i mean the part-time boxing writers of the tabloid press. Their limited knowledge and experience of the sport is so wonderfully demonstrated by their ridiculous fervour in telling the 'passing interest' boxing fans it was going to be a great fight. These fans look to their sports writers for guidance and so they bought into the concept of a 'live fight' - once the action got underway and sad display of non-fighting by Harrison emerged these same journalist cried foul... Either trying to mask their own silliness in believing the hype of Harrison or simply jumping on the 'boxing is a disgrace' shtick.

These journalists created a fervour for a fight that was always a non-contest. The cost of PPV is not about the 'fight' it is about the event, SKY, Harrison and Haye gave us an event... they must have done something right, over 700,000 bought it. We got what we paid for...

That said, SKY need address some real issues, we pay for PPV so can we loose the ad breaks between rounds please? Also only one decent support fight isn't enough... we need more than that. Also don't ask Jonny Nelson to defend the undefendable again... he clealry wasn't comnfortable with drawing the short straw and having to 'legitimise' Harrisons chance as part of the SKY pundit team.

Not a rip off, just a very bad fight... we bought it all, hook line and sinker.

Every business and brand has recently decided they must have a digitlal social networking footprint. "Get on Twitter" or "We ...   more »

On Saturday David Haye tackles the beast from the east, the giant Nicolai Valuev. The biggest man to ever hold ...   more »

Several publishers and agents turned down the initial drafts of my now published first book, now that is nothing unusual. The vast ...   more »

Life should be simple. It should be about waking up, embracing the day and living. Once you have done ...   more »

It is savage, brutal and often painful to watch. It is also, graceful, skilful and unbelievably brave. It is easy ...   more »

If i had to answer this question by only watching the Guinness Premiership, I would be compelled to say, ‘not much’! It appears to be in rude health.  If I were to answer it by only looking at the last five international matches then I would have to give a very different answer. England’s recent performances have not just been poor. They have shown a criminal lack of ambition married to a lack of skill to deliver their limited pallet of play. Why the difference between the two? For me it is the coaching - Welles must go. Smith must have sole responsibility for 'rugby style' and a balls to the wall forwards man has to come in.

England’s discipline is appalling; once a great strength we are now constantly giving away ignorant and unprofessional penalties, which is the shortest route to an international loss and England are doing it with the glee of a Department store Santa. While world rugby has embraced the need for dynamism and skill over brute force and power, England have entrenched themselves further into the latter position. By picking lumbering carthorses like Borthwick and Easter we telegraph our limited ambition. Look who the rest of Europe has at No.8 - Parisse, Heaslip, Powell, Taylor, Harinordquy - to a man they are athletic, powerful, dynamic and skillful. In comparison our incumbent at the position moves with the pace of an asthmatic hippo on forty a day.

Italy’s Sergio Parisse was the most dynamic and assured player on display in England’s last game. Confidently positioning himself fifty yards down field so he could receive Goode’s kicks and charge back in to the advancing English back line sucking in 2-3 English backs in the process. If Italy had picked Griffen at scrum half instead of committing selection suicide, I do believe they would have beaten the English last week.

England would do well to heed three basic principles, if they follow these then no matter what happens their performances will approve and thus so will their confidence. Some players are not up to the job at international level

1)      Commit less players to defensive rucks.

 Allow the tackler and one other to compete for the ball only, guard the fringes with ferocious tackling and try to use defence as a weapon to win penalties.

2)      Run at space, with pace and in pairs.

I was taught this old adage as a seven year old. If you run at the man, he has no defensive decision to make. If you run at space the defender must decide what to do. Forcing decisions leads to mistakes, which lead to opportunities. You also have to run at that space with the intent and conviction that you get through it. And finally if there is a man in support, this gives you options and makes your attack unpredictable. Once more it forces the defence into making decisions...

3)      Guarantee set piece stability

Every winning team needs a foundation, a point from which all else is built. England have always done this from the solid platform of set-pieces. They should do this again.

Selection – well England should select based on the three principles above. They need players that can deliver in the set piece but offer something in the loose. Players that will exploit space or create it for others... my team would be:

Sheriden

Hartley

Vickery

Shaw

Kennedy

Lund

Haskell

Rees (Armitage if Rees not fit)

Ellis

Cipriani

Varndell

Geraghty

Tindall

Ojo

Armitage

Replacements:

White, Mears, C.Jones, Croft, Barkely, Simpson-Daniel, Foden, Tait

The short answer is NO.

It’s a fine film, worthy of praise and recommendation for sure. Does it warrant the ...   more »

Heartily. That's the essential answer. We aetheists attack Christmas with passion and gusto, embracing the spirit of giving, gorging and ...   more »

The waiting is over  - finally the book is on sale and can be bought in tome for Christmas. To ...   more »

Steevan Glover, the accaliamed new author has a book coming out. It will be available to buy online from early ...   more »