Sexism in Sport

Recently sexism in the sporting world has been a hot topic on the press, with many people arguing either side about whether sport really is sexist. I will intend to argue both sides of the discussion, and hope to draw some conclusions about the sporting world and what we could realistically expect in the next few years.

Sexism is like a cold. It'll always be there because it exists in so many forms, in different degrees of seriousness. There isn't a friendship group alive that doesn't make some sexist jokes, be that male to female or vice versa, even if they are tongue in cheek. So to expect a traditionally male dominated area like sport to not be sexist overnight is ridiculous. That said, it doesn't make it right. Judging someone as worse before you have had a chance to see what they can do is unfair, whatever you base that opinion on. This is what happened to one Lionel Messi as a boy, he was too small, so judged to be not good enough. As we have seen, that was a ridiculous judgement to make. So should women be allowed to play in the same leagues as men in sport? And does the argument that women should get paid the same amount stand up?

The answer to the second question, in my opinion, is largely no. If the male form of the game attracts the most interest/investment/viewers, as is largely the case, then the men should get paid more due to basic economics. The average man is stronger and faster than the average woman, and the same holds at the top of the sports, which would give men an advantage if sports were unisex, so the sports are split according to gender. If a woman wanted to swap to the male side of the sport, she would have to be prepared to be at a disadvantage physically, if not technically. So my answer to the first question would be yes, but on the same conditions as the men. Sport is reaching a tipping point in regards to sexism, but it should not start making it easier for women to play in male sports, as this would risk lowering the viewership of the sport, and making sexism even more of an issue. If the sports governing body are saying that women aren't good enough to play under the same conditions, what are the general public going to think?

I would love to think that in the modern world we live in that we are getting close to a point where women are going to begin playing in male sports, but i don't see it happening for a while. Football is not the sport I think is going to make the breakthrough, because although you may be able to punish the players that behave in a sexist way towards a female player, your average season ticket holder is not going to be worried about sparing the feelings of this first player. Especially the first time this female player gives the ball away. If the breakthrough for women is going to be made, it's not going to be a contact sport, at least not on the pitch.

The fact that there are no women in coaching roles in male sport shows how sexist the game, as well as the players, can be. To have a female manager would have no bearing surely, as it is the technical mind that matters. The only reason I can imagine this not happening is that the players would not respect the female manager, and you can see from people like Ashley Cole and John Terry that they don't respect women anyway, god help it if that woman tried to tell them to do something. Sexism in sport exists because sexism exists, it's never going to completely go away, which is a real shame.

I really hope that sports can become more inclusive, even if its not football. Surely we should look at more purely technical sports to make the first step? Snooker, darts or Olympic sports like Archery? These give no benefit to being stronger/taller/faster, so there should be a much smaller gender gap, if any at all. I would never force sports to be unisex, I would just offer women the chance to try if they wanted to. Tennis is one of the only sports I can think of where the genders are seemingly on equal standing. They have the same prize money, and at times they even play together. There are no rules to favour the women in Mixed doubles either, and there can be no bias if the governing body of the sport wants to eradicate sexism.

So yes, sport is sexist, but that's not sports fault, most of the world is sexist. But that doesn't mean sport shouldn't try harder. F1 has just got its first female test driver, and Bernie Ecclestone has already hit on her. People like him need to be kicked out of sport, and I would love to see more women in technical positions amongst sport, because some of the female coaches I have encountered over my time in sport have been just as good as their male counterparts. If football can make the first move, brilliant, but I think it has to come from other sports for football to take the sexism row seriously.

Someone be brave, please.

Winter Summary

Due to a combination of uni work, forgetfulness and some downright laziness, I realised today that I haven't posted on here since October. Safe to say a lot has happened since then in the world of sport, I'll do my best to roundup the major sports with some look into the next few weeks of sport.

Football

Lets start with the Premiership. At the top of the table Man City went from looking like an unbeatable force to a bunch of squabbling school kids in a matter of months, whilst Sir Alex Ferguson has shown that once again he has the team to last a full season. In my opinion you'd be absolutely mental if you can look at the table now and think Man United are not going to win, unless Mancini does some kind of deal with the devil, maybe if he just refuses to play Balotelli he'd stand a chance. The fight for the remaining champions league places goes on, with Tottenham fading, Newcastle surging, and Arsenal and Chelsea fighting in there too. After their win against city, Arsenal are looking strong to finish in third, and recovering some of the form from previous years. I hope, for Arsenal and the Premier league's sake, Van Persie stays at Arsenal because he is a brilliant player, and Arsenal would not be third without him. Newcastle have shown January signings can work, and Alan Pardew has done brilliantly at creating and shaping a team that has many different dimensions, and genuinely they look genuinely capable of beating anyone right now. Di Matteo has done well restoring confidence to the Chelsea side, but in my opinion they will have to wait another year for any success in the PL. And if Barcelona score first in their European tie, Chelsea may as well go home. The midfield pack is shaping up with the usual suspects, with Liverpool floundering in the new year and Norwich playing some brilliant football of their own. Mr Lambert has to be up for Manager of the year. Towards the bottom of the table and there aren't many surprises here, Swansea are safe due to some brilliant flowing football, but the bottom 3 aren't a shock at all. Wolves and Wigan have both been hovering around relegation for years and i just don't think they're premiership quality. With some of the players Blackburn have they really shouldn't be in this mess, but I think they deserve to go down this year, and have a complete restructuring. I hope Mark Hughes and QPR survive, he's the kind of manager that could do very well with the financial backing he would have at QPR. All in all i don't expect too much movement before the end of the season, maybe Newcastle to take fourth, and as a West ham fan I hope Chelsea can nick fifth from Tottenham.

Championship now and it seems the automatic places are all but decided. Reading and Southampton play each other next for a potential title decider. West Ham's awful home form means they are most likely going to have to settle for third, not what anyone at West Ham wanted. Portsmouth are making a mad dash for survival, and I would (given their financial troubles) love them to make it, but it doesn't look likely. I would expect the playoff places to stay the same now as well, possibly Leicester to sneak in with their nice goal difference cushion.

Cricket

England managed to transform themselves once again, this time from a dominating side into one struggling to even bat out a single day. They need to refocus, and get their batting back to where it was. The bowling has not ever really been in question, they still restrict their opponents to reasonable scores, sometimes very low scores, but the batsmen cannot get the targets that are required. Hopefully after winning the last test against Sri Lanka, they can come back with a bit more confidence and actually put up a fight for their number one ranking.

Rugby Union

Wales were victorious in the Six Nations after playing some wonderful rugby. And although fortuitous against Ireland with the last minute penalty that was a bit dubious, no successful campaign is possible without a small piece of luck. England showed they could still play some decent rugby, in no small part due to Lancaster coming in and getting England back to playing the way they play best, solid with few errors and a reliable kicker. Hopefully England can build on that for the next world cup. Scotland looked like a team completely lacking in ability and confidence, and the Italians took advantage of that in one of the poorest games of rugby I have ever seen. Still the Italians played to their pack strength and got the result. France looked brilliant at points, but so flimsy at others, serious improvement is needed on their part if they want to make any marks on future competitions.

Formula one

McLaren look like they've finally delivered a winning car for their world champion drivers. Red Bull are looking way off the pace, and the Ferrari looks as though it has a Roulette function built in, brilliant one day, undrivable the next. If Lewis and Jenson can stay consistent with their racing, there is no reason they should not win this year. Sergio Perez has to be the talking point so far though, absolutely brilliant drive in Malaysia, and he really outperformed with the car that he had. The next race will be massive.

Tennis

What we've learnt this year in the world of tennis:

• Federer is still a class act
• Djokovic is bordering on the superhuman in terms of physicality
• Nadal is complaining about the structure of the calendar and ranking system
• No-one outside the top 4 has a chance of winning much this year
• Great Britain are still not good enough to play with the big boys of tennis

So, pretty much as we were last year then?

Golf

McIlroy v Woods. The showdown that just didn't happen. I just dint know why people thought it would. Woods has been out the running for so long, then he wins one tournament and suddenly people are saying 'he's back to his best'. Not by a long way. As for McIlroypre-tournament favourites. Watson deserved the jacket for some brilliantly solid rounds of gold, as well as a brilliant nervy recovery shot from the trees on the playoff. McIlroy or Woods could win a major this year, but i doubt we'll ever get to see them both finish high up the same major leaderboard.

Why are England, as a nation, afraid to play sport their own way?

After yet another early World Cup exit the media post mortem will again draw up the conclusion that they had the players to go all the way, but just couldn't live up to their potential on the field. And no matter what sport you think about, at some point these words could've been applied to the England National team (or players). Tim Hennman in Tennis never won a grand slam and was heavily noted for doing so. In the last 50 years, depite possesing some of the greatest footballers, we have failed to win a Football World Cup. Only recently have we lived up to our potential in cricket, although the one day world cup was a bit of an issue.

After years of watching England go into tournaments with far higher expectaitons that results, it has become very clear that all of them suffer from the same problem. They're all afraid of playing their own way. Sometimes it's not even the players fault, but the sporting associations themselves. After the 90's the Sampras era over Wimbledon was waining, and Britain had themselves the best serve volleyer in the game in the form of Tim Henman. For those of you who remember dear old Tim getting knocked out again and again and are probably pulling a face to the tune of 'as if he was the best', Sampras had said it himself. So this was Britains chance to get a Grand Slam hero for the first time in ages. Instead the All England Club slowed both the courts and the balls down to help baseline play, not exactly what Tim was after. However it was good timing for a little chap called Federer to bring in another era of grass court domination, no chance for Henman anymore. But the governing bodies of sport aren't usually to blame.

Since the start of the Premier League in the 90's it has been heralded as the most competetive top League in the world, with many teams battling for honours and European spots, and very rarely have there been a definite bottom three. There are also more British players in this league than any other, so logic would dictate that England would be regularly challenging at major tournaments. Wrong. Year after year we have all watched England try and play a style of football that we just don't suit, posession football is just not in a English players nature. The fans have demanded fast frantic football with fast wingers and counter-attacks at every opportunity, and the Premier League has provided, but the National team has not. Recently we have started to play more of the football we see week in week out, but watching how other teams play and trying to copy wont work, we just become poorer versions of those teams. Brazil had the samba football their street football upbringing gave birth to, the current Spain and the Netherlands of the past have their 'total football', and in a different way Italy had their stone wall defensive pay, and their players love it because it's the style they want to play, and they get results that way. If we want sucess, we have to play our own way.

The same goes for Rugby. 8 Years ago when Martin Johnson led the English team all the way we had a rock hard defence, a disciplined team, and a well thought out kicking game. Watching the game against France was painful, because we were sloppy, left holes in the defence and the only person willing to put boot to ball was the scrum half, who's box kicks we never won back and didnt gain any ground from. The All Blacks and the Aussies have always goaded us for being a kicking team afraid to take the ball on. But it worked. Our brilliant kicking game allowed us to play most of the match in their territory, and our discipline meant that when the game broke down we usually had more of a chance of leaving their half with 3 points than not. It's great to have line breakers in our team like Tuilangi, but after 6 attempts the French knew what was happening and we got nowhere.

In conclusion, British sport needs to grow a pair and do it's own thing, and not be sucked into whats working for others, every sport would benefit from it.

Should Tennis players strike?

Recently Andy Murray has added his name to the a number of top tennis players that have voiced their concerns over the crowded professional schedule. Tennis players get one month of off season a year, and even that is cut short if you happen to have made the final of the Davis Cup with your country. Straight after this off season they have one of the four main tournaments of the year, the Australian Open. The timing of this event means that even during the rest period you have to be keeping fit and training is almost as intensive as it is during the playing season. But surely it's this hectic schedule that allows them to make so much money overy the 10-15 year career they have? You could also argue that if someone wants to risk playing week in week out for ranking points and money, but risk injuries along the way, then it is that players choice to do so?

Whilst footballers are complaining about having 2 or 3 games a week tennis players regularly have 4 games a week,and during grand slam fortnights this could mean 7 matches of around 4 hours each. And with two grandslams (The French Open and Wimbledon) falling within just over a month period there is a lot of tennis to be played, especially as these two surfaces (clay and grass) are the most different of all the surfaces that the sport is played on. If these players are injured for 2 or 3 weeks they're missing a lot of matches, and a lot of ranking points in the process. Footballers on the other hand will still get their weekly wage, just missing a few bonus payments for playing or scoring. Longevity in the game is not just attributed to skill, but how you can condition your body as well. But with the game becoming increasingly punishing on the body players like Nadal will be hard pressed to match the records of Federer, who hasn't retired from a tournament since he was 16. All in all the game is getting tougher and the schedule hasn't evolved with it.

Despite this sporting professionals all seem to complain about playing a sport they love for a living, and the tabloids do love to moan at them for this. The players put their bodies on the line but they get rewarded for it. Ranking points can be protected if the player is injured, so it is not as huge a loss as it might have been in the past if you now get injured. The prize money for each of the grand slams is eye watering, and despite not yet winning his first Grand Slam Murrays earnings so far total nearly $17m, so he's not exactly on the breadline. Also if a player is good enough he can set himself up for huge endorsement deals, such as Federer with Nike, Gilette and Rolex, as well as future coaching jobs for the players who understand the technical side of the game that bit more. John Lloyd never really captured the imagination as a tennis player, but he's forged a long career out of the sport with his own string of clubs up and down the country offering a comprehensive sporting club membership.

Taking everything into account, I do feel the players need to have some restbite when it comes to their schedule, and it definitely needs to be looked at if we want the game to progress as it has done in the last 30 years. Maybe limiting the number of tournaments that can be entered by a player each year would help, so players wouldnt feel pressured to push their bodies as far as their games need to be. So despite the stick they will get from saying its too hard work, Maybe their schedule does need to be ammended, otherwise I don't think the game will continue to be as exciting as the last few years.

Guest: Josh Heffernan on the Oscar Pistorius debate

Oscar Pistorius has broken records in the paralympics, and has now set his sights on able-bodied games. He is one good race away from qualifying for the Olympic 400m, despite the minor inconvenience of having no legs. After being described as an “inconvenient embarrassment” by the BBC the other day, the guy has every right to be a little angry at people. But there are three things about this whole deal that I feel need to be sorted out, fast:
- First of all, if people are not sure if the guy’s artificial legs give him an advantage, then I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. He trains and works hard like everybody else, and he deserves to be treated as such.
- Second of all, the IAAF only letting him run the first relay leg for safety reasons seems to ignore the fact that the rest of the athletes have inch-long spikes on the soles of their feet. If they can let Zola Budd run barefoot, they can let Blade Runner run wherever he wants.
- Third of all, Tanni Grey-Thompson, one of Britain’s greatest Paralympians, said that if Pistorius runs in the Olympic 400m, it will turn the Paralympic 400m into a ‘B event.’ That sounds to me like someone admitting that the Paralympics has no value other than as a filler for those who cannot enter the Olympics. However, I would argue that this does the opposite. It makes the Paralympic Games relevant to the Olympics themselves in a way that has never really happened before.
True, he is not the first amputee to qualify for the Olympics (Swimmer Natalie Du Toit, also of South Africa, for all you pub quiz fans), but he is the first one to really capture the attention of the general public. It amazes me that the first amputee athlete to qualify for the Olympic Games will be looked at as anything but an inspiration, and I hope that, eventually, common sense and human decency will prevail.

Guest: Josh Heffernan on The Six Most Impressive Individual Performances from the World Championships

This is my second guest to write on this blog in a few days, and I think again it's a very interesting article, with one to follow in a few days that I think is a very interesting debate, any athletcis fans keep your eyes open for the updates.

Athletics is one of the rare sports that actually has a World Championships, and yet it is still not the biggest tournament in the sport. Having said that, last week in Daegu gave us plenty to look at going into the Olympics, including some big performances from relatively new names. So, here are six performances from Daegu that have really made me rethink some of my predictions for next year.

Mo Farah – A silver medal in the 5,000m at the World Championships is not to be sniffed at, but it says a lot about Mo Farah that we then expected him to ‘make up for it’ in the 10,000m. It says even more than he actually did it. Distance running has always had two key levels: world class, and Kenyan. Farah has been in the first category for a few years, but his gold medal in the 10k proved that he might just be a genuine contender in London. This wasn’t your average Commonwealth Games or European Championship crowd; he edged out the great Kenyan-born Bernard Lagat to win that (for the second time in six weeks, I might add). It was a perfectly run race, and for the first time in many years, Brits have a reason to watch the 10k at the Olympics.

Christian Taylor – Now, I have always been a big triple jump fan. I was brought up idolising Jonathan Edwards and, with Phillips Idowu being the best in the world right now, it amazes me that the event is not more prominent on British television. Personal issues aside, I sat back to see the inevitable moment when someone told me (note: told. Probably midway through the 800m, in passing) that Idowu had won. Then I found out about a 21-year-old who jumped 17.96m. I want to make this very clear: Idowu, widely recognised as the best triple jumper in the world did not perform badly. He did not choke. Idowu jumped a season’s best, just 4cm short of his PB, and he was still 22cm short. Taylor, who was not a contender, is now 5th on the all-time list. One more thing: in qualification for the final, Taylor failed to reach 17 metres. I hope he isn’t a one-off.

Yohan Blake – Undoubted shock of the tournament. Usain Bolt was such an overwhelming favourite that I didn’t even think to watch the heats. It’s just Bolt versus the clock at the moment. However, when Bolt fell afoul of the second most ridiculous rule in world athletics (I’ll get to that part later), we suddenly realised that other people run the 100m pretty damn quick. 9.92s quick. He isn’t a fluke either, as he proved at this week’s Diamond League (9.82). For those of you wondering if he is really all that good, bear this in mind: Jamaica’s 4x100m relay team broke the word record at Daegu. Blake was running instead of Asafa Powell. If you can keep Powell out of a relay team, you might just have something special.

Kirani James – Like Blake, this is a new kid who proved his win was no fluke by winning the Diamond League event this week. The 400m is a tough event to run, and to see an 18-year-old Grenadian to run 44.60s at the Worlds, beating the Olympic champion on the line, makes you wonder why this guy hasn’t really been seen before. Looking into his junior career had me even more excited about this guy. At the Carribbean Games (CARAFTA Games) Under-17 event, he won the gold medal with 47.86s… aged 14. Give this guy a good coach, and I can see this guy breaking a world record before he is done. I guarantee it.

David Storl - Shot put doesn't get a huge amount of viewership these days, but it doesn't mean there aren't big rising stars. Storl broke his personal best three times on his way to the shot put gold medal. Already the world junior record holder, the German became the youngest World Champion in shot put history. This isn’t impressive because of the distance though, but when you break your personal best three times in one week, it means you are still on a steep upward curve. This guy is on a steep upward curve, AND he’s already world champion. Again, I want to see how good this guy can go.

Dai Greene – I began this list with a Brit and it only seems reasonable to finish with a Brit. After winning in Daegu, the 400m hurdler is now surely the favourite to win gold in London. However, as if that wasn’t enough pressure, the Olympic title is all Greene needs to complete the athletics equivalent of a Grand Slam. Greene is already World, European and Commonwealth champion, and this will surely be his one and only chance to hold all four titles at the same time. Make sure you watch the 400m hurdles next year; it will be a big deal.

Guest Writer : Nathan on Arsenal and Arsene

Hello Sport Central UK readers! For those who don't know me, my name's Nathan and I'm doing a nice little guest entry here on Scott's sports blog, and given my opinionated nature this could well be the first of many.

Today I've got a few bits and pieces to say about Arsenal. Anybody who knows me even the slightest will know that I'm quite a big Arsenal fan (and according to Scott "so biased that I could be Arsene Wenger's love child"). However, in this article it shouldn't really affect my opinions because I know for a fact that Arsenal fans are quite divided on this issue, so hopefully my affiliation with Arsenal will simply bring more knowledge to this discussion.

This whole thing is based firstly on Arsenal's appauling run of form and transfer shenanigans (or lack thereof) as well as something I heard Adrian Durham say on Talksport. Firstly I should point out that I am massively paraphrasing him here and do not claim that wat he is saying is necessarily right or wrong; just that it makes for a good thing to discuss. Durham's words were off the back of Arsenal's mad rush to sign new players on the last 2 days of the transfer window following their humiliating 8-2 defeat to Manchester United. Essentially his argument boiled down to the fact that for the last 2-3 years, Arsene Wenger has said that there's money at the club to spend but then hasn't spent it. Durham's view is that this decision not to spend money has come from Arsenal's board, and not from Arsene Wenger. He even went on to say that Wenger deliberately fielded a weakened side against Manchester United at Old Trafford the other week so that Arsenal would lose badly and that he would therefore be able to pursuade the board to give him money for transfers.

OK, so this is quite an extreme view to take and the truth is much more likely (as with most things) to be somewhere in the middle; however it is certainly true that there were some players (Vermaelen and Sagna being the most notable) who were borderline fit to play who Wenger didn't risk. Under normal circumstances this would be sensible, but Man United is one of the biggest games of the season not to be taking risks for. As with transfers, Wenger has built up a reputation of not spending any money. However, think back 7 or 8 years ago. Did he have that reputation then? The answer is no. He did not.

Looking back at Wenger's long career at Arsenal, the first transfer window open to him he splashed the cash on Marc Overmas and Emmanuel Petit, both of whom inspired the double-winning season of 97-98. The next two seasons he bought 13 players, many of very high quality; such as Nwankwo Kanu, Davor Suker (who was unsuccessful at the club but was signed off the back of a Golden Boot winning World Cup), Fredrik Ljungberg, Lauren and (of course) Thierry Henry. The season after that Wenger spent a grand total of £35 million; not a lot in todays market, but this was a time when Chelsea were poor and Man City in the 1st Division. In this same year that Marc Overmars was sold to Barcelona for a record-breaking £25 million, which somewhat dispels this idea of Wenger always refusing to make good use of the cash gained from the sale of big players. In fact before Arsenal moved to the Emirates Stadium, Arsene Wenger spent less than he gained in transfers in a season only once. This was in the 99-00 season when Anelka was sold to Real Madrid for £23 million, and the same year that Henry, Suker and Lauren came to the club.

So, why has this changed after the move to the Emirates? Going back to Durham's argument, it's essentially because the board has less money they want to give to Wenger as they want to pay off the massive debt they incurred in the construction of the stadium as quickly as possible; which you can't really blame them for doing (especially as Wenger's the one who'll be taking the criticism for this). Whether he deliberately sent his players out to lose to United or not is more contentious. However, I do think that Wenger has come under some very unfair criticism in recent years for pursuing a transfer policy which is in fact, not his. People have forgotten, not just the fact that Arsenal does not have the money of the Manchester clubs, Chelsea, or even Liverpool; but also the huge number of famous players around who Wenger signed for Arsenal. There are obvious examples such as Cesc Fabregas, Samir Nasri and Emmanuel Adebayor; but also some less obvious ones such as David Bentley, Matthew Upson, Slyvinho, Eduardo, Sebastian Larsson and Giovanni Van Bronkhorst.

The big question now is, where does this leave our opinion of Arsene Wenger? Personally I think much of the criticism of him has been quite harsh. In the past when I have said this, people have responded by saying that it's just because I'm an Arsenal fan. Maybe that's so, maybe it isn't; but this year with so many lifelong Arsenal fans screaming for a new manager, I think my defence of Wenger comes from taking a good long hard look at his situation. To be fair, he has made some pretty big mistakes in recent times. The two big ones for me are firstly the lack of honesty at the club. Arsenal have pretty much only just accepted that they can't be challenging for the league this season. This should have been said two years ago to stop the media and fans' hype and disappointment when we don't win anything. We're not the only team in the league not to have won anything for a while, so let's lower our expectations a bit. Also, if you don't have the money to rectify the situation over a season's worth of big transfers, then say so. Secondly, whilst I can potentially see why the signing of new players was left so late if the board were reluctant to spend; I really cannot see why the sales of Fabregas and Nasri had to wait so long when they were clearly on the cards. I don't just mean that these sales were inevitable because the media said so (I mean Fabregas was "definately going to Barcelona" every season since 2005); what I mean is that from inside the club Wenger must know who's most likely going that summer and who isn't. Why then did he not sell them quickly and use the time to pursuade the board to let him spend the money they made on those players, rather than wait until there was very little time left?

On the whole however, I don't see how the board would be able to justify sacking Arsene Wenger (especially seeing as his lack of success in recent years in partly down to them). Trophiless for 6 seasons we may be, but he is the most successful manager the club has ever had. With 3 Premiership titles and 4 FA Cups he is more successful even than the legednary Herbert Chapman. Also, a bigger question in my eyes, is who is going to replace him? Can anyone honestly think of another manager who is better than Wenger who will want to come and manage Arsenal on a long term basis? The only reasonable thing I've heard is that Guardiola apparently would like to manage Arsenal for want of a fresh challenge; although I must say I find it very difficult to believe that he would take the job when not faced with a hypothetical situation.

So, that's where I stand on the whole 'Arsenal and Arsene Wenger' situation going into Saturdays game against Swansea. I must say, transfer deadline sagas aside I'm very excited to see what our new signings are like - particularly Per Mertesacker who I think was a brilliant buy considering that he's 71 caps and 1 trophy better off than Gary Cahill, at £7 million less. Arteta will be another interesting one too. Obviously he's been very good for Everton, but I will reserve judgement until I see what he can do for us. I can't help but thinking though he should have left Everton 3 years ago so he could play at a higher level when he was a bit younger. If anyone has any comments or counter-arguments or anything that they wish to post below then I'd be happy to read and reply to them. Thanks very much to Scott for allowing me to write this little something for the blog (and for reading it through given that he already knows my arguments on this). Thanks for reading!