Goldmine or minefield?

Clearly, staging a major sporting event represents a big opportunity for an emerging economy. It offers a chance to announce its newfound power and status on the world stage, and delivers an army of overexcited consumers on a mission to spend. So these blockbuster events have become a means of recognising, measuring and furthering economic progress. But the stakes are high. While the cash injection and the attention of tourists worldwide are obvious incentives, these promises bring with them the need for a massive investment in infrastructure, and international scrutiny of social and economic structures. The inclination to overpromise at the bidding stage is strong, while failure to deliver is unthinkable.

When South Africa was awarded the 2010 World Cup, many questioned its ability to produce the goods . And if it did deliver, they worried about the social cost of that preoccupation in a society beset with problems. Would the country's elites craving for international recognition that lead them to sweep inconvenient people and problems under the carpet? Those concerns linger, as they do from Beijing last year, but South Africa has surprised everyone by fast-tracking construction and development. To the naked eye at least, its house is in order for next summer's big party and its hosting has proven a net positive.

Likewise, when Poland and the Ukraine were awarded the 2012 European Championships, a similar combination of promise and apprehension presented itself. Everything needed a thorough makeover - transport, stadiums, accommodation, administration - and the Championships seemed the ideal stimulus for such investment. But with Ukraine's economy having taken a spectacular hammering in the credit crunch, it is having difficulty financing the operation and its hosting looks in doubt.  Stadiums remain substandard or unfinished, the project is riddled with corruption, critical hub airports are underdeveloped, and UEFA stands on the brink of stripping the staging rights from Donetsk, Lviv and Kharkiv.

Ukraine has perhaps been unlucky, but its problems also expose the fault lines in the policy of using major sporting events as catalysts for further growth in developing economies. There are tensions between the need to resuscitate its economy and the need to stage a safe and successful tournament. Construction at the Lviv stadium is on hiatus because the Austrian contractors were dropped in favor of Ukrainian equivalents who have no experience of stadium construction. What is good for the Ukrainian economy is potentially calamitous for the football tournament it is staging. Likewise, there is concern that the games have become another pawn in the increasingly desperate power struggle between President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko. Accusations of politicking, withholding funds and overpromising are traded back and forth, whilst progress stagnates and the prospect of a footballing celebration of Ukraine's progress looks like increasingly unlikely.

If it comes to it, UEFA's Michel Platini has said he will be brutal in his assessment, and is ready to strip Ukraine of some or all of its rights. The tournament should be neither a life raft for the economy, nor a plaything for its politicians. Of course he's right, but this precarious situation demonstrates how sporting bonanzas bring unique pressures as well as opportunities for developing economies. They are axes of rather than agents for change, and can serve to catalyse problems as well as potential. In Beijing and apparently South Africa, the pressing need to keep up appearances has led many to believe that social problems have been silenced rather than remedied. In Ukraine, the problems are more immediate and globalised, but the legacy of a failure this conspicuous and systemic may hamper its progress more in the long term. Hopefully, these issues will be factored into assessment of bids going forward, with fewer promises and more caution.

Let's get silly

Nobody chooses to be an England fan - we're saddled with it. We've all spent the quieter moments of major tournaments questioning why we're investing all this emotion in a largely pedestrian outfit, with ideas above its station and a media that likes talking to itself. Most of the finals I've been alive for have suddenly become enjoyable as soon as we're out of the picture - that's why Euro 2008 was so brilliant. Without England to be silly about, football was just a spectacle again and we could bowl around carefree, stick £3 on Spain and come over all composed and perceptive in our punditry. No more screaming and gurning and footstamping, none of those awkward jumpy hugs when we score, no nagging sense of shame about getting in such a tiz. It was great.

But this time we are going, and they reckon it might be different. England look good right now, even allowing for our unhappy knack of overpromising. Fabio Capello is sniffy, terrifying and brilliant, and he's on our side. The media like him, and he doesn't care. The players respect him, and he'd expect no less. He's our greatest asset and he can't get injured.

All this is good. Personally, I'm excited about us all blowing our tops for the next 10 months, stewing and chewing and teamsheeting ourselves into a right old lather. The best thing about talking about football is that nobody really has a clue about any of it. It's completely circular - you can witter on for days about formations and combinations and SWP vs Lennon, because nobody really knows and when it comes down to it we forget the lot in a flash. In 90 little minutes the truth we never saw coming will catch us clean on the nose, and it'll all suddenly seem very obvious and hollow again. That's what it's like - being an England fan is an absurd cycle of extremes, a screaming, boozy kneeslide from false promise to cold truth and back again, seldom tasting the bit between.

I'm not suggesting we take a rational approach to supporting England - balancing the odds would be much less fun. Like everyone else, I'll hope and chinstroke and get wildly indignant about starting Emile Heskey, and it'll be great. But by the time those BBC montages that make real life seem all dreary and grayscale are rolling in July, I reckon I'll feel silly again.

The case for Crouchy

Now I'm as big an England fan as the next man, but if we win the World Cup with Emile Heskey up front, it'll be a miserable old tournament. There's not enough space on the Internet to explain why Heskey is not a good enough player to lead the attack at the World Cup finals. All the layoffs and knockdowns in the world do not make up for a striker with no touch who can't shoot. In any case, if we really are fixated with having a big man up front, we've a much better model in Peter Crouch. And the good thing about him is he can actually play proper football. First touch and everything. Granted, he's not been starting for Tottenham, but he is at least an important part of Harry Redknapp's plans this season, which is more than can be said for Heskey and Martin O'Neill.

Personally, I'd play Defoe up front tonight anyway, but if we want the aerial presence it surely has to be Crouchy. He can knock it about, holds play up just as well as Heskey, and scores enough goals to represent more than a mere foil for Rooney. He perhaps lacks Heskey's shoulder barge, but that's about it. Historically, the problem with Crouch has been that the players fall into the same trap as everyone else, assume he's got no ball skills and start playing target practice with him. There are few more depressing sights than watching England lump it forward aimlessly, but it doesn't need to be like that, and Capello is a good enough coach to drill this small piece of sense into them. They seem to manage to keep the ball on the deck with Heskey up front, and use his bulk judiciously - the same should be possible with Crouch.

The manager seems intent on building his attack around Rooney in the second striker role. This makes sense - he's our best player, and has responded well so far. But one striker is not worth sacrificing another for, especially when there are other option which bring the same advantages without the same compromise. And Crouchy always does provide some good entertainment, too.