The City press announcement said that they “would like to put on record our respect for and thanks to Mark Hughes” which is an absolutely laughable comment. This man walked around Eastlands at the end of today’s win, applauding all corners of the City faithful, in the manner of someone who knew he would not be returning in the same capacity. If Mancini is appointed manager, then his presence today will be indicative of someone who knew of his appointment ahead of time, and reflects extremely poorly on the City decision makers. If they had any respect for Mark Hughes, none of this would have happened as it has.

Before the season began, City laid down a target of a top six finish. Manchester City are sitting 6th at the moment, have only lost twice all season, and are in a strong position to contend for a Champions League place. So why the sacking? Only three possible reasons come to mind:

1) Hughes was never the man chosen by the owners. They’ve been waiting for a poor run of results to justify replacing Hughes. City finished 10th last season, and thrust a top six aim on his team against his will, perhaps hoping he would fail and they could replace him. He has not failed.
2) Player power. Robinho is a high profile name, and the owners are simpletons who care more about their “star” players than their manager.
3) They decided the one truly insipid City display this season was enough to warrant a dismissal (3-0 loss v Spurs) although this links back into Option 1 that they were simply waiting for such an opportunity.

The reason they have given is that 2 wins in 11 games is not what they hoped for, but Hughes’ management has to be taken on his performance across the season as a whole, and he has done nothing wrong. He couldn’t challenge for the title, he wasn’t in Europe, the FA Cup hasn’t started yet, but he is in the semi-final of the League Cup, and if he had been allowed to carry on he may have won City’s first silverware in over 30 years.

Whatever their reasons, their actions are reprehensible, and I sincerely hope, as a football fan, that City do not follow the path laid by the other Premiership moneybags Chelsea with a “hire-fire” mentality that forces managers to work with what they have, rather than develop what they want.

Hughes, you have my sympathies.

Poor Norway probably think THEY should be the ones who played France as they should have had the same opportunity as everybody else who finished second in qualifying. The 8th and 9th placed of the runner ups should have battled it out in a match of mediocrity for the right to be cheated out of an unlikely spot in South Africa. But they weren’t even given that luxury. Instead they’ll have to sail down the Norwegian fjords in the Scandinavian summer, licking their wounds while others gallavant around playing football. They’re the real losers in this scenario.

From the red half of Merseyside to the blue, and Everton had managed to turn their season around from their opening day 6-1 thumping by Arsenal, and their somewhat embarrassing 1-0 loss to Premiership new boys Burnley. Of late they managed convincing 3-0 and 4-0 wins against Blackburn and Hull respectively to get things back on track, but they ran into a stubborn Stoke City side who held them to a 1-1 draw at Goodison.

Portsmouth managed their first victory of the season, triumphing 1-0 over Wolverhampton Wanderers, who are now left hovering on the edge of relegation. Another team who managed a much needed victory were Hull City who defeated Chelsea’s Conquerers Wigan 2-1 at home to bring them level on points with several other teams, though their goal difference keeps them in the naughty corner of the league.

Arsenal made sure they had the most impressive attacking unit in the league with a confident 6-2 victory over Blackburn Rovers and their nemesis Sam Allardyce. More impressive than the scoreline was the fact that they had six different goalscorers on the day, and less impressive was that they conceded two goals of their own, at one point trailing 2-1 to Blackburn, who have only had Burnley and Hull concede more goals than them.

Manchester United stuttered in their quest for a fourth league title in a row with a 2-2 draw against Sunderland, relying on another late goal in their favour to rescue the point and their blushes. Patrice Evra had fired a shot off target in the final moments of the game, only for it to deflect off defender Anton Ferdinand and end up in the back of the net. This draw allowed to Chelsea to retake top spot in the league with their win over Liverpool.

The team most widely tipped to break the Big Four monopoly shared among Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester United are Manchester City, and they could have gone third with a win against Aston Villa on Monday evening. They managed only a draw having gone behind to a goal from their captain of last season Richard Dunne, who out jumped ex-Villa player Gareth Barry to head in the first goal. Craig Bellamy pegged Villa back on Adebayor’s return from a three match ban for his stamp on van Persie.

Having seen only two draws in the league before this weekend, there were a spate of them, and apart from the Manchester games, West Ham scored a late goal to rescue a 2-2 draw in their London derby against 10-man Fulham, while Tottenham twice came from behind to end up with a 2-2 draw against Bolton Wanderers. In the weekends final game to mention, Burnley grabbed another home victory to maintain their 100% record at Turf Moor by beating Birmingham 2-1.

Looking at the first round of voting, Madrid were in the lead with 28 votes to their closest challenger, Rio’s 26, yet in the next round they managed to garner one extra vote and climb to 29. The likely reason for the strong first round presence was the IOC members showing their love for their President, Juan Antonio Samaranch, who desperately wanted the games to be hosted in his native Spain one more time. This action by some members may have drawn votes away from fancied Chicago and led to them dropping out so early. There were audible gasps in the auditorium as it was announced that Chicago was out, though it should have been little shock to those who did not vote for the Windy City.

This then paved the way for an easy stroll to victory for the Brazilian bid who nearly had it wrapped up in the very next voting round, having 46 votes to Madrid and Tokyo’s combined 49. So the Olympics will enter the region of South America for the very first time, and the party has already begun on Copacabana beach. A far cry from being in front of a train station as the successful London bidders found themselves.

Based on that, I know which Olympics I’d rather be at when the time rolls around.

But what of President Obama? There are those who claim he has needlessly damaged his credentials by sticking his neck out in something that does not need to involve him, and has not involved any other President before him. The right have an excuse to thumb their noses in his direction, and gloat as they sit back having done nothing. But is the failure of Chicago such that the President would suffer as badly as is suggested? No. This was not a snub towards America or American values. It was not a collective world effort to make a point to America that they are no longer the power they once were. Nor was it a failure in international politics for Obama to have shown up, gambled, and lost. This was simply about bringing an old event to a new surrounding, and it doesn’t get much newer than breaking into a new continent.

For my money, I would plump for Rio de Janeiro. Some people say they might worry about the high crime rates when compared with the other three cities on offer, but if the IOC can turn a blind eye to human rights and give Beijing the games as they did before, then they can turn a blind eye to some petty crimes in order to allow the greatest party nation in the world to host the greatest sporting event the world has to offer. If anyone has ever seen the Rio Carnival, then they should not be able to doubt that. Then there is also the fact that the Games have never been hosted in South America, while they have been held in the USA no less than four times.

Chicago is the bookies favourite, and not without reason. The Obamas have put themselves forward to support the bid, and while many observants claim that Barack Obama is risking his presidential prestige by involving himself in this bid, I cannot agree with their view. I look upon President Obama’s decision to be involved as a personal choice rather than a political one. Chicago is his adopted home, he would dearly love to see them host the Olympics and he is now in a position to be able to help influence the decision as his title of the world’s most powerful man befits. But Chicago has its own problems. The locals are not warming to the idea of becoming an Olympic city in the same way Obama is, although this may mainly be down to the financial burden they will surely have to take on, which comes on top of the bank bailouts. Many Americans are already struggling heavily with financial burdens, and the people of Chicago do not want to suffer more than they have to.

Madrid is a victim of circumstance, and unlikely to win the games. The predecessor to this bid is London, another European city, and the last time two Games were hosted on the same continent twice in a row was when Helskini in 1952 followed on from London in 1948, and it’s extremely unlikely the event will be repeated in todays world where there are so many adequate alternatives to allowing the same to happen again.

But the tag of dark horse has to go to Tokyo, who have put together a solid bid based on green values. They hope to host the Games as they did in 1964, and their proposal includes plans that mean 23 of the venues required already exist, and land has been secured for 11 others, making the Games a very compact affair. It has just been noted on the BBC coverage of the bid process that the Tokyo final message did not have the “pizzazz” that the Chicago presentation did, but isn’t that the point? Tokyo is going for an understated games, and the Japanese are an understated people (apart from their television programmes). The American abundance of flamboyancy is something rarely found among the Japanese, and it doesn’t need to be. Tokyo is sticking to its goals, its aims and its hopes for a successful games based on preservation of our world, rather than reformation of the city hosting it.

In the tournaments other group, Pakistan have already secured their place in the next round with India unable to catch them regardless of how much they defeat the Windies by. India can still catch the Australians, but they will need to significantly better their run rate, which would require their old enemies Pakistan doing them an unlikely favour. With New Zealand topping the other group, and Australia likely to defeat Pakistan who have nothing to play for (and who would probably rather play New Zealand in the Semi Final), we can look forward to the eighth match between England and Australia following the Aussies 6-1 drubbing of England in the summer.

But let’s be optimistic. England are on a one win winning streak against the Australians who have lost all of their last one game against England. The form book fancies England, surely?

Of the 11 players in the starting lineup that day, there are 3 who were aged 25 or older at the time (Cygan, Wiltord and Kanu) and so cannot be considered for analysis on how likely a Carling Cup player for Arsenal is to become a first team regular. This leaves 8, of whom only two are left at Arsenal today. One of those is Gael Clichy, who has made 191 appearances in all competitions for the club and is considered first choice in his position at left back. He has excelled with the club, being selected in the PFA Team of the Year for 2008, and captaining the club in a pre-season game against Barnet earlier this year. The other is Cesc Fabregas, who is considered to be one of the best midfielders in Europe by many, and has made 44 appearances for Spain, winning Euro 2008 with them and being selected to start in the Final having started on the bench for all other games. He has been repeatedly linked with a move back to Spain at club level having left Barcelona to join Arsenal as a youngster.

Of the six remaining, none of whom are still at Arsenal, there is only one success story. Stathis Tavlaridis left Arsenal to play for French side Lille with whom he managed to finish second in the French Ligue 1 in 2005 and played in the Champions League for two successive years. At current club St-Etienne, he has played in the UEFA Cup, although they struggled last season with league form, narrowly avoiding relegation.

The five remaining players have not developed as well as they may have hoped having once played for Arsenal in the League Cup. The goalkeeper of the day, Graham Stack, has not played regular football since his 26 appearances in a season on loan at Millwall, but this may change with new club Hibernians who he joined this season. Middlesbrough pair Justin Hoyte and Jeremie Aliadiere are both now playing in the Championship, where the latter has been booed by his own fans. Jerome Thomas had a taste of where he used to be this week, playing in the West Brom team who lost 2-0 to Arsenal, and compounding the loss by being sent off after a clash with 17 year old Jack Wilshere. The final member of the team that faced Rotherham was Brazilian Edu, who went on to Valencia but suffered severe career setbacks through injury, and never played for his country again.

So are the Arsenal youth players all they’re cracked up to be? Only two of the eight youth players from that day became Arsenal regulars, although one is now considered among the elite in Europe.