Microphone, check!

An unlikely source has given KFF a stone big enough to kill two very annoying birds. Regular readers will know that the chief pet hates at Chez KFF are the lack of respect for officials and terrible commentators.

Well John Amaechi may have solved the problem. The former NBA basketball player was a guest on Something for the weekend this morning. As per normal, constant pain-in-the-backside Tim Lovejoy asked questions about football. (He does it to every guest. When he is going to realise he is not our mate?)

Amaechi revealed that a few years ago, the relevant basketball authorities began broadcasting some of the feed from a microphone on the umpire. He said that swearing, and indeed anger, was rife in the game. But players realised that they had to think before they spoke after the microphones were brought in. This did two things: it calmed players down and meant that referees were given a platform to explain decisions.

This may be a little sweeping, but basketball in the US is played by the working class more than other sports. Much as football is here. At the risk of sounding snobbish, it is safe to assume that swearing was as rife on the court pre-microphones as it is on the pitch today. It worked in the US. And it could therefore work in football.

Any doubters should consider Amaechi's other theory behind the effectiveness of the microphone. Sponsors do not like swearing. So players would find their options for lucrative boot deals severely restricted. It is safe to assume that the clubs they play for would fine them too. (£5k per S word, £20k per F and a week's pay for a C sound about right?)

Surely it wouldn't be hard to implement either. Premiership referees already have microphones to talk to their assistants, so the television executives would just need to know the frequency.

The other benefit to having microphoned referees is that it may make commentators realise that they don't have to speak all the time. Here's hoping they would be quiet for long enough for us to hear what the referees are saying. (KFF was livid at its television today. The commentators for the dreary FA cup semi-final between Manchester United and Everton were obviously bored too. They spent about five minutes describing some of the flags fans has brought into the stadium...)

The only real downside is that some entrepeneur would probably start selling disposable radios for fans at the game like they do at the rugby (and, somewhat ridiculously, at the snooker!). That would definitely kill the atmosphere at many clubs. So perhaps they should trial it at Old Trafford or the Emirates Stadium. The atmosphere is so poor there, no one would notice the difference.

Let's end this 'king debate

KFF has had enough of the Ledley King debate. Yet it rumbles on.

We know his knee is shot. We know it swells with fluid after every game. We know he can only play once a week. But columnists like Martin Samuel of the Daily Mail are still writing the wrong thing:

"There is nothing in King's recent history to suggest that he could sustain a tournament, or even back-to-back internationals... To rely on King now... is lunacy". (Click here and scroll down a bit for full article.)

Samuel therefore argues that King should not be in the squad if England qualify for South Africa. I propose that this is lunacy. And KFF doesn't expect him to play every game.

A squad of 23 is selected for a World Cup. Managers usually take four centre backs and a sackful of midfielders. Many of these midfielders never kick a ball. KFF proposes that England take five centre backs to South Africa and one of them should be King. The fact that he can cover as a defensive midfielder strengthens this argument.

KFF recently discussed this with friends at a pub in north London. An Irish gentleman who was sitting near us jumped in before it could finish its point. He said that a country of England's size shouldn't have to rely on a defender with a severe knee condition.

KFF's first response was to point out that if that logic were true, England would have a decent left-footed midfielder...

It then returned to the main point to say that we wouldn't be relying on King. If KFF were Capello, it would pick King for the squad and say to him: "You are definitely not playing in this tournament unless I need you for a big game."

John Terry and Rio Ferdinand would be the first choice pairing. Say England win their quarter-final but one of these two picks up a booking that bans them for the semi-final. Or picks up a slight knock and can't play for one game.

KFF would rather have King effortlessly slip into the team than Matthew Upson, Phil Jagielka or even Jonathan Woodgate. He has international experience and nothing fazes him. He is a big match player - his performances at the last two Carling Cup finals have proved he can do it.

Managers need to be braver when picking tournament winning squads. Why pick a raft of 'almost-there' players when you can have impact players on the bench? KFF is not saying Capello should exclusively pick gambles, but this is one risk worth taking.

(It pains KFF to know that without King's cursed knee, Terry wouldn't get in the England team. And he wouldn't be the England captain. Perhaps Terry knows it and that is why the nasty little beggar said what he, allegedly, did to King when he got sent off against Spurs in 2006.)