Where have all the strikers gone?

Has a substitute's substitute ever had to be substituted for England before? In England's 4-0 defeat of Slovakia yesterday, Emile Heskey tripped the ball into the net then pulled his hamstring. Can't Control entered, didn't control it for a bit and then departed. Peter Crouch lanked around for half an hour or so and then pulled his calf. So Darren Bent has been called up to run away from the ball and down blind alleys.

Are these the best strikers England has to offer? Wayne Rooney is the only striker I would definitely book a seat on the plane for if England was assured of qualification to the World Cup now. And he isn't a classic out-and-out striker.

England doesn't have a poacher. And it doesn't have an (excuse the expression) old fashioned English forward. Well, it does: Michael Owen and Dean Ashton. But should Fabio Capello take them? Owen has lost his pace and since he actively changed his game a couple of years ago hasn't had a long enough injury-free run to be judged fairly on. Ashton is similarly susceptible to injuries. And he is unproven at international level.

So which four strikers would you take to the World Cup if it was tomorrow? It is a tough one. But maybe England doesn't even need four.

When Capello first got the job, KFF fully expected a switch to 4-5-1 with Steven Gerrard in the middle / second striker role. Behind him would be Gareth Barry or Michael Carrick and Frank Lampard. Naturally, Rooney would be up front.

On the wings, KFF expected Capello to be braver. With Aaron Lennon, Gabriel Agbonlahor, Ashley Young and Theo Walcott, England is blessed with pace. To a certain extent, Capello has experimented with these players. But he has never gone for a such a pacey 4-3-3 going forward and 4-5-1 when defending structure.

Perhaps Rooney isn't quite the player to lead the line in this system. Perhaps Capello has concerns about the defensive capabilities of the pacey quartet. But surely it is worth an experiment?

Because England is not going to win anything if Can't Control is the first option on the bench. He is essentially Heskey version 2.0. There is no variation. Or maybe England was spoilt in the 1990s. Shearer, Sheringham, Owen, Wright, Fowler, Le Tissier, Ferdinand...

KFF is going to ponder the demise of strikers and report back later this week.

Bespoke joke

A friend of mine writes a blog on men's fashion (the rather excellent Permanent Style) and he recently received an email from a PR company representing Umbro. It was requesting coverage of the latest England kit on his site.

Funnily enough, he didn't want to waste blogspace usually reserved for hats, shoes, suits, shoes, ties, shoes and shoes on Umbro's latest polyester offering.

The email that he was sent was hilarious though. Apparently, "each player of the England national team was fitted and measured individually - in the same manner that a bespoke suit would be tailored". Firstly, I love the concept of Can't Control, sorry, Carlton Cole getting a fitting for a kit he will wear for 10 minutes once every six months if he is lucky.

I also wonder if the tailor will be in the dressing room at half time just in case Rio is finding the chest too tight or Wayne could do with half an inch off the long sleeve cuff.

What is the point of all this? Football kits are a curse of the modern game. They are a tax on football fans and are only changed frequently to milk the public further. So will the 24-stone fan that goes to all the England away games get a bespoke fitting?

Apparently not. But "in keeping with the tailoring theme, the kit will be available to fans for the first time in chest sizes, instead of conventional small/medium/large". Phew, that will make it easier for England fans to drink lager, eat pies and run from the filth.

A lazy stereotype I know, but only a few percent of England shirt owners over the age of 14 actually wear the kit to play football in.

It is a gimmick. And an odd one considering the times we are living in. Perhaps it would be more apt to get Primark to run off the new away kit for a few pence a go.

Red rag to a ball

Last week the law-making suits at Fifa sat down to talk about the future of the game. One of the most interesting things to come out of it was Sepp Blatter suggested more referees or more assistant referees.

It is just hot air at the moment, but ideas being floated include a ref for each half of the field, refs for the penalty areas or four assistant refs. What a mess. Who would have overall control? What happens when two assistants disagree? One area that immediately highlights a problem would be offsides. Imagine a situation when one assistant flags and the other doesn't.

The separate refs for each half is ridiculous too. When does the power shift? What if one of them sees something in the other half, does he have jurisdiction to stop the game? Again, more questions than answers.

My issue with more officials in the professional game is more fundamental. Football prides itself on being the same game anywhere in the world. Okay, your pub team doesn't have thousands of people watching you, TV cameras or lucrative sponsorship deals. But it does have 22 starters, 14 subs, a pitch, two goals, six flags, two assistant referees and one referee. Well, it should do.

And that is my point. When the FA launched the laudable Respect campaign last August, it revealed that more matches kick off without a referee on a Saturday afternoon than with one. A terrible statistic. So why pretend that it is the same game at every level? If Fifa is considering more officials, that means it accepts delays to the game. With six or more referees and assistants on the pitch, they will have to convene to discuss decisions like they do in the NFL.

So why not steal another NFL feature; video replays. This is one of the most talked about topics of the last decade or so. I'm not sure I would want to see it, but I do feel it is inevitable and should therefore be brought in carefully.

Firstly, there has to be an experiment. Therefore, it cannot be trialled in league football. For example, if the Premiership had it, the Championship would want it. Also, to be fair, the experiment would have to be for all teams, for all games. It should therefore be tested at a cup final. A one off event where all teams have equal opportunity to benefit from (or lose out to) instant replays. A cup final would also render the outcome of the experiment more important.

Secondly, the infringements that can be referred must be set. I suggest, ball-over-the-line claims, penalty shouts, red card decisions and offsides. To ensure the flow of the game, play continues after controversial moments (unless the ref himself has blown his whistle) until the ball goes dead. Therefore, a ball-over-the-line claim could be result in a clearance that sets up a goal at the other end. That goal would not count if the video referee found the original ball-over-the-line claim to be... over the line!

Finally, when is a decision referred and who refers it? This is the most crucial element. No one wants to ruin the flow of the game. (Incidently, please click here to read a funny comparison between football and the NFL). So I suggest that each manager gets a red flag. When they want to appeal a decision, they throw the flag on the pitch. Just like in the NFL.

If they are right and the decision is overturned, they get the chance to throw the flag again. If they are wrong, that is it. No more referrals. This would weed out spurious appeals.

I'm not saying this would definitely work, but it is the best basis for an experiment. Please comment if I have overlooked something or if you have any suggestions. This is a thorny topic and if Fifa suits need this much time to natter about it, what chance has KFF got? Then again, perhaps Blatter reads this. In which case, can I add that the video ref will obviously be a good looking blonde in tight clothes. Have we swayed you Sepp?