Euro 2008 has produced some fantastic surprises not least my fancies, Holland, handing out a 3-0 drubbing to the world champions Italy – brushing off fears Marco Van Basten's men would succumb to the might of their group.

As I anticipated – at the time of writing anyway – they have been van-tastic and the words of a certain mobile phone company which predicts "the future's Orange" spring to mind.

And with the favourites Germany beaten by Croatia you can't help wonder whether the underdog will again prevail as Greece did four years ago.
I do, however, have to question the merits of allowing two other underdogs – Switzerland and Austria – just because they are the host nations.

I suppose it's in everyone's best interests that the hosts stay involved, after all it's more than coincidence that host nations regularly go on and over-achieve in major competitions.

Not this time though. The problem is this time the host nations have been – to put it nicely – naff.

Having watched their games I did begin to wonder whether some of the Austrian national team played some of their club football in the English "toe bang" Sunday league.

I'm all for giving European countries the opportunity to stage such a great event but I still think the hosts should have to qualify so they are not embarrassed by being complete tosh.

However, if the qualifications rules stay the same England ought to be putting in a bid for a future tournament.

Meanwhile, with Wimbledon looming, I've spent the last week trying to fathom why Roger Federer can't quite get the better of Rafael Nadal on a clay court. Nadal picked up a near-perfect final win over Federer in his fourth consecutive French Open title last week.

But in around six weeks I'll probably be trying to fathom the exact opposite if Federer manages to win Wimbledon for a sixth successive time, particularly if he beats Nadal for a third year running.

I don't believe it's coincidence, it's very subtle, but the defining factors are obviously the respective surfaces. What interests me is what part of each individual's game makes him suited to the respective courts.

This is followed by questions like how would the rankings be affected if all courts had a standard surface? Or what would happen if Premiership football was played on clay pitches?

Completely absurd I know but, for me, the answers to such questions are what I believe to be the fine-tuning element of understanding success.

Andy Murray on the other hand has recently been chewing away at the opposite end of the stick by giving his views on why British tennis players are not successful.

He accused his contemporaries of being lazy and, by my interpretation, said they were not being motivated by the externally funded system which helps them learn their trade.

He also described his countrymen as being jealous of his success.
As he is ranked just outside the top 10 in the world I guess he has the authority to make such statements.

In a team sport Murray's status would make him very high profile but I guess he could be a little more constructive about how tennis could improve. However, it all sounds a little tongue in cheek to me. It's not as though the guy has won five Wimbledon titles on the bounce!

Having said that he remains the home nation's best hope and his recent comments might make a few people stand up and pull their fingers out.

"Tha's big, tha's idle, tha's like a big slack sow" were some of the old-school motivational encouragement I received during the development of my sporting career. Both motivational and a little amusing and it never did me any harm to get a verbal kick up the backside.

So what Murray said may actually work for the better and, heaven knows, British tennis needs better.

From a cricket perspective any competition played during the summer will no doubt be influenced by the carrot-dangling thought of the lucrative Twenty20 competition to be played in the Caribbean this autumn.

Sir Allen Stanford, a Texas-born billionaire, has signed a deal with the England and Wales Cricket Board for a five match winner-takes-all competition where each player in the winning team will receive £500,000 with a further £1m to be split amongst the squad and coaching staff.

As I said a few weeks ago I suspect this is the answer, and alternative money-making option, for those international cricketers who where tempted but prevented from playing in the Indian Premier League
And the proposed Twenty20 Champions League could bring about a re-birth of a tired sport with massive potential.

I respect the game immensely and used to enjoy playing it, but I have also made no secret of my disinterest in watching the traditional game favouring, instead, the less punishing option of boiling my head!

The champions league proposal could lift the sport out of the crown green bowls category and into an exciting commercial world where you don't need to book time of work to watch your team snail out another draw.

I have heard Twenty20 described as the travelling money circus and fast-food cricket, but fast and circus are the very words which make it so promising.

England's limited overs captain Paul Collingwood has also expressed concern at the amount of attention Twenty20 has commanded in recent years, fearing that Test matches could even play second fiddle in the course of the sport's evolution.

A champions league, quicker and designed to entertain, will no doubt bring about certain differences and mutations from the traditional skills but will also create new skills of its own.

Who wants to see safety shots and errors due to being stood still for 30 minutes anyway?

Hell, if I was Sir Allen Stanford I would make them play on a clay pitch as well!