After the horrific events of last week it was good to see the African Cup of Nations get underway without further incident.

A week in, it has so far provided some cracking games of football, not least of which was the tournament opener between hosts Angola and Mali.

That game involved what must surely be the greatest comeback in the history of international football - Angola 4-0 up with 11 minutes to go, only for Mali to snatch a remarkable draw.

Many of the other games, while not living up to that almost surreal opener, have been great adverts for African football - just what it needed after the terror attack on the Togo team put the continent in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.

But while the tournament is definitely a good spectacle that also serves as a perfect showcase for some of the world's most talented players, I do have one problem with it.

Why the devil is it held in January?

Instead of working in the players' favour by giving them the opportunity to put themselves in the shop window, the ludicrous timing is actually having an adverse effect on their employability.

How many managers throughout Europe, and let's face it that's where most African footballers want to ply their trade, hold back from signing Africans purely because of the Nations Cup? I would wager a fair few.

If you had a choice between signing a talented African or an equally talented European, who would you pick? Probably not the African, because once every two years you know he would vanish for two months at a critical part of the season.

Just take a look at Manchester United. They rarely sign African players and, while this is obviously not official policy, I think you can pretty much rest assured the African Nations Cup has a lot to do with it. After all, Alex Ferguson knows a thing or two about managing a football team.

Just look at the effect this year's tournament has had on the Premier League. Fifteen clubs in total have players away on duty, but let's take two of the extreme examples: Chelsea at the very top of the league and Portsmouth at the very bottom. Each has lost four players to the tournament. What sort of bearing will this have on their respective ambitions for the season? In both cases the effects could be huge.

Chelsea, no matter how much they deny it, will feel the effects of losing leading scorer Didier Drogba and midfield dynamo Michael Essien. Portsmouth, given the self-induced relegation mess they are in, need every available body back at Fratton Park.

While those may be the two most obvious examples, they are not the only ones. And it isn't limited to England either. I'm sure Jose Mourinho isn't over the moon at losing Samuel Eto'o, for example.

What all this serves to do is make African players, no matter how skilled and talented, a liability when it comes to planning your team. It's no good having a great footballer on your books if he disappears every couple of years just when you need him most.

Portsmouth manager Avram Grant said recently: "The players go two weeks before and need one or two weeks afterwards to recover. We pay a lot of money, especially the big teams, to players who are not with us for two months. I think Fifa need to think about this."

And that brings me to another point. Why every two years? What makes Africa so unique that it needs to hold its tournament every two years when Europe makes do with every four?

If nothing else, having new champions every 24 months devalues the title a little. After all, some of the beauty of both the European Cup and the World Cup is that the winners have bragging rights for four years.

Ultimately, as Grant pointed out, Fifa is the organisation that rules world football and, as such, they have to take responsibility for the current situation.

If they are serious about promoting African football they should find a way of squeezing it into the customary football calendar. If the World Cup is in the summer of 2010 and the European Cup in 2012, why not have the African Cup in the summer of 2011 and 2013? Ideally, they should reduce it to once every four years and stop the overkill but, failing that, at least hold it in those gap years.

One excuse I am sure Fifa would wheel out would be that the weather is unsuitable in Africa in summer. But that argument holds little if any water. For a start, if memory serves, wasn't Mexico '86 a touch on the warm side? And, doesn't this year's World Cup take place in Africa in summer, or have I been misinformed?

Which, again, brings me to another point. Due to this scheduling issue, some of Africa's biggest stars will be playing in two major international tournaments in one year. Drogba and Eto'o, for example, will be asked to do it all over again in South Africa in a few months' time. Can that really be fair on them?

As I said at the beginning, the players suffer in terms of how this tournament makes them less employable than their counterparts from other continents. I don't think they need to suffer burnout on top of that.

Ultimately, I think this tournament is exceedingly important for the world of football. It is not just an aside on the football calendar but a crucial part of it. And as such, it deserves better treatment, starting with its own, proper, sensible slot in the global football diary.

The end is nigh

Barely halfway through the season and Rafa Benitez has already secured a quite remarkable quadruple for Liverpool.

At the start of the week they had already ensured they wouldn't be competing for the Premiership, the Champions League or the Carling Cup. Now they can add the FA Cup to the list of trophies they won't be winning this season. Four down, one to go.

It amazes me that a club that showed so much promise and potential last season has crumbled so badly. Back in August I had a sneaky feeling they may be the team to watch, an outside chance for the title even. I'm glad I didn't make that feeling public.

But what really, really amazes me is that the man responsible for the mess - and I don't think that can really be denied any more - continues to cling to power.

Had any other manager presided over a top four team's demise in such a manner they would long ago have succumbed to the curse of 'mutual consent'.

Yet even after the humiliating defeat to Reading, and it has to be described as humiliating considering it was at home to lower league opponents, the man himself refuses to throw in the towel.

Instead, he has promised to stick around and fight.

The problem is, apart from the Europa League, which counts for little in the big scheme of things, all he really has left to fight for this season is a top four finish.

Considering the form of challengers like Aston Villa, Manchester City and Spurs, that is going to prove one heck of a battle. And given the fact that Liverpool have shown little sign of improving their overall performances, it looks like being a battle they will end up losing.

The sensible thing to do would be to relieve Benitez of his duties immediately and bring in someone with fresh ideas and the ability to shake things up a bit. Give the new man the rest of this season to get his feet under the table and then start over again next season.

The question is, do the club's American owners have the guts to take such a decision?

The clamour for Benitez to go is growing so much so that I suspect - this time at least - my inbox will not be overly troubled by fans writing in to say I am wrong and that Benitez should stay.

And, as so many managers have found out before, losing games is one thing, but losing the fans generally means the end is nigh.

sportscolumnist@timesofmalta.com