Paul Scholes retires

Manchester United fans must truly be in mourning.

If Ferguson's men were humbled in the 2009 Champions League final, then this year's defeat must surely count as a humiliation. The first ten minutes apart, when they briefly threatened to assert themselves on the game, United were bested by Barcelona, man for man, with Wayne Rooney perhaps the only player to emerge with his reputation intact.

And now they must contemplate a future without Paul Scholes.

Scholes will be remembered as the model pro: a player who did his talking on the pitch; a player who eschewed celebrity status, truly dedicated to his art. A one club man - increasingly an anomaly in the modern game - he was the bedrock on which Manchester United built their late 1990s/early 2000s success: a member of Sir Alex's "golden generation."

His passing was extraordinary. Dubbed "Sat Nav" by Rio Ferdinand, Scholes' brief cameo on Saturday, in a losing cause, reminded us of the unerring accuracy he still possesses. He can still ping a ball 40 yards to feet. The skill remains: it is mobility that has begun to desert him. And there's no shame in that. It comes to us all.

In his pomp he was the conductor of Ferguson's orchestra, dictating tempo, shaping the United ensemble's slick passing moves into glorious and emphatic crescendos. Often it was he himself who applied the finishing touch.

I have always thought of Scholes as a goalscorer - as we all know: "Paul Scholes, he scores goals" - but I was surprised to discover that he only hit 20 goals in a season once in his career. In my memory, at his peak, he was as prolific as, say, Frank Lampard, but the statistics don't back this up. Perhaps it is the sheer number of his goals that stick in the memory that have made him seem like a 20 goal a season man.

He was certainly a scorer of great goals, and could strike a ball as cleanly as any player in the modern game. Witness his volley against Aston Villa...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQXrMbArqSs

It is surely Sven Goran Eriksson's greatest crime against English football - and there were a few - that his marginalising of Paul Scholes led to the player's retirement from internationals. The damage was irreversible: many tried to persuade him to return but all ultimately failed, including Capello last summer.

Under Sven, Scholes found himself, rather improbably, on the left of midfield. But great players often seem to suffer in this way. Their talent is their undoing. Managers choose to play them out of position - rather than players who are perhaps less important to the side - because they believe that they have the quality to adapt. It is a problem that Steven Gerrard has suffered from in recent years.

Scholes has, in truth, been in decline as a footballer for a couple of seasons now. Frustrated at being on the fringes of the side and unable to affect the game as he would like, he has decided that now is the right time to set down his baton and step away from the podium.

Ferguson needs a new conductor. And be it Wesley Schneider or perhaps Luka Modric, the ginger maestro's shoes are going to be massive ones to fill.

Champions League Final 2011: Better off without Ronaldo?

Earlier this season, Didier Deschamps described the Manchester United team his Marseilles charges were about to face as lacking the "fantasy" that ran through many of Sir Alex Ferguson's previous sides.

It could be argued that this was a view shared by Wayne Rooney, when, in October last year, he asked for a transfer away from the club, citing the weakness of the squad, and the club's lack of ambition to make marquee signings, as motivating factors.

Most observers would agree that, since the departure of Ronaldo and Carlos Tevez - in the summer that followed their humbling at the hands of Barcelona in the 2009 Champions League final - United have not bought, or indeed developed, any truly world class players.

In the same period Barcelona have, at the very least, consolidated what they had. With a few additions, notably David Villa, a host of world cup winners in the squad and the extraordinary talents of Messi even more to the fore - a player now mentioned in the same breathe as Pele, Maradona and Cryuff but without the caveats - some have begun to wonder if this might be the greatest club side in the history of the game.

The logical conclusion, therefore, is that United are weaker than in 2009, whereas Barcelona are, if anything, even stronger. So Barcelona, who won the 2009 final with some ease, will surely win the 2011 trophy without breaking sweat.

Right?

Well, probably. But, strange as it may sound, I would argue that, despite the lack of "fantasy," this United side are more likely to upset Barcelona on Saturday than the team of 2009.

In the 2009 final, Cristiano Ronaldo often appeared to be trying to win the game by himself. He has never been interested in tracking back or adhering to tactical plans. In the Premier League, Ronaldo played as a winger but in Europe, in the bigger games, he played up front: a clear indication that Ferguson could not trust him to play with any kind of responsibility. Leaving Ronaldo out of a game like that would be unthinkable, so, in part, Ferguson had to compromise his tactics to incorporate the prancing Portuguese.

This time things will be different. United have a team who are incredibly diligent, with high work rates, capable of playing unselfishly for the team, and tactically disciplined. The two players who perhaps don't fit this mould are Nani and Berbatov and that is why they will almost certainly be on the bench. Ferguson will be able to unleash his "defensive forwards" Park and Valencia - and to some extent Hernandez and Rooney - on Barcelona's back four and midfield. Most agree that a pressing game is vital to disrupting the "carousel," and these four will hustle and harry until their legs give out.

This of course assumes that United will play the 4-4-1-1 formation that has served them well in recent weeks. If Ferguson chooses to leave Hernandez on the bench and plays Rooney as a lone striker then this will surely see the inclusion of Darren Fletcher.

Fletcher, who could be seen as the definition of a player that lacks "fantasy," was badly missed by United in 2009, when he was suspended following an unjust red card in the semi final. His workmanlike approach to the game, tenacious tackling, and tactical awareness mean that he would be right at home in this 2011 United side, and could prove to be Fergie's trump card.

Having said that, his lack of match fitness may count against him. (Have you seen him since he came back from his virus? He looks wizened, reanimated: like something out of Dawn of the Dead.)

So, from a United perspective, I do think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic: which is really the only brand of optimism I indulge in.

Rooney will play centrally, whatever the formation, where he can affect the game far more than when he is stuck out on the left - as he was in 09 - and he really has been in scintillating form in the last few weeks of the season.

Also, I really think that player alleged by an MP to be "The Unnamed Footballer At The Centre Of The Imogen Thomas/Twitter Scandal" playing in a central midfield role gives United the creativity and guile they have been lacking since Paul Scholes' little legs ginger gnome legs started to give out. He could be the spark, the catalyst.

Unfortunately, for United, Barcelona have a whole team of sparks and catalysts.

If I'm honest, despite my contention that they have a better chance than in 09, I don't think United will win on Saturday. They would need to be at their best and for Barcelona to be closer to their worst.

But Arsenal beat Barcelona this season. And they finished fourth in the league. A league United won by nine points. So there's hope.

A sliver of hope.

Formula 1: Moving the goalposts

This season, a number of changes were made to F1's rules and regulations, with the intention of increasing the amount of overtaking seen during races. Looking at these initiatives purely in terms of the results they were designed to bring about, it is difficult to argue that they have not been a massive success. So why is it that so many fans feel such antipathy towards the "new" Formula 1?

DRS

I believe that it is the hardcore, perma-fans of F1, who find the Drag Reduction System the most difficult to stomach. Those of us who have followed the sport since childhood, all have cherished memories of our favourite overtakes - Mansell on Senna, Alonso on Schumacher, Hakkinen on Schumacher, Coulthard on Schumacher (in my case ANYONE on Schumacher) - and the reason those passes live so long in the memory is that they meant something. Overtaking has been difficult for decades now and these moves were born of supreme skill and bravery.

Now passes are ten a penny, and essentially meaningless, indicative of nothing but an artificially generated disparity in the downforce possessed by the two drivers.

Let's imagine a comparable initiative being introduced in football... Say FIFA felt that games were too low scoring and that defences had become too dominant. They decide to to increase the size of the goals: to - quite literally - move the goal posts.

As a result, games regularly finish 5-4, 6-5: scoring is no longer the challenge it was. Records are broken, hat-tricks are commonplace, thirty-yard strikes occurring several times in a match. Suddenly football becomes like basketball: scoring is metronomic, devalued. You can have too much of a good thing.

No true football fan would accept this. And that is why many fans of F1 are so uncomfortable with the DRS.

Personally, I would be happy if the cars just had KERS - the much maligned Kinetic Energy Recovery System - which provides a battery powered boost in horsepower for several seconds a lap. The driver is able to employ this at any point throughout the lap, unlike the DRS which is only available to them on a particular section of track, predetermined at the start of the grand prix weekend. So at least with KERS it is a fair fight: both drivers have use of the system throughout the race, and can employ it for defence as well as attack. With the DRS system, the driver in front is effectively a sitting duck. This was especially evident in Turkey this afternoon, where many of the passes were done and dusted before the cars even reached the braking zone for turn eleven.

Tyres

The other major change this year involves the tyres, with Pirelli replacing Bridgestone as sole supplier.

Although I'm broadly supportive of the moves Pirelli have made to spice up the racing with high tyre degradation, I have reservations. Michael Schumacher claimed this week that the new regulations meant that the fastest drivers were rewarded with the results they deserved. However, with so many pitstops necessary, the potential for a mechanic's error to knock his driver out of contention is increased significantly, and we saw a number of races compromised today by mistakes made during pitstops: not least Lewis Hamilton's.

Another drawback to the high level of tyre wear is the way in which it can - in certain circumstances - actually make exciting racing less likely. As Martin Whitmarsh pointed out following today's race: if a driver is forced to be aggressive and make passes to make their strategy work, the tyres suffer even more than usual. The turbulent air coming off the car in front reduces their grip levels, making the tyres work harder, so, of course, they wear out sooner. In some cases, high tyre wear could actually discourages a driver from making a pass: having precisely the opposite effect that it was designed to produce.

We were promised that different driving styles would have more of an impact this year as a result of the new Pirellis. It was felt that drivers who were easy on their tyres, such as Jenson Button, might have an advantage at some tracks and be able to make less pitstops than their rivals. However, this has not really materialised. The tyre wear seems somewhat arbitrary, driving style having little effect, either positively or negatively, unless a driver is particular reckless or flat spots a tyre under breaking.

There is no doubt that the changes made to the sports regulations have increased the amount of overtaking. In theory, the sport is indeed now more exciting. But scratch the surface and it becomes apparent that the racing we are watching lacks a certain degree of authenticity.

The casual fans may be sated, but F1's rulemakers must be wary of alienating their core fan-base.

Of course it is still early days for both DRS and Pirelli and next season will no doubt see further development. It remains to be seen whether the changes will be of benefit to the sport in the long term.

Arsene Wenger's Easter Epiphany?

Has Arsene Wenger finally seen the light?

In 2008, I was asked to write an article on the subject of captaincy, in the wake of William Gallas losing the armband at Arsenal. The move was prompted by the publication of an interview Gallas had given to the Associated Press, in which he claimed that his team were "not brave enough," needed more "soldiers" and were fighting amongst themselves.

Gallas had been a divisive figure during his tenure, and his infamous sit-down protest on the pitch at St Andrews was still fresh in the memory when, on reading those comments, Arsene Wenger felt compelled to remove the Frenchman from his position, after less than eighteen months in the role.

At the time, Wenger said this, on the subject of captaincy:

“I don't believe too much in leadership… I believe more in good passing than a guy who jumps around with the hands in the air and plays the leader.”

Three days later, Cesc Fabregas was appointed as Arsenal captain.

There is a school of thought that says you should make your best player you captain; a player who leads by example, the sheer quality of their play inspiring their team-mates to greater heights. There are obvious benefits, not least that you bind that player even tighter to the club, which can help ward off potential suitors. But, at the time, I argued that what the Arsenal first team desperately needed were more traditional "leaders": dogged competitors with a winning mentality, in mould of a John Terry or, more pertinently, a Tony Adams, the inspirational Arsenal captain Wenger inherited when he arrived at the club.

The argument that this Arsenal side lack backbone, and are mentally frail, is at least three years old. He may have been wrong to say it, in the way that he said it, but I believe that, ultimately, William Gallas was right.

As Arsenal's season has collapsed in a cascade of disappointing draws and defeats, Wenger has cut an increasingly lonely figure on the touchline: pacing, skinny-limbed; his face pinched into a permanent frown; complaining vociferously - and often without foundation - about perceived injustices. He has also been increasingly chippy with the press, stating his belief that both he and his team have been subjected to sustained and unwarranted criticism.

Wenger clearly feels victimised. But the irony is that it is precisely because he is held in such high regard, that he is the subject of such persistent and repetitive criticism: he is a couple of leaders away from a great side; a centre back away from a great side; a goalkeeper with presence; a midfielder with bite. Three or four players of proven quality are required, with the experience to help solidify what has the potential to be a great team. We've all been saying it: fans, players, pundits, the press. If only he would open his cheque book.

I believe that most neutral fans - on some level, at least - want Wenger's Arsenal to succeed: they play football the way the vast majority of us think it should be played. We can see Wenger's faults - he is dogmatic, stubborn - but we hold the belief that if he would just compromise - for one transfer window, for one summer - if he would just go out and spend, then surely the trophies would come. But as each year has gone by, Wenger has dug his heels in ever deeper, determined to prove us all wrong.

Arsenal fans are clearly losing patience with their legendary manager. Defeat to Birmingham in the Carling Cup final was the last straw for many. For others it has been the implosion of their challenge for the Premier League, in a season where their rivals have stuttered and the title was there for the taking. Rumours have surfaced that Wenger will walk away, that Real Madrid will come calling if Mourinho leaves the Bernabeu at the end of the season. Some have even started calling for him (whisper it) to quit.

But now, there are signs that the previously unshakable faith Wenger has shown in his footballing philosophy could, indeed, be waning. Contrast his comments, following Arsenal's defeat at Bolton yesterday, with the quote from three years ago:

"It's very unsatisfactory... we didn't take our chances. That is frustrating because I feel the potential is there but we still lack something: maturity and experience and calm in important situations."

Alleluia.

Perhaps this will be enough to persuade those doubters who, like Morgan, have descended into a fug of despondency in recent weeks. The truth is, we won't know if Wenger really has seen the light until the transfer window shuts at the end of the summer.